Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[AquariuZ]

It's hard for me to say this but you are completely wrong.

No he's not.

Peace

[AquariuZ]

Who are you calling an old fart? Just how old are you?

I am twelve years old and broke into my daddys office to access overunity.com

You?

[AquariuZ]

Never mind

[mondrasek]

I’m still not sure the solution isn’t a matter of optimization rather than getting into the accuracy limits.

One of the things that is very easy to see that may help all visualize the effects of proper Integration Error in WM2D.  Please take the file below.  It has a flat surface onto which two spheres fall.  One sphere is small, the other is relatively large.  I have started with an Integration Error of .3.  When you run this you will see both spheres fall, bounce, and come to rest.  They come to rest with a portion of the spheres *below the surface*.  This interference is allowed by the high Integration Error.  If you look closely, you will see that they both interfere the same distance or depth into the surface.  So even though the depth of interference is the same the % of the small sphere in interference with the surface is much greater than that of the large sphere.  This causes the difference in results seen with identical models with different Integration Errors.  It also illustrates why smaller Integration Errors are necessary when working with smaller model elements.

Now decrease the Integration Error to the default 0.01m, run, and observe.  Identical interference depths for both spheres, but now much less depth.

Decrease the Integration Error to .0001.  Interference depths decreasing.  Less error.  More accuracy.

Yes, as you decrease Integration Error and Animation Step the sim runs slower.  It is requiring more calculations per second of animation.  And your computer may not be able to calculate and render the results at anything near real time.  This is a limitation of your CPU (and GPU), not the sim.  If you need to "see" an effect in real time, this can become a problem.  But you can always use measurement window graphs instead of trying to "watch" for something.  Also, simplify the model.  Why look at interactions of 8 balls and slots when only two are needed?  So, yes, optimization is always a consideration.

M.

[hansvonlieven]

Let me mention once again. The vertical you've drawn is to the left of the vertical passing through the constantly changing its position center of mass of the system. It is that second vertical that you should use in setting up your inequality.That's a remark in addition to the difference-in-constraints remark and to what Stefan said.

Incorrect. When calculating torque in a system such as this the only thing of relevance is the distance between the centre of gravity of the individual weight to the fulcrum measured along the x-axis. The centre of gravity of the entire device is a resultant of all masses present.

The whole idea of having the weights run on a excenter is as old as the hills. There are hundreds of variations that have been tried, none if them have worked for very obvious reasons.

You can use all kinds of fancy mathematics to show that there is a surplus like that idiot that wrote the paper for Milkovic. In the end only the correct mathematical procedure will give correct results.

Hans von Lieven