Simulation Software - Any good?

[justabil]

I meant to include this in yesterday's post.

Having virtually no mechanical skills, I am considering using the simulation software that some of you use (and post screen shots from).

1) Are they any good (ie can they really give a clear indication of how a device will behave)?
2) Are they terribly difficult to learn how to use (Do I have to be an engineer)?
3) Is there more than one package, and which do you recommend? And where can I find it?

As usual, thanks in advance to all that respond.

Bill

[Ed]

Quickly here are two. First one is free and the second has a free demo and is the one most used around here.

http://www.silux.com/

http://workingmodel.design-simulation.c ... /index.php

You don't need to be an engineer to use these, but they are going to be more difficult to use than MS Paint. You also need to build up an understanding of how simulation software works before you can really get a "clear indication" of how any particular model will work. Meaning you need to know when the results match reality or they are wrong for some reason (i.e. settings, bugs in software, etc.)

[justsomeone]

Justabil, There is also respected members that would confidently take your design and simulate it for you in a program. Steve ( bluegtr44 ) is
one that comes to mind.

[jimmyjj]

There are some good engineering programs available on some torrent sites. I have heard that you cah get e copy of visualnastran 4d on demonoid.com although its a little hard to get in there.
Personally i am looking for a 3d simulation program and they're doesnt seem to be many around and they don't seem especially easy to use. I was hoping the new inventor would show more promise but it seems to have some problems with collisions although it does have a gravity simulation feature.Its also possible to export designs from solidworks, inventor, catia, pro engineer to visual nastran 4d. I have only used an old evaluation version which you could not save files in and have not tried any other.

[greendoor]

Seriously - although there are many fan boys of software modeling here, there are some very valid reasons to avoid software at all costs.

The nature of this Bessler quest is that what we are trying to achieve is diametrically opposed to the conventional understanding of the established "laws" of physics. (Note that I am not saying it is opposed to the actual laws of physics - just to the current conventional understanding and application of the theory).

I believe the whole subject of 'Energy' as a concept was tainted right from the start with assumptions. Look into the history - the concept of E = 1/2*MV^2 is not intuitive nor does it model reality. (Nothing can travel at Velocity Squared - so this is a mathematical abstraction, not a direct model of reality).

The current maths for Energy represent an 'accounting system' that is useful when applied correctly - but it is not a pure axiom-based reality, and is firmly based on some 'assumptions'. The foremost 'assumption' is that perpetual motion is impossible. Thus the circular logic is reinforced.

ALL software modeling is going to be based on current Energy maths, because peer pressure and current education insists that these are the "laws", even for the cases where they don't fit.

Since we are looking for the thing that the academics have missed for centuries, it does not seem wise to look with the same mathematical models.

There is also the very real probability that you will be confused by bugs and quirks of the software. WM2D has created dozens of "running wheels" due to bugs. Once you understand how the concepts of Momentum and the Energy are not always compatible, you will see that this must be a nightmare for programmers to code. Ultimately the maths must fail, and that means errors.

If you have missed this idea until now - consider this paradox:

Momentum is a conserved quantity. That means, if we transfer the momentum of a heavy mass to a smaller mass, the smaller mass has to speed up to avoid losing momentum. This is demonstrated in a Newtons Cradle with dissimilar-mass balls. True science.

But if E=1/2*MV^2, and the velocity goes up - then very obviously Energy goes up. That blows a hole in the theory that kinetic energy is conserved. Well actually, there is no such thing as the "law of conservation of kinetic energy" ... and yet we are totally brainwashed into believing that this is the case. That is what software models! IMO it can't be correct (for all situations, especially if we have any chance of replicating Bessler).

There are several people who have pointed out this paradox, but this is not a popular opinion. Most scientists would rather shoot themselves than question the existance of the Energy god.

[Ed]

I suppose the professional engineering field is full of fanboys too? Since many of these areas incorporate the use of these tools in product design and testing. I understand your thinking that something like this may not show up in a simulation, but it's likely it will. Even so, as I have said in the past, it should be used as a tool and nothing more. I agree it is foolish to rely only on simulation to test your builds, but there are members here that have made huge expensive builds only to find out they don't work. Many of these builds could have been shown how they would have worked in a few minutes on the computer with the right knowledge. I would never advocate not building but it seems there are many mechanical fanboys around as well.

[Wubbly]

I believe the whole subject of 'Energy' as a concept was tainted right from the start with assumptions. Look into the history - the concept of E = 1/2*MV^2 is not intuitive nor does it model reality. (Nothing can travel at Velocity Squared - so this is a mathematical abstraction, not a direct model of reality).

I hear you ... and how exactly do you square time?

You can't possibly live life at time squared.

So the formula D = 1/2*AT^2 must also be a mathematical abstraction, not a direct model of reality ;> ;> ;>[/quote]

[jim_mich]

You can't possibly live life at time squared.

