Announcing a Working WM2D PMM

[cw]

Robert,

In a nutshell, WM2D is definitely capable of doing things that are not genuine. The program is not perfect and things get even worse if you set parameters like static friction to non-real-world values. If you have parts creeping out of place, you should be suspicious of the whole model.

I "discovered" a configuration in WM2D some time ago that consistently demonstrates over-unity. The model (there are several variations) allows one weight to fall a short distance and lift several times its own mass a much greater distance. It's very simple (2 moving parts) and could be described as a type of pendulum. It also jives with what JB said about an anvil receiving many blows.

So did I get excited when I "found" this? Heck yes! The problem is that it's just too good to be true. I can't see how this thing could possibly do what it does in the real world. Of course, the only way to find out is build a physical model. Anyway you can add me to the list of "inventors with a working sim".

cw

[Jetrix]

Programmers point of view: floating points can only hold so many digits... Any calculations including circular movements (PI) are time consuming to calculate. Programmers have to compromise between speed and accuracy.

WM was not designed to work with such accuracy that is needed with PMM, where just a fraction of the systems total weight makes the wheel go around.

I would not be suprised if one would have a working PMM in WM but not in the real world...

[ME]

A bouncing ball can get verry high when it has such an inaccurate boucne that it partially was inside another object and pushed out with great force. That sucks indeed.

But I have a working WM2D model (bi-directional) going to 1000 rpm in 6 secondes (after a very tiny push)


-edit:
The result of a replication.. this one does it in 15 seconds, and turns the first two seconds the other way (plus it has pin friction)

[Jetrix]

ME, the ball bounce thing you brought up is related to bad collision detection. The actual point of collision between two objects is very hard to calculate and sometimes the object leaks inside another. That was not the point I was trying to bring out, but the fact that due to relatively small capasity of memory units ( ie. 32 bits) leads it to situation where for example PI is not accurate but a round up containing only so many digits. In other words; many irrational-number calculations are round ups and their cumulative effect can lead to weird situations.

Start your calaculator and divide 2 by 3 and the result is 0.666...667 that is not correct!

[Ed]

Actually, WM2D is more accurate than a lot of other programs (as well it should be). Excel, for example, is crap when it comes to PI.


Robert, as for the parts sliding apart, this is definitely a problem with the program. Usually it has to do with too much force on a particular joint.

One issue that I don't think has been discussed on this board is scale in simulations. If you make a wheel 100 feet dia. then all forces need to be proportionally larger. If you make a wheel 10 inches, then you can't have forces of 100's of pounds without breaking the sim sometimes. It's hard to explain what I mean, but try to make a sim not too small in scale, even if it is realistic. Go for a range of about 1-5 feet or so.

-Ed

[ken_behrendt]

Robert...

Congratulations if you do, indeed, have a working WM2D model that is not the result of a glitch in the program. I have not yet had the pleasure of that experience...

Someone made a good suggestion. IF your model is for real, then it should be able to do some work external to itself. Why not make a separate wheel with projecting paddles that run a trip hammer or stamp. Then connect your working wheel to the trip hammer wheel with a gear. If what you have is real, then I would imagine that it could run the trip hammer continuously. You might have to carefully adjust the weight of the trip hammer to get it to run.

ken

P.S. There's a nifty little feature in WM2D that lets you hear two parts colliding. If you make the trip hammer, then you can arrange it to make a metallic clanking sound every time it is dropped.

[jim_mich]

With computers there are reasons for every strange thing.

Jonathan, the counter seems to be stored as a two byte integer variable. As such it can only hold an integer value between -32768 and 32767. When is "rolls over" it becomes negative. Usually WM2D will give a message saying that an internal limit has ben reached, but not always. If you don't get the error message then the counter appears as negative.

There are many other "quirks" in WM2D. Each has a cause. If the force on a pin joint becomes too strong then it will "break" just like in the real world where a bolt will break with too much stress. The WM2D programmers tried to make it as realistic as possible. Pins are allowed to "move" slightly just like in the real world where a joint must have a little slop in order to turn. When two objects collide and overlap they must push apart again. If the increment step is to big then they might overlap onto the far side and get pushed apart from that far side. This will accelerate the movement.

