Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

[Omnibus]

Let the sim run and settle to it's equilibrium point first using the prescribed methodology and THEN check the center of mass.

Notice that I did not analyze the sim you gave me in it's current starting condition because that was not the equilibrium position.

That's the point -- the sim never settles to it's equilibrium position, the center of mass is always to the right of the rotation axis. If the center of mass is indeed to the right of the axis of rotation and you've made it somehow to get the wheel to an equilibrium position then your conditions are inducing an error and should be abandoned.

[Omnibus]

@mondrasek,

Omnibus, do you see that when these sims do not act as expected I look for errors in the analysis?  And everytime the sim does not behave as expected I have found them?

I don’t agree that you have found them. I’ve always said that your analysis of wm2d isn’t rigorous. Rigorous would be an analysis applying your last approach (summing up the torques) on models that have appeared to work and trying to optimize it. I already said that. This hasn’t been done yet. 

And when I show you how the sim can still be corrected to show the proper (and expected) nature of this wheel you say that should not need to happen?

If the analysis is rigorous there shouldn’t be the disagreement we’re having now. Unfortunately, no rigorous analysis and optimization of Abeling’s device has been shown yet.

I believe you are expecting too much out of this software.  The saying goes, "Garbage in, garbage out."  And with respect to sims, this is true.  Those who use sims successfully have learned the best methods over time.  It has a learning curve.  But, again, please do not make absolute statements ruling out the results.  If you do not understand how they were derived, we are happy to answer your questions.  I am growing tired of having to say you are wrong since you say absolutes rather than ask why or state that something is your opinion, observation, or belief.

Again, there hasn’t been a rigorous analysis shown yet and if you’re getting tired of not being able to supply one that’s another story. The problem with the rigorous analysis cannot go away just like that and instead accept the wishful thinking as the solution.

[Omnibus]

Like I said, the only puzzling thing is why while having the center of mass to the right of the pivot the wheel should turn CCW. That's beside the point, however, because if the wm2d correctly determines the center of mass (which appears to be the case) any possible flaw in the rest of wm2d's performance is a moot point. The decisive factor proving perpetuum mobile is the observed persistent discrepancy in the position of the axis of rotation and the center of mass.

[mondrasek]

not rigorous

Rigorous?

RIGOROUS?

Yet everytime I follow the same methodology.  The same methodology.  The same methodology.

And each time I see the sim resolve to the expected results.  The expected results.  The expected results.

And so I say again:  WM2D works fine, within it's known limitations, and always (ALWAYS) has predicted the correct real world results.

And now when I do a simple static analysis of the torque balance you question that?  And say I do not consider things that are absolutely NOT relevant?

Is this a case of, "He cannot see the forest for the trees?"

I do not know.  But I grow weary of the debate:  I try all of your tests.  You ignore all of mine.

It is like your first instinct is to argue, or contradict, rather than understand.  Or maybe its just me...

[Omnibus]

No, I don't ignore your tests but they haven't been rigorous so far and therefore are not definitive. Not to say that they are at odds with the most important test, namely, the position of the center of mass with respect to the axle. The program seems to be correct on that and it's proving unequivocally this device is a perpetuum mobile, at least in the ideal case. I've repeated this multiple times and I'm saying it again because, unfortunately, you don't want to hear it.