W2MD... A great way to build absolutely nothing?

[PhiChaser]

Thanks again Fletcher.

Interesting reading... Seems like this has been discussed before!

Happy (sim) building all!

PC

[PhiChaser]

Um... Where do I find the program???
All I'm coming up with is some app design firm in California?

Thanks,

PC

[Fletcher]

FWIW .. the program can be purchased from on-line sources.

I believe that a cheaper version called 'Interactive Physics' [about 1/10th the price] is also available - it is my understanding that it is the exact same program as wm2d with a different file extension; & to save as a wm2d file you change the file extension to .wm2d

[PhiChaser]

Ha ha ha!!!
LOL!!!!
I just realized that I've been typing in w2md instead of wm2d!!!
So so stupid sometimes...
Oh my...

(insert goofy grin here...)

PC

[Fletcher]

This way I finally arrived at something unexpected in 2011 april.

Since then I made almost no posts to the forum and only rarely read a bit here, it became more and more boring for me. I also calmed down and losed most of the mad aspects of this research. I don't as much feel the need to read or check other's ideas and designs.

Now I have my own, and I am not in a hurry anymore. Of course this is not only because of wm2d. It is still just a computer program which can be only as good as your capabilities to use it in order to more or less replicate a real world application.

Excellent all around post & summary of what happens Gregory, though not everyone with that level of expertise finds something 'unexpected', that's tangible & can be translated into a real principle for a PM machine.

What do you plan to do now after finding this surprising development 2 years ago ?

[Gregory]

Here is another tutorial and the formula reference guide which is also very useful.

[Gregory]

I'd like others opinions about jim_mich's comments please, like Gregory with programming experience, or some first hand knowledge rather than anecdotal.

This is an interesting point...
I have never fully put such design in it yet where I was absolute sure about the workability of said design. But a few times I tried some half complete "could spontenously revolve a little" type of design. And sometimes the program can do foolish / ridiculous things, or just simply explode. The problem is that my design is too complex yet, and for first I rather try to reduce the complexity. I am not sure whether wm2d can simulate PM or not, probanly it also depends on the actual design, mechanisms, and the method of energy gain involved, but Jim_Mich may truly have a point about wm2d's limits. Surely it has some limits.

[Gregory]

Just for an example...
On the attached graph a machine push started to 20 rpm then left on its own. Around 16 secs wm2d starts doing something ridiculous which should really not do there... So these kind of things can happen sometimes.

[Gregory]

This way I finally arrived at something unexpected in 2011 april.

Since then I made almost no posts to the forum and only rarely read a bit here, it became more and more boring for me. I also calmed down and losed most of the mad aspects of this research. I don't as much feel the need to read or check other's ideas and designs.

Now I have my own, and I am not in a hurry anymore. Of course this is not only because of wm2d. It is still just a computer program which can be only as good as your capabilities to use it in order to more or less replicate a real world application.

Excellent all around post & summary of what happens Gregory, though not everyone with that level of expertise finds something 'unexpected', that's tangible & can be translated into a real principle for a PM machine.

What do you plan to do now after finding this surprising development 2 years ago ?

To shed a little bit more light on this...
In 2009 I already had gravity type OOB devices dismissed as impossible unless somebody can manipulate / shield the force of gravity, but that's even more sci-fi. Up to the end of 2010 I designed around 100 designs which one way or another messed with CF.

My method became like this:
1. Devise a design
2. Test & Analyse
3. Determine faulties and trace back the problem to its root cause,
4. And finally to make a conclusion, and never try the same faults again. (not just mechanically but principally)

This way I dismissed gravity type OOB devices, and up to the end of 2010 I have basically given up on my CF designs too. Looking back from now it was probably not the best decision, but at the time I had to do that, because I tried to do it in the wrong way.

So I gave up, actually I was really disappointed and truly have given up on the whole thing. I didn’t think about it for months, I didn’t even care about the thing anymore. Around 4 months passed without anything, then one night in 2011 march a very basic idea popped into my mind from thin air. Thinked about a few minutes then dismissed by my rational thinking & disappointment: „Why try this madness again? It would never work�. I have also other problems, but week after week sometimes the idea appeared to mind again. I tried to forget it but always came back and I couldn’t dismiss it. So finally I said to myself: „This one is so simple I will tear into pieces in a week at maximum, why not give it a try?�

And that’s it… I gave it a try, but it turned out that my simplest and most childish idea became the most difficult to disprove. Actually I am just as much a skeptic as a believer and at the time I was catchy to find any faulties and wanted to quickly finish it off, but I couldn’t. I have spent numerous time only for the purpose to find out where is the basic faulty in my thinking but unable to find such. I didn’t worked on it every day but I tried to disprove the idea from 2011 april up to the end of 2012, then I gived up on that and instead begin to slowly focus on the development of the idea.

