Solved: Width for Height Conundrum

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply
Furcurequs
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am

re: Solved: Width for Height Conundrum

Post by Furcurequs »

I've always been a night owl. ...plus my schedule has shifted even later into the night, well now actually morning, due to my health issues.

I typically feel my worst when I first wake up, so I'm reluctant to go to bed knowing what I'm going to be waking up to. So, I try to fight off sleep until I can't anymore.

I'll be up till past daybreak, probably.

Anyway, if your claimed success is so far only with a simulation, I'm not sure that many of us would take that quite so seriously. Good luck, though.

Dwayne
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

I've pretty much always worked third shift for that very reason: night owl. Lol. Thanks for the kind wishes. I will say positively that WM2D is a very unforgiving program. I never considered myself successful, probably because I tend to measure success in the amount of income I receive. I just call it a solution. Success comes...whenever it comes I suppose.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

A little of topic but on the subject of sims is that I can design many things but I can't seem to build latches and clips that work in WM2D. I've gotten a few to work but 99% of them fail. I mention this because I have many designs in which I would like to use them. I've been trying to recreate Aldo Costa's wheel for fun in WM2D but rack up insanely high frame simulation times due to the number of complex parts...just wish I had something simple I could work with. I can make one-way latches and clips that work but when it comes to engaging and disengaging in two directions I usually fail miserably.
Furcurequs
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1605
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 4:50 am

re: Solved: Width for Height Conundrum

Post by Furcurequs »

I don't use WM2D but rather some free Linux programs. I kind of like Physion for 2D stuff, but to test some of my ideas, thanks to the need for catches and latches and whatnot, would require more than the basic features and so I would need to do some scripting to make some workarounds.

I could probably best simulate my ideas using Blender with its built in 3D physics engine, it really does seem to be quite powerful now, but I'm not really up to speed with that program yet.

I mostly need, though, to just devote some time to my actual builds so I can get on with my real world tests.

I agree, though, that sims can be helpful at times. Again, good luck.

Dwayne
I don't believe in conspiracies!
I prefer working alone.
User avatar
Fletcher
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8694
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:03 am
Location: NZ

re: Solved: Width for Height Conundrum

Post by Fletcher »

FWIW .. I've never been successful at building physical latches and catches in WM2D either. As much as I'd like to use them. So I tend to use rigid or pin joints, or rods and make them time dependent or rotational degrees dependent etc. Whatever I can think of. That method works quite well for one direction movement. Then you have to use IF or AND or OR statements to make them lock and unlock etc if that is what you want. It gets messy and complicated, at least for me.

Usually I'm just interested in (if using gravity only) if I can get a mech gain in GPE. Do that and you have a winner even if it's not surrounded by friends in a wheel format.

If I'm building multi mechs inside a wheel then I'm predominantly interested in if I can get more positive torque than back torque so that when I release it OOB it rotates thru more than one sector (assuming sector symmetry) before keeling etc.

Usually these things require some mech constraint or trapping the mech method at some perceived favourable position, so some latch or catch analogue becomes important for testing basic behaviour before a full wheel sim or real world build etc.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

Yeah I have NO idea how to mess with that stuff, and so I don't. Wish I knew how though. Pertaining to this topic, I posted a vid on the previous page just to show how it moves. There's a few things hidden of course.
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

Post by nicbordeaux »

ME wrote: I think a solution can only be valued by its reset capability.
I can't agree with that :-)

In the 7 or whatever years I've been on this forum, the fundamental challenge has always been "You can not raise mass without expending energy. If you can find a way of doing work without lowering overall CoM, you have it cut" .

That is the sine qua non condition for perpetual motion or any other form of "costless energy" . Once you have achieved that, you will have shown that perpetual motion can not be excluded.

Unless somebody get's incredibly lucky or deluded , things go step by step. Once you have an "exception" or "trick" which shows work for no expenditure, you can look into the reset. Or the next step, because a reset immediately after the first "cycle" may not be the best way to go about it. Once you have got the free ride thing, it all boils down to a mechanical solution which needs to be invented. You are no longer groping about in the dark.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

I agree with ME. Reset is EVERYTHING. Throw ALL available energy into a reset; that way whatever is expended in the process doesn't matter because it gets reset and then you can actually drive something with it. In the end there is simply no way to raise a mass without applying a force to it. Energy must be expended. But it would be like putting money into a stock you know will go up in price, and then you cash out at the right moment. Now you have more money. Use some money to buy some stuff, and use the rest to keep the process going around.
User avatar
Fletcher
Addict
Addict
Posts: 8694
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 9:03 am
Location: NZ

Post by Fletcher »

Silvertiger wrote:
Yeah I have NO idea how to mess with that stuff, and so I don't. Wish I knew how though.

Pertaining to this topic, I posted a vid on the previous page just to show how it moves. There's a few things hidden of course.
Silvertiger wrote:Yep that's the one. :)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvEtOu8FwWQ
OK .. I took a look at the vid.

IF I were going to build a sim that behaved like that (with a few things hidden) then I'd probably use inertia as the basis for forced rotation whereby the 1 lb weight raises up the 4 lb weight.

i.e. I'd lay out a basic sim like you show with 4 lbs one end and 1 lb the other (for appearances). Then I'd add a hidden rotational spring joint to the 1 lb connection to lever and say offset the rotation degrees by something like 180 or 360 degrees for example. Experiment with the rotational force STORED in the rotational spring element etc. Maybe add a dampening element.

Then I'd add a hidden cross bar to the 1 lb mass of say equal length to the main lever for example (at any orientation but pinned in the middle say) and give it a reasonable mass. This is the fixed MOI component I'd work with. It could be variable MOI using a Stork's Bill which deployed on turning and was closed again with a light spring force when the Rotational Spring had done its thing.

