Tweet
Cheap vs Expensive Simulators
Michael,
IF there is a problem with the simulations by Woopy and Inquorate, it has to do with the "sample rate" of the simulation. There is actually NOTHING happening in these designs that a "full physics" simulator can't model. Boeing and Airbus design and fly whole airplanes in their simulators these days, and when they build them, they WORK PERFECTLY!!!
The trick is to make sure the simulator MODEL is perfectly defined.
The biggest problem with "Working Model 2D" is the 2D part. Every force that falls outside of the flat plane is simply "zeroed" when in reality, may not be zero. Also, short, transient spikes of force may be missed by the sampler timing. Anybody who has studied the SSG project is familiar with these issues.
Michael, I completely disagree with your idea of the best placement for the weights on the wheel. Your placement assumes that GRAVITY is the driving force, which it would be IF you could put the weights where you say they should be. The problem is, GRAVITY will not put the weights where you need them to be for GRAVITY to drive the wheel!
Its a "catch 22".
I discuss my analysis of this problem, in depth, at the beginning of this thread in my article The Mechanical Engine. If you haven't read the article yet, you may wish to review it.
The idea that the weight must move on a "transient excursion" is based on my experience of building more than 40 "working models" of gravity based designs that worked very well, but did not rotate continuously. Careful observation teaches that "gravity alone" is not enough to drive the wheel, and that "another force" must be present, at least periodically, for the system to run. The slightest "off-set", such as an early return of a weight to a more advantageous position, is all it takes to make the system work.
Since both gravity and inertia are considered to be "uniform forces", the best candidate for producing a "non-uniform force" is the centrifugal force from a swinging pendulum. [Ted, yes I know that inertia is not a uniform force under all circumstances, but for this discussion, please indulge me ]
Inquorate's ideas have made me look at this situation again with "fresh eyes" and there may yet be a simple solution that leans on gravity more as the driving force and uses centrifugal force to create the "weight shifting bias".
Keep up the great work, guys!
Peter
Originally posted by Michael John Nunnerley
View Post
Computor simulators are written by humans with a text book education and so in this field they will not give you an exact account of what will happen because they do not take into account the abnormal, they are text book programs, a waste of time.
I find the best way to look at things is like this, imagine a round disc, a clock face, at 12 you want to start the maximum external weight on the disc, at 3 is when this weight has been exhausted, from 3 to 6 is when you need this weight to move to the center axis or as close as possible, at 12 you want this weight at the edge of the disc again so as to start the cycle over again.
Now you have more weights behind the first so part of the energy of the following weights has to be used up to move the preceeding weight to the center of the axis, if this is done then you will have a continual motion. the trick is to design a system, with low friction, to move these weights at 3 to the center of axis before 6 on the clock face
I find the best way to look at things is like this, imagine a round disc, a clock face, at 12 you want to start the maximum external weight on the disc, at 3 is when this weight has been exhausted, from 3 to 6 is when you need this weight to move to the center axis or as close as possible, at 12 you want this weight at the edge of the disc again so as to start the cycle over again.
Now you have more weights behind the first so part of the energy of the following weights has to be used up to move the preceeding weight to the center of the axis, if this is done then you will have a continual motion. the trick is to design a system, with low friction, to move these weights at 3 to the center of axis before 6 on the clock face
IF there is a problem with the simulations by Woopy and Inquorate, it has to do with the "sample rate" of the simulation. There is actually NOTHING happening in these designs that a "full physics" simulator can't model. Boeing and Airbus design and fly whole airplanes in their simulators these days, and when they build them, they WORK PERFECTLY!!!
The trick is to make sure the simulator MODEL is perfectly defined.
The biggest problem with "Working Model 2D" is the 2D part. Every force that falls outside of the flat plane is simply "zeroed" when in reality, may not be zero. Also, short, transient spikes of force may be missed by the sampler timing. Anybody who has studied the SSG project is familiar with these issues.
Michael, I completely disagree with your idea of the best placement for the weights on the wheel. Your placement assumes that GRAVITY is the driving force, which it would be IF you could put the weights where you say they should be. The problem is, GRAVITY will not put the weights where you need them to be for GRAVITY to drive the wheel!
Its a "catch 22".I discuss my analysis of this problem, in depth, at the beginning of this thread in my article The Mechanical Engine. If you haven't read the article yet, you may wish to review it.
The idea that the weight must move on a "transient excursion" is based on my experience of building more than 40 "working models" of gravity based designs that worked very well, but did not rotate continuously. Careful observation teaches that "gravity alone" is not enough to drive the wheel, and that "another force" must be present, at least periodically, for the system to run. The slightest "off-set", such as an early return of a weight to a more advantageous position, is all it takes to make the system work.
Since both gravity and inertia are considered to be "uniform forces", the best candidate for producing a "non-uniform force" is the centrifugal force from a swinging pendulum. [Ted, yes I know that inertia is not a uniform force under all circumstances, but for this discussion, please indulge me
]Inquorate's ideas have made me look at this situation again with "fresh eyes" and there may yet be a simple solution that leans on gravity more as the driving force and uses centrifugal force to create the "weight shifting bias".
Keep up the great work, guys!
Peter
). This shifts the center of mass to the second axis (focus). I think this is a key difference. Peters configuration should develop a true centrifugal phase, which I believe is crucial for success.
Comment