There are many other "quirks". I've been writing computer programs for more than 25 years. It is very difficult to anticipate every possible situation. What WM2D has done is allow "YOU" the programmer to control what the program does. "YOU" set the parameters. "YOU" set the weights and sizes and forces. If "YOU" screw up then the program does what you tell it to do, and the results may be "screwed up". WM2D expects everything to collide from the outside. If you make things collide from the inside then it gives "screwed up" results. If you set the increment steps too big then results can be screwed up. Set it too small and it takes too long to compute.

WM2D is only a tool, NOT A PROOF.

Hope this helps. I'm travelling at the moment. I'm away from my home computer and trying to stay current with all the many posts here on the board.

Jim_Mich

[amateur]

I've got the 6ft wheel friction set at 6.00e-.003 and the pin radius set at 1.00. How good are these settings? It's still turning. The other pins are the same except the radius is 1/8.

Have you added a "measure/angular momentum" and/or measure/velocity item(s) for the main wheel circle and watched the values, or graphed them? Is the angular momentum and/or velocity, slowly, continuously, dropping (i.e. the peaks becoming shorter on each revolution)? Or do the (peak) values stabilize even with the friction load?

(You may also want to try in addition to, or instead of, pin friction, adding wind resistance. I think Fletcher mentioned that as a precursor to pin friction, and I think jim_mich prefers it.)

[rks1878]

Jim's comments about the pin joints......

Looked at how my pins are set. Had a rigid pin as well as a pivot pin holding the same objects. Evidently, the last one entered doesn't overide the existing ones.

Went around and replaced everything with rigid pins and nothing creeps around now. Can't use the pivots till I make a myriad number of small circles to act as stops for the weights.

With everything locked down, there is only the movement that you get from like a single weight rotating down from TDC to almost back to TDC.

With how the weights are arranged and held, the cg is raised straight up, which is what I was trying to determine in the first place, only it kept going and going.

So, it looks like WM was not the quirk in this case, it was having multiple pin joints sprinkled everywhere. Look to the restraints....

I take it that a WM drawing represents a long equation somewhere, so the equation has to be as clean as possible going in...

Well, at least I'm honest, and will try not to get excited next time if there is one.

[Fletcher]

We all get excited from time to time Rob. The school of hard knocks says be wary of first results & double check everything. This thread has probably helped others know what to look for or perhaps the steps they could take to validate their findings & that's good.

I sometimes think we all have a kind of gold rush mentality when it comes to discovering PM. We find a speck of yellow rock & we are primed & ready to hitch up the dog sled & rush off to the Yukon right away without having it assayed.

Jim_mich & others are quite right. wm2d is just another form of tool. I primarily use it to cross check my expectations on how I think something will work. Ultimately just like Ralph & others who don't use it I have to stand back & say will this work in the real world. Only good knowledge &/or experience building will tell you that.

wm2d is excellent for quickly sketching up & fleshing out an idea. In a couple of hours you can see if you are onto something. That's its strength imo. The downside of this accelerated progress is that you may have to deal with disappointment sooner rather than later so the 'feel good' factor of a new & untried idea doesn't last long :(

[Michael]

Ed if you really do have a working sim with all of your experience wouldn't you say that for you personally to announce a free energy wheel via sim, which you did, would not be jumping the gun? I'm pretty sure you would know the difference between something real and a quirk with the program. Can I at least take it that you do have something legitimate?

Edit, also Ed does your comment relate to this from some time back?

>Ken,

Jonathan and Rainer are correct. All this effort to find what you are looking for will be in vain if you don't take into account the natural damping all springs have. I ran into a similar thing with the spring wheel idea I tested from this thread.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=957

I actually achieved a working simulation, but changing the damping could quickly kill the effect... not to mention Z axis twist that WM2D can not simulate. I didn't say anything before either, because you seem to resist any new information that complicates things for you. :-)

-Ed




rks1878 In case your bottom message was meant for me there was no sarcasm in this post and it is meant for Ed.

