Poss. Symmetry Break?

[ME]

If you make a mistake writing the code, then it is instantly obvious because you see the animated object move in a wrong way on the screen

I think you'll understand that's a bit "alarming".
You can't check the correctness of a program by the same output you rely on for checking the correctness of a hypothesis *).

To be a bit more rhetorical:
As far as I can determine you're not an idiot who takes things for granted without checking and verifying, but nevertheless slight mistakes can always creep in.
Obviously things need some form of (or something similar to) numerical integration, I hope you've at least tried time-steps going into the micro-seconds.

*) Like a financial program to protect costumers of getting into the negative, I call it the "Automatic Brake System": Guaranteed to work!

My point in that one instance was to show an alternate method of solving for rotational speed, based upon radius of gyration. But that part of my post also went whoosh over everyone's head.

I think it went "whoosh" indeed (can't remember): link?

Have a rough ETA on your build?

Greetings,
Marchello E.

[John doe]

I understand your reasoning but I think the issue is you are using your own program to evaluate your own ideas. You could even be subconsciously using it to justify your own experiments. I'm not saying this is so but it could be.
Have you looked into other simulators and or how the same or similar dalcations are handled? Some sort of independent verification would likely be helpful.

[jim_mich]

Come on guys, a motion wheel is so supper simple, that once you understand it, you no longer need a computer simulation to prove it works. Though I'm sure the USPTO will require physical proof. It's as simple as knowing a 12 foot log will span a 10 foot creek. So don't give me crap about mistakes creeping in. I've been writing computer programs since 1980, when I bought my commodore 8032 computer. I really think I know enough about computer programming and simulations such that there is no errors when the program is finished. The computer program helped my understand my motion-wheel. But such a program is no longer needed.

[WaltzCee]

cut it in 1/2?

[ME]

Come on guys, a motion wheel is so supper simple, that once you understand it, you no longer need a computer simulation to prove it works.

We don't know that.

In Jim's defense: Once you know the formula's, how to create a program, and have a bit of sense how simulators solve problems, then creating your own is a wise choice. Nevertheless, an actual build will tell.

I've been writing computer programs since 1980, when I bought my commodore 8032 computer.

Wow. My first was a TRS-80.
It's like the MSX, but without graphics and sound, but one could do wonders with ascii-art and sending pulsed data to the tweaked (ugh!) tape recorder. When tuning the radio just right one could even hear the onscreen scrolling.... :-/

[Furcurequs]

To understand jim_mich's position doesn't require an understanding of physics but rather child psychology.

I saw a scene similar to this one in a television show and it sort of reminded me of jim.

Watch as this adorable 4-year-old tries to convince her mother that she did not eat a chocolate donut, despite the evidence on her face! Once she realizes that she's been caught, her explanation is even better!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhUYSQFRCd4

I don't think that sort of dishonesty is quite as adorable coming from a gray-bearded man.

...lol

[Furcurequs]

I've been writing computer programs since 1980, when I bought my commodore 8032 computer.

Wow. My first was a TRS-80.
It's like the MSX, but without graphics and sound, but one could do wonders with ascii-art and sending pulsed data to the tweaked (ugh!) tape recorder. When tuning the radio just right one could even hear the onscreen scrolling.... :-/

My high school computer class had TRS-80s, and a neighbor of mine had one of his own that I got to play with some. I eventually got a Commodore VIC-20 myself, but I didn't do much with it.

At the age of 20 I had the opportunity to work briefly in the design group of one of the IBM PCs, the PC/AT. One of the design engineers on that said he had taken apart his own Commodore (which may have been a VIC-20, too, or possibly a Commodore 64, I can't remember for sure) and said he was impressed with what they were able to do for the price.

Oh, yeah, and I agree with your "ugh!" about the recording of files on audio tape. That really was a pain.

[jim_mich]

Furcurequs has one again lied and accused me of being dishonest.
I weary of this idiot troll.
The members of this forum used to show respect for one another.
But then the trolls showed up.
I tried ignoring, but it does not work.
So I'm out of here.


.

[ME]

But then the trolls showed up.

As this is plural, am I also being addressed here?
I was under the impression I was trying to have a decent discussion.

I don't agree with Furcurequs, but he seems to know what he's talking about.

[eccentrically1]

We're all trolls to Jim, ME. If you say anything about him he doesn't like (or especially about his wheel that needs a few more holes in it and then he can feed us our crow, or he can eat it himself), you're a troll. Some people can't take a joke about their behavior.
It has been this way for as long as I've been a member of the forum. Anyone that claims they have it is held up to ridicule or criticism because they never have shown a "something that works". *

*A physically working PM machine.

[ME]

or especially about his wheel...

What wheel? He seems to have a simulation that shows something that might work.
And what's up what that "crow" anyway, at least the Brits seem the have "humble pie" - Weird. Now I'm curious what we Dutch should eat to humiliate ourselves..

