Computer Simulation...

[raj]

There are many on this forum who are using WM2D computer simulation software to prove their PM WHEEL concepts.

Can computer simulation provide an unequivocal proof of concept???

If YES, how???

What must the simlation SHOW to convince people that your concept works?

Raj

[rlortie]

It is my opinion that a simulation will prove nothing.

You or someone must build a working model of your simulation, then hopefully be invited to show it to the Royal Society in London.

After all it is their motto we should all play heed to; "Nullius in verba", Latin for "Take nobody's word for it".

[John doe]

I personally would not use a simulatelor for the simple fact it uses the same flawed logic that says PMMs are impossible.
To use them to flesh out concepts and ideas but as proof of concept I don't think so.

[raj]

So why are top multi-national industries using multi-millions dollars simulators like NASA- space travel simulators, Boeing and Airbus - flight simulators, Rolls-Royce and other car and machines manufacturers -design engineering simulators, IF THEY REALLY mean NOTHING.

Raj

[John doe]

That is a very good point.
My answer would be that it depends on the level of sophistication of the software but also the ability and knowledge of the programmer.
Honestly I do not have nor have I tried any of the software. I have however used various simulators in a cad and simulations environment. CMM CNC etc and such which is not the same thing.
I would guess that those tests your talking about are very specific and designed to look at very specific parameters using known standard formulas. While I think we are often looking for loopholes or alternate less traveled grey area routes routes that might be otherwise overlooked.

[Tarsier79]

Sims have their place. A build is the be all and end all proof.

I don't think sim programs are specifically based on energy conservation. I do think they are based on accepted scientific formulas for mass, acceleration etc. The fact is, all formulas, including F=MA, used correctly, all correlate together and can be extrapolated to prove conservation of energy.

You will find some trying to use momentum formulas to try to break energy formulas. I personally have not seen any instance where COE has been broken through the use of momentum.

So you have to find an interaction unexplained by conventional science to find PM...

[raj]

Multibody Dynamics Software:
Advanced motion analysis products enable engineers to easily simulate and test virtual prototypes of mechanical systems in a fraction of the time and cost required for physical build and test.

See www.mscsoftware,com

[ME]

I guess everyone has his own take on this, this is mine:

Simulation is a form of rapid prototyping : a form of serializing and speeding-up the workflow (when there is a workflow)

As I see it:
One basically shouldn't build all there wheels from scratch when investigating perpetual motion by manual labor.
In the best case one has a generic wheel to apply new ideas.
One shouldn't create all their own bolts & nuts, they just come in packages;
One shouldn't create a single mechanism when more is needed: one should go in fabrication-mode and create them all at once - otherwise creativity takes over and each mechanism will be different (and better on itself) and results in unwanted out-of-balance situations.
-These are all forms of serializing the base-parts-

If there's something to try, I just fire-up WM2D and be creative; a basic wheel is there in 5 seconds (a single macro-function).
A simple design could be done in (let's say) 5 minutes perhaps the more complex ones take 5 hours even days.
There is a huge benefit in speeding up the confirmation of a hypothesis. Once a principle is known, it is even fast enough to do some statistics and graph a lot of design-variations into some trend just by tweaking the design. A thing which is very hard to do on a real-life model. Formulas are even better, one just presses a button and let the computer figure out the ideal situation (but one has to be able to read the numbers).
The obvious problem is that any simulation deals with ideal situations or a fabrication of real-life effects; these things must be taken into account.

Although a huge time-and money-saver (if you know what you're doing) then in the end it still can't replace the real-deal.

[Tarsier79]

One shouldn't create a single mechanism when more is needed:

I am a big beleiver in a single mechanism, although I usually build 2 opposing balanced mechanisms instead of using a balancing weight.

If 1 mechanism will not perform as designed to give enough power for complete rotation, adding 63 more will not help.

[Furcurequs]

(snip)

So you have to find an interaction unexplained by conventional science to find PM...

I don't disagree with that, but I would suggest that such an interaction could possibly be unexplained simply because it is a type of interaction that has just not yet been considered rather than that the accepted scientific laws currently on the books are incorrect or wouldn't apply.

In other words, the empirical laws in the books might actually allow for such a thing already and the scientists and others could just be ignorant of that.

