Sorry Guys it is a Glitch...

[gearhead]

Jon J.

Sorry man it is a glitch delete the bottom magnet from your sim then run it again works exactly the same...I believe it's the wind settings that are making it turn :)

[Jon J Hutton]

It is a glitch because you have to add resistance to the pin and the slot....the only way to do that is to do a rebuild like Jims smot. wm2d requires you to add a resistance to any electrostatic plane otherwise it will oscillate indefinitely...that mixed with the rocking motion of the slot produces a false sense of pm. Jims drawing and like mine that I attached allows you to add resistance which slows the wheel some and will not work once you take away the bottom magnets. Electrostatic force and magnetism use the same mathematic formula. Im waiting for the tecnician to return from vacation on wednesday at wm2d to review the design.

JJH

[ME]

I see you have adopted my design-variant.. much easier ey.


You need to set the radius > 0 to make the Pinfriction work.

The formula it generates with me:
-Input[44]*Input[43]*|constraintforce(3)|*(constraint[3].dv.r*0.017)/(abs(constraint[3].dv.r*0.017)+0.01)

In other words, Both input-sliders have to be >0

Sorry man it is a glitch delete the bottom magnet from your sim then run it again works exactly the same...I believe it's the wind settings that are making it turn :)

In my sim the motion is dying-out when I remove the magnet.
The magnet causes to attract the double-pendulum just enough to flip over. The acceleration is clearly seen.

[Oystein]

I believe recistance is the oposite of Force.
So F = -F

If we add -F , F will be the resault.

So it should be friction, not resistance may be ??

Best
Oystein

[Jon J Hutton]

So where does that leave us........

let's say it is a glitch.

Have we put too much trust into computer designs when the truth might be the perfect model and the perfect build are further apart than we would like to admit, which leaves allot of room for Bessler's and our success in the carpernters shop.

Can you prove something does work mathematically yet does not work in real life......and vice versa.

This showed the true character of this board and all who participated to really help towards the search for cheap energy....You guys are awesome!

let's say its not a glitch

Could this be a movement that works.

Can a person get a patent on a idea that he or she has let out in public domain first.

If this is it it seemed the best way to prove authorship would be to publish it on a well known site like this one. Everyone who makes a commit after the fact is one more proof of who's it was......or am I wrong.
maybe we don't need to be as secretive as we think.

Thanks....... I am still not sure about it being a glitch or not.

Mr. Woo from wm2d will be back wednesday, I'll keep you updated on what he says.

JJH

[ken_behrendt]

JJ...

If deleting the bottom "magnet" attached to the Background still results in the same rotation of the rotor, then this has got to be a glitch. I guess it is in the same catagory as placing a small circle into a polygon tool made bowl. The circle will begin to spin rapidly and eventually bounce out of the bowl. We all had a momentary flirtation with that glitch last year.

Hmmm. Maybe we should maintain a thread that is deveted solely to WM2D glitches! Oh well, most of the time (maybe about 99%), WM2D behaves itself and will give accurate results. But, I know that, even if I achieve a working WM2D model for a device, I would still not sleep soundly until and unless an actual working physical model was made from the virtual model.


ken

[jim_mich]

Jon, concerning patents...

In the US you have one year from the date of the first public disclosure to file for a US patent. Other countries have different patent laws and you will NOT be able to obtain patents in most other countries if you disclosed publicly before filing the application.

A PPA (Provisional Patent Application) costs very little to file. If you file a good quality PPA before public disclosure then you have one year to file a regular US patent application. Then (within the same year) you can file an international PCT (Patent Treaty Convention) application with the US patent office. This will give you patent rights in most of industrialized countries. Within 30 months you will need to file copies of your PCT patent (including translations where needed) in the individual countries where you want patent protection.

If you disclose an idea on the internet then you may loose patent rights in most countries other than the US, because their laws give patents to the "first to file" whereas in the US you have one year to file, because US laws give patents to the "first to invent".

--------------------------

My impression is that Mr. Woo does not understand or acknowledge the bugs that wm2d has.

[ken_behrendt]

Jim wrote:

If you disclose an idea on the internet then you may loose patent rights in most countries other than the US, because their laws give patents to the "first to file" whereas in the US you have one year to file, because US laws give patents to the "first to invent".

