Try upping the world>accuracy>custom - intergration steps at least 300 frames per sec & intergrator error to a couple more decimals places, & use the kutta-Merson intergrator.
That will stop overlap error.
WM2D
Moderator: scott
re: WM2D
Hi,
I work with WM2D Demo and the results are correct in according the accuracy (both step and number of digits chosen). I cannot acquire professional copy because it is very expansive.
Please pay attention because the illegal copies of the software that you can download around Internet give incorrect results! Do not use because your simulation will be wrong and also because using piracy is prohibited by law.
All the best,
tk
I work with WM2D Demo and the results are correct in according the accuracy (both step and number of digits chosen). I cannot acquire professional copy because it is very expansive.
Please pay attention because the illegal copies of the software that you can download around Internet give incorrect results! Do not use because your simulation will be wrong and also because using piracy is prohibited by law.
All the best,
tk
re: WM2D
The original software works joined with an hardware key. Without this hardware key or using an illegal copy the software IMO does not work correctly (intentionally I suppose). I do not know if regards all functions or just a part but I noticed the computation I need is different. The solution to get the proof is to use another software (eg. UM lite from Um Lab is totally free and works correctly, but is quite difficult to use) and verify the results.
At the moment I cannot post an example because it is a simulation of a new idea. In my experience if you try a design that WORKS, before to shout "BINGO" and call your patent lawyer check and check again.
tk
At the moment I cannot post an example because it is a simulation of a new idea. In my experience if you try a design that WORKS, before to shout "BINGO" and call your patent lawyer check and check again.
tk
re: WM2D
The difficult the check WMD2 Demo and WMD2 non demo (but not original) results is that you cannot load files saved with the functional software into the demo! The only thing you can do is make a new design with the demo software and reconstruct the design totally or a part if it is too large.
But all must be the same (size, weights, distances, materials, shapes, accuracy etc.).
If the results are the same, the arrangements of your design are not affect to the software error. If not, would be better test another software.
tk
But all must be the same (size, weights, distances, materials, shapes, accuracy etc.).
If the results are the same, the arrangements of your design are not affect to the software error. If not, would be better test another software.
tk
re: WM2D
There has been a lot of conversation lately regarding WM2D, so I thought I would bring this old topic out of the closet. Some may find the thread useful.
As for me, I am looking for an orthographic projection application that can simulate in 3D or animate XYZ planes. Also someone who knows how to use it and is "Patent" minded rather than free sourcing.
Ralph
As for me, I am looking for an orthographic projection application that can simulate in 3D or animate XYZ planes. Also someone who knows how to use it and is "Patent" minded rather than free sourcing.
Ralph
The best way is to build it.
You could try to simulate it with WM2D as it's a faster process. But as you ask the question here, it seems you first need to learn how to use that program: trial and error works very well.
You could also start a new thread and post an image with some description, and when interesting enough then hopefully it collects some feedback.
You could try to simulate it with WM2D as it's a faster process. But as you ask the question here, it seems you first need to learn how to use that program: trial and error works very well.
You could also start a new thread and post an image with some description, and when interesting enough then hopefully it collects some feedback.
Put a motor on the wheel. Set the motor to rotate in reverse at some low torque, with a time delay to start the motor after the wheel is rotating forward. The motor will act like a load on the wheel. If the wheel can produce enough forward torque to overcome the reverse torque load of the motor, then it shows that your mechanism is producing a positive output.
But be warned, the underlying programing of WM2D is based upon conservation of energy. Thus it (in theory) will never show a positive output for a PM wheel. Some people dispute this and think it would show positive output for a real PM wheel
WM2D is a good tool for figuring out a mechanical arrangement, but not for proving if an idea is PM.
But be warned, the underlying programing of WM2D is based upon conservation of energy. Thus it (in theory) will never show a positive output for a PM wheel. Some people dispute this and think it would show positive output for a real PM wheel
WM2D is a good tool for figuring out a mechanical arrangement, but not for proving if an idea is PM.
re: WM2D
Jim makes a good point there.
As alternatives:
*Let some weight ride the wheel by friction, perhaps pushed onto it with the help of a spring;
*detach the wheel from the background and try to make the whole thing run up a slope;
As alternatives:
*Let some weight ride the wheel by friction, perhaps pushed onto it with the help of a spring;
*detach the wheel from the background and try to make the whole thing run up a slope;
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-
Bill_Mothershead
- Aficionado
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:52 pm
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
re: WM2D
Jim Said:
way you can tell?
And about that "never show a positive output..." , see attached.
I have no idea what is going on. Closest thing to a runner
I have ever seen. But looks absolutely strange.
It seems more likely that it is a bug in the software than
a real PM simulation.
You are right to warn people...
Seeing is believing....except if it is a WM2D simulation.
I don't know about that "based on COE" therory...just a rumor or someBut be warned, the underlying programing of WM2D is based upon conservation of energy. Thus it (in theory) will never show a positive output for a PM wheel. Some people dispute this and think it would show positive output for a real PM wheel
way you can tell?
And about that "never show a positive output..." , see attached.
I have no idea what is going on. Closest thing to a runner
I have ever seen. But looks absolutely strange.
It seems more likely that it is a bug in the software than
a real PM simulation.
You are right to warn people...
Seeing is believing....except if it is a WM2D simulation.
- Attachments
-
- ___10-8-15 circle6 works .wm2d
- (15.34 KiB) Downloaded 99 times
re: WM2D
Bill .. you are using 'Perfect' Spring elements. There are no losses like a normal spring must have i.e. they are perfectly elastic which only happens in a sling shot gravity assist used for speeding up a satellites around a massive body in space.
If you want something more realistic use the Spring Damper element 2 below. This can be adjusted using the dampener to mimic real springs performance.
Secondly your construction does not look to be exact. That means that your very massive center circle and the back ground circle are no zeroed to coordinates (0,0). They are off a bit. Also your springs and ropes are all slightly different positions and lengths.
The up-shot being that it has GPE which oscillates between GPE and RKE. Because you use 'Perfect' springs it gains KE.
Just some suggestions. Most of us users know to swap out parts if we have a runner like yours.
And, yes, there are known bugs that will sometimes give you a false positive. Same applies, swap out parts and construct another way to check the validity of the sim results.
If you want something more realistic use the Spring Damper element 2 below. This can be adjusted using the dampener to mimic real springs performance.
Secondly your construction does not look to be exact. That means that your very massive center circle and the back ground circle are no zeroed to coordinates (0,0). They are off a bit. Also your springs and ropes are all slightly different positions and lengths.
The up-shot being that it has GPE which oscillates between GPE and RKE. Because you use 'Perfect' springs it gains KE.
Just some suggestions. Most of us users know to swap out parts if we have a runner like yours.
And, yes, there are known bugs that will sometimes give you a false positive. Same applies, swap out parts and construct another way to check the validity of the sim results.