I identified some new mechanisms / subsystems which have to be developed and perfected before I can think about a final design and later a real world prototype build maybe. The idea itself is extremly simple but the problem is that the mechanics required to accomplish the task I thought out for a self running device can be so complicated… and very hard to find a simpler way to do it. I am yet to work more on the receiver mechanism which is at a very basic state yet, and more importantly I put my focus on reducing the complexity to the minimum moving parts, etc., because at the moment it is closer to a clockwork mechanism than to an OOB wheel. However, last time I thought about a pendulum version which could simplify a lot of things…

Btw, my principle does not involves gravity nor CF, it is purely an inertial one. The machine I imagined is fully gravitationally balanced all the time, could even placed horizontally on the right bearings which does not make any difference to its workings. Also the bi-directional and uni-directional versions would be around 90% the same constraction, and the bi-directional would not contain any reverse mechanism.

Anyway, at the moment I am working in the UK and not much possibilities to spend much time on this. But my plan is to develop a simplified design up to 2014 summer which could be built and tested for real. But fact is that after I got this idea I also became lazier, kind of when you gain a new understanding and you calm down about the thing.

[jim_mich]

I've seen this type of thing (WM2d exploding) happen many times. You can tweak the parameters and conditions, and use all sorts of construction techniques, but either of two things happen with certain mechanisms. You either set the parameters so loose that the results are somewhat meaningless because the program is allowed to fudge the results to force conservation of energy. Or you set the parameters tighter expecting more accurate results, and the dang assembly explodes for seemingly no reason.

[Gregory]

Yes, at certain times can explode the whole assembly or stop it to halt from 60 rpm to 0, or doing other foolish things. If I tweak the parameters it usually helps, but there are a few occasions when can't be tweaked properly.

But of course this thing happens rarely, only with a few specific type of designs.
So anybody should be aware, wm2d has its own limits and sometimes you have to look for when it is doing something wrongly.

[Fletcher]

Thanks for your thoughts Gregory, & most interesting about your current inertia drive research - you'd have a better chance than most of having a reliable & predictable sim because you do know the pitfalls & shortcuts to look out for, such as reducing complexity, refining parameters, changing out square pin joints on occasion, rebuilding a different way to see if the anomaly still exhibits afterwards etc - anyway best of luck.

On that note, whilst WM does have some idiosyncrasies to look out for, it is perfect for testing motion of elements, at the very least.

BUT, it does not absolve the user who is using it for PM wheel purposes knowing a fair bit of background physics concepts & principles to test the sim against 'what you might reasonably expect' i.e. if there is an anomalous result then obviously you tweak the inputs etc & rebuild again with more simplicity - but, if after all that, it still gives an anomalous result then something else more important might have been revealed to you, that is outside standard accepted physics models & repeatability testing.

Since the sim uses accepted physics models a true anomaly showing in a sim must be an unilluminated corner of those physics models suggesting an acception to the rules in very special circumstances, IMO.

[Wubbly]

I will say with 100% confidence that if Bessler found a mechanical way to use gravity & mechanics alone to self sustain a wheels motion, once those mechanics are known, it can be duplicated in wm2d.

I would disagree. WM2D is a two dimensional model. If the solution lies in the third dimension, then WM2D would never pick up on it. Let's suppose a hypothetical solution would involve the precession of a gyroscope and how a precessing gyroscope appears to "loose weight" as shown in Eric Laithwaite's lecture 4 shown here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezJAmT19 ... 118DE0C4EB

If you used this principle as part of your hypothetical solution to the wheel, you could never use WM2D to test it.

[Tarsier79]

It depends on what you are trying to achieve. A lot of 3D mechanisms can be simulated in 2D. From what I can tell, gyro precession steals energy from rotation. I bet Fletcher or someone else especially talented with the program could simulate this.

Ultimately, a real build is the only real proof.

[jim_mich]

Fletcher and others of us have made 3D type simulations. It is a little tricky but can be done by creating a second view of the object representing the third direction. Then programing the motions so as to interlink the motions properly.

I've expressed my opinion before that I do not believe WM2D can properly model any over-unity device simply because the computer programing functions by using formulas that expect conservation of energy. When a mechanical arrangement is constructed in WM2D that would cause excess energy output (the goal of perpetual motion) then the program keeps adjusting the motions of all the components until there is no longer any excess output. Thus the computer program of WM2D enforces conservation of energy. It will never show any device as a working PM device. It is simply against its internal programing.

Just my opinion. I could be wrong.