W2MD... A great way to build absolutely nothing?

[Tarsier79]

Jim, have you seen a real life example of overunity? If not, how do you know if wm2d can model it?

[bluesgtr44]

It is my opinion that this program would not be able to depict an actual working principle. The version of this program that I have used has a good amount of bugs about it. That, in and of itself, leads me to believe that this program is not advanced enough to see something that it wasn't already programmed see.

I do find this to be a valuable tool to look at some complicated movements and the such to evaluate any value that might be useful. One of those bugs.....create you basic circle and pin it in the center so that it can rotate. Create another smaller circle and drop it inside the larger circle and watch it just take off. Can't remember if it needs to be set to no collision or not.


Steve

[eccentrically1]

programs use the same formulas we do, if there is a formula that obeys the law of perpetual motion anyone knows about that we could program into wm, then post it here.
I imagine since it would be overunity, rather than an equation, it would be a formula with an inequality sign, greater than or less tthan. ke initial is less than ke final. something like that.

[jim_mich]

In a complex mechanical arrangement, you have many forces acting through many different routes. When you throw this at a computer program, there is only one way for the program to resolve and calculate the outcome. The program does not know how fast or slow all the combined components will end up moving. But it does know the relationship from component to component. So the program takes the most recent motion of the components and changes their speeds slightly. Then it looks to see if the total kinetic energy increased or decreased. Note that each component has its own mass that is accelerated or decelerated. The resultant KE of all the components plus any additional input or output, is expected to sum so as to conserve kinetic energy. The computer program keeps making guesses and keeps adjusting the speeds of the components until the KE balances. The whole computation is based upon the assumption of conservation of KE. If the arrangement actually did produce extra KE, (in other words produce forceful PM) the program would never see it because the program starts with known KE, calculate known input of KE, and calculates known output of KE, and balances the motions of all the components to reflect these calculations. A program such as WM2D will never show perpetual motion. It is contrary to how it calculates the motions of the components.

[eccentrically1]

so pm would have to violate the laws of physics,in wm2 or 3 and in the real world.
unless there is a secret formula.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi E1,

KE x 16> - PE

[pequaide]

F = ma is not a secret formula. It is not just computers that cannot think outside the box.

I am afraid that for most; the human brain works the same way. I was pointing out to someone that a cannon fired (at 1000 m/sec added to the earth's 100,000 m/sec) with the motion of the Earth would yield 101,000² m/sec – 100,000² = 201,000,000 joules, but the same bullet fired sideways to the motion of the Earth would yield only one million joules. (100,000² + 1000² m/sec).

He quickly played the frame of reference card, which is the same as claiming that the Earth has no motion through space; and claimed that the energy is constant.

Rather than come out of his comfort zone he denied what we all know: that the Earth is moving very rapidly through space.

Come to think about it; computer programs perform the same trick. The programmer tells it what conclusions to draw and then sights the computer for support of his theory.

The change in momentum of the bullet is constant no matter what direction. But that does not correspond with the professor's theories.

[eccentrically1]

and theprogram would show the momentum of the cannon is also constant, in the opposite direction.
as it should! because that's what the other formula in the program says the real world does.
trevor, what does your formula refer to there?

[pequaide]

Good point: I have heard that on a battleship the ship itself recoils; 12 feet I recall. But this is another example that nature never conserves motion energy; only the momentum on both ends of the cannon are equal not the energy. Its F = ma.

[eccentrically1]

12 feet might be for the cannon, the ship doesn't recoil that much.
there are lots of examples that have been done that show the energy is also conserved in force pairs.
as there should be. because it always is. If your experiment or sim is showing final energy is greater than initial energy then you did something wrong. a great way to build absolutely nothing except machines that would perform like they would in the real world, if you understand wm2.

[rlortie]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16%22/50_c ... Mark_7_gun

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi E1,

the formula is the minimum numbers of levers require (16) to gain more kinetic energy into a wheel mounted lever system than the kinetic energy required to reset the system. You cannot just through 16 lever onto a wheel to do this, they need to be strategically placed to reduce the negative imbalance of the fallen levers. Note the leverage gain needs to be store and then channelled back to drive the wheel with a greater torque. As my preferred means to do this is known hydraulics systems the system needs to be primed first. It also means I will never get to build them, so when I release a video it has to be right.

I am currently working on adding lever wheels to the geared balance to better balance a greater number of lever wheels. I am only modelling them for now by locking the levers in there fallen position and seeing how much weight is needed to move the system to the next fall, I have already achieved positive results and will wait to post a video to show the comparison between the different mounting options.

Edit, my thinking is there are more ways to balance wheels than there are to unbalance wheels, and falling levers can produce good torque so tap it and use it.

[pequaide]

Suppose you have a moving bola or stick experiment where you change the mass distribution about the center of mass while motion is maintained. Five units of mass on one side and 5 on the other; then 9 units of mass on one side and 1 on the other, etc.

Then you tell your WM2D to do what Jupiter and the Sun do; what the Earth and the Moon do; and what a baseball bat does when it is flipped in the air; which is to maintain linear Newtonian momentum on both sides of the center of mass.

I assume your program will crash and burn. Because you have not programed it to accept what real world physical events do.

[Grimer]

In a complex mechanical arrangement, you have many forces acting through many different routes. When you throw this at a computer program, there is only one way for the program to resolve and calculate the outcome. The program does not know how fast or slow all the combined components will end up moving. But it does know the relationship from component to component. So the program takes the most recent motion of the components and changes their speeds slightly. Then it looks to see if the total kinetic energy increased or decreased. Note that each component has its own mass that is accelerated or decelerated. The resultant KE of all the components plus any additional input or output, is expected to sum so as to conserve kinetic energy. The computer program keeps making guesses and keeps adjusting the speeds of the components until the KE balances. The whole computation is based upon the assumption of conservation of KE. If the arrangement actually did produce extra KE, (in other words produce forceful PM) the program would never see it because the program starts with known KE, calculate known input of KE, and calculates known output of KE, and balances the motions of all the components to reflect these calculations. A program such as WM2D will never show perpetual motion. It is contrary to how it calculates the motions of the components.

The above, and your previous post with the same theme earlier in the thread
has made me glad I've always been suspicious of WM2D and consequently never used it.

Thanks Jim.

[Tarsier79]

WM2D is a tool, which is very usefull, providing you use it correctly and in context. I have learnt a lot from it, so for me it has been an advantage.

I encourage anyone who thinks they can learn from simulations to do so. But make sure you test against real world builds, and understand the reactions and forces involved.