The upshot is that you create a 1 lb end of an ordinary looking lever with stored energy in the spring which releases on running the sim. The hidden cross bar would provide the greater MOI component that you'd need to work with.

Without building it it should rotate the 4 lb mass towards the zenith due to stored energy in the Rot Spring and MOI of the cross bar interacting causing torque imbalance. Then it would need to be locked in the gravity imbalance state and on the descent rewind the Rot Spring to go again.

Of course, I'd be wondering how much energy that took and if could I reset it for less energy than gained by the increase in system GPE and work done by the imbalance phase ?

But then that is only how I might tackle the problem at first glance and you have probably done something entirely different.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

Yeah, it's entirely different lol. I'll admit that I do use an inertial component for it's ability to work whether it's flipped over or not, but only as a delay for which purpose a two-directional latch would better serve, which I can't seem to do. If I can successfully latch the proper components for operation in two directions, I can put it on a rotary system. I'll keep working on it.
User avatar
ME
Addict
Addict
Posts: 3512
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:37 pm
Location: Netherlands

Post by ME »

nicbordeaux wrote:
ME wrote: I think a solution can only be valued by its reset capability.
I can't agree with that :-)

In the 7 or whatever years I've been on this forum, the fundamental challenge has always been "You can not raise mass without expending energy. If you can find a way of doing work without lowering overall CoM, you have it cut" .

That is the sine qua non condition for perpetual motion or any other form of "costless energy" . Once you have achieved that, you will have shown that perpetual motion can not be excluded.

Unless somebody get's incredibly lucky or deluded , things go step by step. Once you have an "exception" or "trick" which shows work for no expenditure, you can look into the reset. Or the next step, because a reset immediately after the first "cycle" may not be the best way to go about it. Once you have got the free ride thing, it all boils down to a mechanical solution which needs to be invented. You are no longer groping about in the dark.
Perhaps it's better not to agree with that statement, even though you could ;-)

I agree with the "importance of raising weights" for some reason...
But it's still possible that raising a weight is entirely unimportant for certain types of perpetual motion. Each time we find a new type of perpetual motion we learn more and more about the unique condition (sine qua non?) which enables the continuation of motion. It's just that we don't have a lot of examples to learn from.

Besides a partitioned design, I think one should be careful with some of the step-by-step views and analysis.
In the many years I've been on this forum a lot of designs should somehow have worked (either by 'luck' or) by implying some kind of logical analysis at subgoal-level which nevertheless, more often than not, proofed to be faulty when viewed/verified/calculated as a whole because (apparently) some crucial steps or subgoal-interactions were simply overlooked (or ran low on 'luck').
Therefore I conclude it's easier to get "deluded" on a per-step-basis compared to some holistic view, despite (or perhaps "because") steps and phases are easier to analyze.
And all this while we are officially "deluded" anyway (-: an important reference to keep in mind :-)

I stand by my "reset" because of the following binary option: It either "resets" because it didn't move, or it resets despite it moved. I think the second defines "Perpetual Motion", while nature tries to settle for the first.
I strongly believe the mechanical principle of perpetual motion is about the interplay between those options; because each option on itself is incapable - proof this wrong :-)

Either unfortunately or luckily, I also do agree with your reply as well Silvertiger's. I think both confirm the same thing.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
User avatar
agor95
Addict
Addict
Posts: 7742
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:09 pm
Location: Earth Orbit
Contact:

re: Solved: Width for Height Conundrum

Post by agor95 »

(-: sine qua non :-)

I think we need the above on a badge for forum members.

Regards
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

Post by nicbordeaux »

I can understand your thinking, and Boy oh Boy, wouldn't it be nice for some of we "PMers" to have this vision of a working device, build it, and find out that it works, it continues revolving or doing whatever it does. At the inquisition, we could shout "E pur si muove!" , or "Eat that" in modern parlance. Or as the trial would be held down Under by Ovyyus and Fletcher: "Whether you're a bloke or a Sheila, don't get in a Barney with me, this device is fair dinkum. Even a legless blind Freddy can't deny this without being shag on a rock." :-)

Simming is good when you have an understanding of what the issues are about outside simland, and you can only get that by building, and building and building. Which is where being Fletcher must be nice, because you have a lifetime of builds behind you, and you know how to use Sim.

Show just one easy to replicate instance of work for no Energy loss , and the rest will follow. People will see, and most , except the Blind Freddy's, who already believe, will believe too. The whole world will go as mad as a two bob Watch as engineers and Born Again psychics teachers start churning out self-sustaining devices.

EDIT (again) : I've just posted a video in a new thread (ok, done in bad light and low res after being converted to a format supported by WMM) of a system where work is done, and MGH at end is the same as start MGH, which everybody knows to be absolutely impossible.
Last edited by nicbordeaux on Mon Jan 23, 2017 12:43 am, edited 3 times in total.
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

Re: re: Solved: Width for Height Conundrum

Post by nicbordeaux »

agor95 wrote:(-: sine qua non :-)

I think we need the above on a badge for forum members.

Regards
Well, It makes a change from "Alea jacta est" . A bloke can get tired of too much of the Alea jacta stuff.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
User avatar
Silvertiger
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1059
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 1:12 pm
Location: Henderson, KY

Post by Silvertiger »

I think I figured out a way to shift the system without latches. I'll try it out when I get off of work. This design works by mechanically relieving the weight of the load and so it must be automatically shifted when reversed. It shifts right now but only if the lever is stationary which of course is no good for a wheel mount lol.
Post Reply