Ah... Times Square! New York City. It was December 31, 1995 New Years Eve. The temperature was cold, maybe 15ºF as we left what is now the Millennium UN Plaza Hotel directly across from the UN building at 7:15PM and walked the 1-1/8 miles to Times Square. We dressed real warm with double socks and warm boots, sweaters and winter coat, warm gloves and knit cap to pull over our ears to keep warm. We arrived at Times Square just before the police started barricading it off as being full. It was about 8PM and the street party was just getting started! Four hours we stood and danced in the street waiting for midnight and the big ball to drop. Times Square was not designed for street parties. One little pizza shop near where we stood was doing a booming business because only if you bought a slice of pizza would they let you use their rest-rooms. We were just a few hundred feet from Dick Clark up on a scaffold platform right in the middle of Times Square. By midnight the temperature had dropped to about 4ºF but me and the wife kept each other warm. At midnight the ball dropped and the confetti flew! That was a once in a life-time night to remember as we celebrated the new baby year 1996 in Times Square! The next morning we had breakfast brought to our hotel room.

Sorry, what were we talking about? You say I misunderstood what you said?

[beapilot]

Jim,

1995 was pretty long ago, almost 15 years ago. You must really loved that experience. Also, nice story but I guess it is not yet that chilly out in USA to fit a better imaginary experience into the story. Times Square, I never been to NYC. Wow, in 1995, I learned to ride my bike on two wheels. Neat how we remember such stuff.

Joshua

[winkle]

Justabil, There is also respected members that would confidently take your design and simulate it for you in a program. Steve ( bluegtr44 ) is
one that comes to mind.

i wonder what would happen if somebody got another somebody to model a design and it actually was a runner

brings poor ol Sanches to mind

Sanches robed the bank and took off with $30,000

the sheriff and his posse chased Sanches down on Padro's farm

the sheriff spoke no Spanish and Sanches spoke no english Padro spoke both

the sheriff told Padro to tell Sanches if he didn't tell them where the money was they were going to hang him right here right now

Padro passed that along to Sanches

Sanches told Padro the money was behind a rock in the wall of the well

Padro turned to the sheriff and told him Sanches said the sheriff could go to hell he would never tell where the money was


nah that couldn't happen

[winkle]

first time i was in NY
wouldn't say i liked it much
i was driving down the hi way and saw a bare car frame setting beside the road
when i got to where i was going i ask the guy how does that kind of thing wind up setting on the road side
he told me that NY is like the jungle
the lion kills something takes what he wants then the jackals come out and strip everything to the bone
the thief steals a car takes what he wants then the jackals take the rest
i'm standing there thinking what the hell kind of place is this strip a car to the bare frame

[tomfleet]

Momentum is a conserved quantity. That means, if we transfer the momentum of a heavy mass to a smaller mass, the smaller mass has to speed up to avoid losing momentum. This is demonstrated in a Newtons Cradle with dissimilar-mass balls. . . . But if E=1/2*MV^2, and the velocity goes up - then very obviously Energy goes up. That blows a hole in the theory that kinetic energy is conserved.

Um, pardon me, but is there anyone out there who, with some physics background, or even with zero physics background, takes issue with the above statement? Is it just me--I'm afraid I can't believe what I'm reading--or what? (Or is the statement elliptical and I am missing the finer nuances?) I don't mean to provoke, I am just, um, puzzled to see the above statement. I'm -not- taking on a debate over whether conventional assumptions are ultimate truth or not, I'm only taking issue with the inference drawn: To my eyes, it's just not so that "very obviously Energy goes up"--because M is different. Ok, maybe someone can tell me what I'm not seeing. Thanks,

[jim_mich]

Yes, it's true that energy goes up. For instance, start with a 4 kg weight moving at a speed of 3. When its total momentum is transferred to a 2 kg weight then the 2 kg weight will be moving at a speed of 6. In the first instance the KE would be 1/2 × 4 × 3^2 = 18. In the second instance the KE would be 1/2 × 2 × 6^2 = 36. Thus there there is a gain of kinetic energy while momentum is conserved.

Most people are brainwashed into thinking that "energy" is always conserved. Such is just not true. Kinetic energy is NOT some energy that a moving object has or holds. Rather kinetic energy is energy that comes about when two object meet at different speeds. Harnessing kinetic energy between objects of different speeds has been a source of perpetual motion ideas for hundreds of year. Since no one has been able to demonstrate a working device based on such concepts science reasons that it is impossible. Such a PM device needs to transfer momentum from one moving object to a second moving object and then use the gained KE to do work as the second object is slowed down. Then the system must reset in some way so that it can repeat. All the while the momentum must be conserved.

I feel strongly that it can be done.

[tomfleet]

Hi Jim, Thanks for clarifying. I think the underlined statement, referring to plain "Energy", is incorrect as stated, but I overlooked the succeeding reference to kinetic energy and I understand the point now.
Tom

[tomfleet]

Nothing about the examples given suggests that energy--Energy--is not conserved. There's some jumping between the different concepts energy and kinetic energy that's confusing. Greendoor's example isn't startling at all from a traditional physics point of view. And, Jim, I'm afraid I don't agree that most people are brainwashed to assume that kinetic energy is always conserved.
Tom