Hello Stewart,
Thank you for the offer. I'm afraid I wouldn't be of much help though. The only suggestion I have would be to match the Latin to the German and look at the difference in meaning and in word count. The Latin should be more accurate since it hasn't changed as much as the German. The caveat is since Bessler's original language was German he translated to Latin. That would mean the Latin is only as good as his (or who ever translated it) ability and desire for accuracy.
Some like to study Bessler and review ideas other's have tried. From the very beginning I have not been in that camp. I have had ideas I would study and if they seemed to make sense I would begin a build. At times before I finished I would stop. I could see it wasn't going to work.
So now I'm at the point of 'what works'? If an idea isn't working there is no sense pursuing it. The Einstein quote, 'Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions.' assumes an honest answer to the question.
People can at times be wrong but you would think the cold, hard calculating power of a simulation would give you an honest answer. I'm not so sure it does. I've built models and simply taking another measurement changes the behavior of the model. That's absurd. Jim made a simulation of something he might have built in his garage and the simulation threw the model light years down the road. That's not possible. It might be perpetual motion is impossible. I've come to the conclusion using wm2d to find an honest answer compounds that impossibility. I am finished using it.
wm2d might work if you're doing a construction and want to calculate dimensions. If I can't use a piece of paper and pencil to calculate the dimensions I'll never know them. I am quite finished using wm2d. I've noticed four flagrant flaws in the software that make me question its ability to accurately portray reality.
Gentlemen, I'm going back to reality. That isn't to say I'm giving up on pmm. I plan on spending my time collecting tools and material that allow me to construct something that's going to give me an honest answer. I think that will work. Trading spit and stories over the internet and building virtual models isn't working. I'm finished pursuing both. This is my next to last post for some time.
Is Force different from Energy ?
Moderator: scott
-
Bessler007
- Aficionado
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:19 am
re: Is Force different from Energy ?
You sound a bit fed up Bessler007, I hope you reconsider your decision to quit the group.
Before you go, could you be more specific :
I personally find WM2D quite useful provided I don't ask too much of it, or my knowledge of the program. I've learned a lot about action, reaction, inertia, and all those nasty forces that conspire against PM.
I wouldn't believe a result other than a real world build however.
Graham
Before you go, could you be more specific :
You say there are FOUR flaws ????I've noticed four flagrant flaws in the software that make me question its ability to accurately portray reality.
I personally find WM2D quite useful provided I don't ask too much of it, or my knowledge of the program. I've learned a lot about action, reaction, inertia, and all those nasty forces that conspire against PM.
I wouldn't believe a result other than a real world build however.
Graham
-
Bessler007
- Aficionado
- Posts: 418
- Joined: Sat Sep 09, 2006 2:19 am
re: Is Force different from Energy ?
graham,
As I mentioned, the movement of the model changes after selecting a part and adding a graph. I've studied models and specifically the movement of a part's cog then wondered about the change in velocity over a certain range. When I add the acceleration graph the movement of the model is entirely different. What I wanted to study becomes an entirely different thing. How do I know which is real?
I was curious about the kinetic energies of two systems so I linked them with rigid bodies. I was considering the ranges of movements of the two. Then I added energy (increased the mass) to one of the systems and the entire range changed. The only way for it to have changed in reality would have been for some serious flexing of the rigid bodies yet there was no big difference in they way the simulation looked. The output of the graphs showed a much different picture.
Just today I was looking at a simple lever with a total torque and force graph. When I doubled the mass both the force and torque graph decreased by 1/3.
The simulator doesn't seem to account for total system inertia. It might do that by tallying the parts but the system cog chart should indicate it. This might not be a serious problem but considering other things I wonder.
You can be sure a real model won't explode into the next galaxy but I've made simulations that did. A little while ago Jim mentioned the same thing. You might think well, of course that isn't real. You can just ignore that sort of result. My question is how do you know there isn't significant error in the simulation that isn't as blatant. I've spotted some things that are more subtle. Where is the lower limit of these errors? Who knows. I think it is a very unreliable tool.