That sounds like it could potentially lead to an akward situation. One could have two different inventors with patents on the same invention in two different countries! Obviously, this dilemma needs to be remedied. I favor the first to publicly disclose the inventor as being considered "the" inventor IF he follows up the disclosure with an International Patent Application within a certain time period.


ken

[jim_mich]

Sorry Ken, what you favor MAKES NO DIFFERENCE since the law is the law. United States PTO law is different than EPO (European Patent Office) law. Patent treaties attempt to make them equitable. In the past there have been two different inventors with patents on the same invention in two different countries! As far as international patents go, the "first to file" is considered the inventor. The PPA was implimented so that Americans would still have up to a year to file an application after disclosure. All they need do to get that years grace period is file an inexpensive (about us$80) PPA. The PPA does not need to be fancy or be worded just right, but it MUST describe the invention clearly.

[Jon J Hutton]

Jim,

A wealth of information for those of us who need to know. Thanks for the input.

I was ready to post my next drawing but after the info I had better wait. I will say this about the "glitch" the theory that makes it spin is true and will lend to many ideas that work which was my next drawing. Jim would you be interested in walking me through the PPA process.

[Jon J Hutton]

This is just to warn all who are working with pendulums or attaching weights on both ends of a beam on wm2d. The program for some reason adds energy to the system and the results will be wrong.

Hoping to go down in history as the person to rediscover PM....instead I will go down as the person to discover the biggest glitch. When the machine (build ) ran with magnets I thought wow, when it ran with out them I thought WOW, When I decided to see if it would run with out the whip action of the center pendulum.....I thought things I can't post, and shouldn't think.

Maybe a tour or selling the photos of the error in action would make me feel better.....attached is the program to stay away from.


JJH

[Jon J Hutton]

I contacted the people at wm2d about this calculation error and hopefully they will send out a fix......anyone else besides me ticked? It looks to be a serious error especially for a delicate build like PM modeling.

JJH

[amateur]

Are they interested in other glitches? How'd you like to be the funnel...?

If they are, I may be able to dig up several.

Several people here have experienced the inverted polygon error - and I think it extends possibly to other "enclosed" areas that might be encompassed not by just one inverted polygon but by a set of fixed entities (rectangles) overlapping each other in circular form. (It's made me wonder if something similar could occur with much less complex "enclosures".)

Someone has mentioned observing the "input" of significant excess energy if parts of a model are overlapping by "too much".

I've also had some models that just went "haywire", not unlike the enclosed polygon issue, except that I couldn't spot the enclosed polygon - in one case, it seemed only 1 "tweak" to an existing "calm" model would cause it to exhibit boundless, frantic activity. (Not sure if I kept the particular one I'm thinking of here.)

And if they'd like to generally improve it, it would be nice if it somehow indicated to you _what_ constraint(s) was/were to be ignored, when that error occurs... It seems pretty useless to me to construct a model with much less complexity than some real-world mechanical designs must have and be told that some constraint is going to be ignored if you wish to continue, when the software must certainly know what particular constraint(s) cause the problem, and could no doubt find someway to display the offending entities. (One suggestion - a list allowing you to select from all offending items, and having the editor display them as "selected", when you select them from the list.)

Not to mention the editor which when dragging a group of selected items does _not_ consistently preserve their interrelationships/orientation, but skews them, sometimes a little, sometimes a great deal...

And the components that seem to (in the course of repeated model execution) pick up round-off (or other?) errors involving existing velocity, when you've only started/reset the model (not done a stop/start from here action.) I've not been able to figure out what sequence of events leads to this, and happily haven't seen it for a while, but find myself constantly having to recheck those values in an effort to be sure they're not responsible for some actions I'm observing. (No, nothing useful yet for anyone who is curious, and has read this far.) (Round-off ?) errors (or changes of some sort) also appear to sometimes creap into the placement positions of components within a model, even though the component(s) haven't been moved/adjusted from their original ("snap"ped) placement positions.

And do these errors (or different ones) exist in their other 3D based product as well?

[Jon J Hutton]

You bet I will funnel all the errors to the staff at wm2d. In hopes that some day this puzzle of PM will be solved.

Send me the program causing the error and a description I have been in contact with the owner, programmer and the person in charge of the calculations for wm2d. They do not seem to interested in stealing an idea so I am sure they would cooperate, and hopefully send out revisions as they are fixed.

JJH