Jim should understand the generated skepticism when someone would claim some gravity induced overbalanced machine without supporting such claim;
-or so I hope, as we otherwise could call such thing a Negative Symmetry Break.

There's a bit of an information gap preventing any conclusion other than the mere fact we lack some complete information.

[eccentrically1]

The wheel that isn't quite finished being built but he is sure will work. And we should just take his word for it. Verbo eius pro eo.

He should understand it, most of the others that claim to have it seem to understand.
I don't know the origin of the crow thing. Humble pie is a better metaphor.

[ME]

I can understand Jim's enthusiasm is complicated by the reluctance to share.
As those two states obviously (and understandably) clashes, I wonder how we can be sure he's correct in being sure...(eeh, I think that's about right).
And what we can learn from this even though that will not be the mechanism itself - Otherwise why should I/we be bothered by his claim.

So that brings up the question about what's going on in Jim's simulation concerning Conservation of Energy.
If WM2D can't seem to handle it then it's either not easy in general or there's stuff needed which is not provided by such program making things unnecessarily complicated either way.
Can we conclude that WM2D is still valid, while perhaps there's a possible other (yet unknown) configuration which could be successfully simulated.... Or can we conclude that WM2D is some sneaky program which doesn't allow a working principle whatever we try (because of CoE):- and thus Jim has a better (or more useful) implementation of the basic physics formula's.

That's basically what I want to know.

[Fletcher]

What Jim says is that WM can't handle his configuration. It does not show an energy or momentum gain each revolution. I'll come back to this ...

He says, and has said, that Center of Gyration is the crux of it.

There are quite a few discussions on this topic from the earlier days when he first brought it up. It is also in Wikipedia etc so can be googled. Mechanic handbooks refer to it in favour of different terms used elsewhere IIRC.

So I suggest starting there to understand if CoG (not to be confused with CoG) has any real insightful value in the quest for an inertial drive motion wheel.

OK .. back to the beginning. My observations about WM. I instinctively think it might be bottom up, at least I hope so. I often build things in parts, layering it and building complexity as I go. This way I get to check each stage of development and to be honest I hope to trap WM by stealth i.e. it is coherent and then I spring the trap that should show a gain in energy and momentum. Then it either has to churn out this anomalous result or explode etc. But it ain't my first rodeo so I know most of the brain farts it can produce on occasion. I also know it will allow fake forces to be used etc. I must be naturally suspicious to act this way.

But I will say this in support of consistent CoE outputs. Even a basic wheel format with some hanging weights etc will be entirely CoE consistent. It will start with X GPE. As it moves from torque imbalance it will lose GPE but will gain KE (measure by an output field called System KE that I make [Kinetic()]. If all other parts are very low mass (say 0.001kg each) then the sum of the GPE plus System KE always equals the original X GPE (very close). Never seen an exception and the wheel can not over-speed because of this consistency and conservative gravity. In one sense that smacks of a CoE over-ride but then again it is also absolutely consistent with physics laws and math.

If I continue to layer it and build by stealth, and assuming I have a good idea to follow up on, then one day I just might trap WM into being inconsistent and have an energy and momentum gain. Whether Center of Gyration will be that pathway I'll leave to jim-mich and people more qualified than me to explore.

[ME]

Thanks Fletcher, very insightful.

So I suggest starting there to understand if CoG (not to be confused with CoG) has any real insightful value in the quest for an inertial drive motion wheel.

I guess you mean: '...Radius of Gyration (not to be confused with Center of Gravity)...'?
WM shouldn't have a problem with that (at least if it's only that).

(not to mock you, and with all due respect - it just types so easy)
If WM always tries to solve according to a constant CoE and needs "Stealth", and "Layering" to "Trap" it into producing an "Exception", then what is that "Inconsistent"-result finally worth?
Then WM is actually not a tool to investigate if something works, but just a lot work in investigating how WM works (unless you like doing just that).

Not that this all is a total surprises, as I've seen some (perhaps not all) quirks, and you have shown glimpses of some of your experiments. - but reading this in a few paragraphs is actually quite shocking.
Luckily you agree (or mention) that it follows physics law and math, as I have checked WM several times... actually (and luckily) confirming the math I did manually, and then rely in it most of the time.

Thus when you agree it still follows physics (for better or worse), then either Jim has found new physics or Jim's config is too complex for WM to handle;

What Jim says is that WM can't handle his configuration. It does not show an energy or momentum gain each revolution.

While trying to be blunt: If it's "only" about energy&momentum then I actually start to question Jim's own simulation in the ability to proof the viability of an actual built.
I was thinking in lines of a lot of (or too much) collisions, then in my opinion (for what its worth) it would make more sense to step away from WM. Then I can still question Jim's simulation, but more out of envy and curiosity.

--
What do you mean by "layering" by the way; my guess: macro-created objects?


Marchello E.