[rks1878]

I thought that my first message on this thread asked for an "assay". Sheese! Didn't I say that it was a sim and that it could be flawed??



Now if I had said that it was the real thing, no doubt about it, that would have been jumping the gun.

Now I know it's taboo to show excitement, or to let out anything about a possibly working WM sim.

Naughty, naughty.

JB was excited too and got the same kind of reception.

[Ed]

Ed if you really do have a working sim with all of your experience wouldn't you say that for you personally to announce a free energy wheel via sim, which you did, would not be jumping the gun? I'm pretty sure you would know the difference between something real and a quirk with the program. Can I at least take it that you do have something legitimate?

Michael,

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't announce I had a free energy wheel via sim. I said we currently have a working sim. That means a device that is working within the confines of the simulation software and is not software glitches and also accounts for losses (i.e. friction, etc.). I also stated there is much more work to do, which includes more analysis and ultimately building it.

The only reason I even did that was to illustrate a point. And that point is....

Many people here lately have been jumping up and saying they have a working simulation. It's gotten to the point where I think many assume that THAT has become the goal to get to, and forget there is still a lot of work to do beyond that.

You can never have a working free energy device via sim. Not at least until it's been proven physically. Then later you would know that a simulation is/was definitely feasible. You would NEVER know otherwise. It could be some unforseen issue, software problem, etc.

So I would never announce such a thing VIA SIM, no matter how much experience I have....and THAT is what experience tells ME.

Any other questions? Since I know you love to stir up things until the tables are turned and then you get bent out of shape.... ;-)

-Ed

P.S. Just so everyone knows....If I ever state that I have a working device, you can be sure it's going to be followed up with some evidence to back it up right then. Not "I have something and I'll post soon". And you can hold me to THAT. And I know you will. ;-)

[ME]

The very thought about a working Perpetuum Mobile is a Perpetuum Motion on itself.. at least it runs for a couple of thousand years now.
And are we happy because of that? I think we only get more frustrated :-)
So we keep on going, and going, and going, and going...... (alltogether dissapating a lot of energy)

[Michael]

>
Michael,

What the hell are you talking about? I didn't announce I had a free energy wheel via sim. I said we currently have a working sim. <

Okay, boy are you ever touchy, I don't see the difference between what I said and what you are saying. I'm not saying you have an actual working wheel. I am saying if you have an actual working simulation, with all of your experience at sims I think, to me, it seems apparent you would have a winner. I am asking if that's what you feel you have or are there areas that still need to be explored? I was hoping you would fill this in for us/me.



>The only reason I even did that was to illustrate a point. And that point is....<
Yes I understand you are only bringing it up to illustrate a point but you still said it. Therefore I have to come to the conclusion that you might really have something.

>Many people here lately have been jumping up and saying they have a working simulation. It's gotten to the point where I think many assume that THAT has become the goal to get to, and forget there is still a lot of work to do beyond that.<

I haven't been on here lately but I agree that the type of behavior typical for this type of interest.




>So I would never announce such a thing VIA SIM, no matter how much experience I have....and THAT is what experience tells ME.<

Again I am only asking if you feel good about it. Let me clarify this because you havent gotten my intent, which is probably my fault because I have clearly seen yours and I assumed you would know that I did based on what you've written previously and by how structered my post.

1.I know you aren't anouncing anything.

2. Yet by your statements you are.

3. You clearly don't want to make anykind of statement that says you feel you have a winner.

So hows does one pose the question to ask another about something he sort of says but doesn't really want to talk about for various known reasons? Come on Ed you can't fault me for asking, this is what this board is all about. I gave it a shot and it fell short.


>Any other questions? Since I know you love to stir up things until the tables are turned and then you get bent out of shape.... ;-)

-Ed<

Uh your the only one who's bent out of shape and throwing punches Ed, at me, him, whoever. Guy, your way to angry.

Sure I have a question. Have you ever thought of looking at posts made with a set of benign eyes?

Michael