This could mean they already have the keys to the kingdom but just don't know how to use them to enter in themselves and would attempt to bar others from entering in due to their own ignorance, hypocrisy and self-righteousness.

[ME]

One shouldn't create a single mechanism when more is needed:

I am a big beleiver in a single mechanism, although I usually build 2 opposing balanced mechanisms instead of using a balancing weight.

If 1 mechanism will not perform as designed to give enough power for complete rotation, adding 63 more will not help.

Agreed, on average for a full rotation there should be a resulting torque for a single mechanism, if it needs a connected mirror then such pair could be considered a single mechanism.
I think you'd agree that not producing some additional 3 (or 63) in "fabrication-mode" to make the ride more smooth would most likely result in an unexpected or even a counteractive wobble. So there's the reason for serialization, automation, and even simulation for confirming a hypothesis.
-Perhaps I'm just exposing my own inconsistent manufacturing process here-

What must the simulation SHOW to convince people that your concept works?

A simulations must show the feasibility of some design, to cut down time and effort compared to just blindly start building some unfounded idea.
(While some people just get their best ideas by just building stuff)

[raj]

If one cannot pass the obstacle, adding 3 or 63 cannot pass the obstacle???

Mankind is continuing with evolution, physical and mental, finding solution to overcome most simple obstacle to most complex obstacle.

I watch a TV program the other day, showing US elite commandos in training:

Four soldiers facing an obstacle-- a 10+ feet obstacle, and they had to pass that obstacle.

No One alone, can physically climb over that obstacle.
The soldiers used a joint effort, three pushing one over, two pushing and one pulling one over, one pushing and two pulling one over, and finally three pulling the last one over.

CAN a similar joint effort system be designed in a wheel with four (or 64) weights to move forward, passing over any rotating obstacle???

My search goes on.

Raj

[John doe]

I guess everyone has his own take on this, this is mine:

Simulation is a form of rapid prototyping : a form of serializing and speeding-up the workflow (when there is a workflow)

As I see it:
One basically shouldn't build all there wheels from scratch when investigating perpetual motion by manual labor.
In the best case one has a generic wheel to apply new ideas.
One shouldn't create all their own bolts & nuts, they just come in packages;
One shouldn't create a single mechanism when more is needed: one should go in fabrication-mode and create them all at once - otherwise creativity takes over and each mechanism will be different (and better on itself) and results in unwanted out-of-balance situations.
-These are all forms of serializing the base-parts-

If there's something to try, I just fire-up WM2D and be creative; a basic wheel is there in 5 seconds (a single macro-function).
A simple design could be done in (let's say) 5 minutes perhaps the more complex ones take 5 hours even days.
There is a huge benefit in speeding up the confirmation of a hypothesis. Once a principle is known, it is even fast enough to do some statistics and graph a lot of design-variations into some trend just by tweaking the design. A thing which is very hard to do on a real-life model. Formulas are even better, one just presses a button and let the computer figure out the ideal situation (but one has to be able to read the numbers).
The obvious problem is that any simulation deals with ideal situations or a fabrication of real-life effects; these things must be taken into account.

Although a huge time-and money-saver (if you know what you're doing) then in the end it still can't replace the real-deal.

I have to say I find your posts incredibly insightful helpful and just plain good.
I have yet to see anything that you've posted that I find anything but. Even your minor points that you toss out are excellent. Now maybe I'm just biased because we seem to have very similar views.
Just wondering how is your own build comming?

[Tarsier79]

If there is 1 obstacle that 1 mechanism needs to get over, adding 63 mechanisms will add an additional 63 obstacles for 1 complete cycle.

[John doe]

I'm disagree.
I too saw this commercial although I'm not sure how elite these commandos were, but that irrelevant.
I think you are exactly right. This wall was too high for any one person to scale alone. However as this video demonstrated that with the cooperation of multiple people it was possible. I would say this is an excellent analogy of a wheel. True their are issues of cooperation and timing but you also require the right parts performing the right tasks at the right time. Without the right pieces the task is impossible but you also need the knowledge of how to perform the specific task. As in the analogy of the soldiers without the right equipment used correctly at the right time and the knowledge of how to do it all you have is 1 guy or 4 guys staring at a wall scratching their heads.