Look at the results of the simulation I just posted. My math might be off but it moves 1/10 of a meter or 3.94 inches in 0.0005 seconds or 7874 in/sec or 656.17 ft/sec or 447.4 miles/hour. Is that real?? From zero to 447.4 miles an hour in .0005 seconds? That is the entire system center of gravity. I was using 20.1 kilos of mass not counting the structure of the mechanism. I didn't show the results at 4 frames or 0.002 seconds but it was off the deck by 6 meters. Good night, that's 6,710 miles an hour! We have lift off!
A couple of years ago I made a small model kind of similar to this same idea. There is a slight difference. That model did seem energetic but not to this extent. It would have killed me. So now I want to spend my efforts to get honest answers. I'm tired of spinning my wheels.
As I mentioned, the movement of the model changes after selecting a part and adding a graph. I've studied models and specifically the movement of a part's cog then wondered about the change in velocity over a certain range. When I add the acceleration graph the movement of the model is entirely different. What I wanted to study becomes an entirely different thing. How do I know which is real?
I was curious about the kinetic energies of two systems so I linked them with rigid bodies. I was considering the ranges of movements of the two. Then I added energy (increased the mass) to one of the systems and the entire range changed. The only way for it to have changed in reality would have been for some serious flexing of the rigid bodies yet there was no big difference in they way the simulation looked. The output of the graphs showed a much different picture.
Just today I was looking at a simple lever with a total torque and force graph. When I doubled the mass both the force and torque graph decreased by 1/3.
The simulator doesn't seem to account for total system inertia. It might do that by tallying the parts but the system cog chart should indicate it. This might not be a serious problem but considering other things I wonder.
You can be sure a real model won't explode into the next galaxy but I've made simulations that did. A little while ago Jim mentioned the same thing. You might think well, of course that isn't real. You can just ignore that sort of result. My question is how do you know there isn't significant error in the simulation that isn't as blatant. I've spotted some things that are more subtle. Where is the lower limit of these errors? Who knows. I think it is a very unreliable tool.
Look at the results of the simulation I just posted. My math might be off but it moves 1/10 of a meter or 3.94 inches in 0.0005 seconds or 7874 in/sec or 656.17 ft/sec or 447.4 miles/hour. Is that real?? From zero to 447.4 miles an hour in .0005 seconds? That is the entire system center of gravity. I was using 20.1 kilos of mass not counting the structure of the mechanism. I didn't show the results at 4 frames or 0.002 seconds but it was off the deck by 6 meters. Good night, that's 6,710 miles an hour! We have lift off!
A couple of years ago I made a small model kind of similar to this same idea. There is a slight difference. That model did seem energetic but not to this extent. It would have killed me. So now I want to spend my efforts to get honest answers. I'm tired of spinning my wheels.
re: Is Force different from Energy ?
Yes 007 I have to agree that it is not wise to always accept what wm2d is showing you. If it doesn't seem right then it's probably not.
I have had many sims that behave in a peculiar manner.
For instance holding a weight against a stop with a spring. For some strange reason if the spring is pretensioned to hold the weight firmly against the stop, the wheel will sometimes rotate in the direction of the pull against the stop.
I have also found that it is not a good idea to move constraints like rigid joints or pin joints around on your sim . Rather you should delete them and create new ones in the new location.
Moving them around and placing them in a new position can have dramatic results like the sim dropping off the screen or exploding when you hit "run".
In spite of all this though I have found it a useful tool that has given me a greater insight into the seemingly immutable laws that stand in the way of PM.
Good luck in the workshop.
Graham
I have had many sims that behave in a peculiar manner.
For instance holding a weight against a stop with a spring. For some strange reason if the spring is pretensioned to hold the weight firmly against the stop, the wheel will sometimes rotate in the direction of the pull against the stop.
I have also found that it is not a good idea to move constraints like rigid joints or pin joints around on your sim . Rather you should delete them and create new ones in the new location.
Moving them around and placing them in a new position can have dramatic results like the sim dropping off the screen or exploding when you hit "run".
In spite of all this though I have found it a useful tool that has given me a greater insight into the seemingly immutable laws that stand in the way of PM.
Good luck in the workshop.
Graham