I posted in http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1763.msg26525.html#msg26525 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1763.msg26525.html#msg26525) about (what is for me at least) a new idea that folows on from Mikovic's system. I thought that rather than cluter up the Mikovic thread I would start a new one, so here it is.
Examining the Mikovic arrangement and modelling it in wm2d I noticed that if the balance beam is free to rotate then there are periods in the oscillation of the system where latching the pendulum to the balance beam would increase the momentum. Basically, I began to see that we could increase the energy in a system not by investing more energy into it but by putting on the brakes, as it were.
For a more detailed explaination take a look at http://declarepeace.org.uk/jhula/ (http://declarepeace.org.uk/jhula/)
If someone has time to reduce the size of the animated .gif I have linked from that page then I would be most grateful.
What ideas do you have on a braking system - both with regard to extracting power and minimizing wear? This is very similar to Mikovic's device (I still believe it is equivalent to a double pendulum) as two measured positions are needed to the trigger (lock, in the case of Jhula) the pendulum.
Sadly, regenerative braking would not be suitable for latching this system since at the point when you want to engage the brake the pendulum is not moving with respect to the counterweight. So the latch/unlatch mechanism would simply be used to increase the momentum in the system and energy would be extracted from the counterweight axle. Or at least that is how it appears to me at this stage. There may be other parts of the cycle where regenerative braking could be used (where the pendulum has greater angular momentum than the counterweight) but I believe that the main driving force is in taking advantage of the asymmetric centre of mass when it occurs in our favour.
I predict that there comes a speed beyond which we can no longer increase the momentum because the pendulum will be flung out to its maximum extent whilst it is rising against gravity. To extract energy we might use regenerative braking to keep the machine operating in the RPM band between that maximum and the point where the counterweight is swinging rather than spinning.
Oooh, this is getting really fun! I have just added a very rudimentary latching system to Jhula and it looks excellent. I have attached a wm2d model for anyone who would like a preview. I want to tidy it up somewhat before making an .avi and animated .gif and posting them to the website.
The model breaks eventually (something that wm2d isn't handling correctly) but it works better than I had expected with this rough model.
Here is a screenshot of the graphs and a new model with a redesigned latch. I am still experimenting but I guess I should do a neater job of the latching system. The output is rather extraordinary and I don't feel entirely confident that wm2d handles polygons well but it looks good.
Hi!
I've been skimming over the threads on Mikovic and now Jhula. I just came to me this morning that what you're looking for is what we might have known all along since we were kids.
Do you remember playing on a swing? There is a way of somehow maintaining the momentum by shifting one's weight on the swing and extending or retracting one's legs. Seems to be very simple.
I'm not into this very seriously. I'm working in an office, but I stumbled on this forum and just got very interested. I don't know if I'll every be able to do the experiments here since I don't have the skills...for now.
God bless you!
Teddy :)
Similar to swinging, Teddy, but swings don't generally swing themselves. As you say, you have to shift your weight and that takes some energy to do. Jhula may be able to swing itself once it is started and the hope is that there will be a way for the mikovic device to feed energy from its output back into its pendulum. I'm glad you're interested.
Hello Prajna,
Just a suggestion. It might be better if you could convert your AVI to MP4 or flash so they download faster. That's if you have the software, but GIF and AVI is fine.
Teddy
Hi all,
I have simulated the latches on the lever and on the pendulum by two motors.
The motor on the pendulum simulates hte latch that only make it move clockwise and block it when it want to go anticlockwise. The power on this motor is the power that we could obtain by extractin power from the latch.
The motor on the lever makes it move only anticlockwise. The power generated when it want to go clockwise is measured as well.
Here is a graphic and the model
xnonix, that is fantastic! I am still not entirely sure how you worked out the formula but it certainly seems to work. I am a little dissapointed that there does not seem to be as much acceleration as I had hoped. I added a rotation graph for the counterweight and the slope seems pretty flat to me (except during periods when the system seems to find a 'sweet spot'). I had hoped that graph might curve upwards.
In the graphics: the latch torque of the lever an pendulum shows you when the latch is on. When is 0 the system is free.
About the formulas they are easy to explain...
If i want a force +F when the body(x) is rotating clockwise:
F * (Body(x).v.r > 0)
the part (Body(x).v.r > 0) is a conditional that is 1 when is true and 0 When is false.
Something like this is what i did on the two motors to simulate the latches. The system seems to work.
Now let's make it in reality.
Yes, nothing is more convincing than something that works in real life. :) It looks like it should be very easy to build. I am still playing around with designs to find out the optimum relationship between the counterweight and pendulum mass, the length of the pendulum and the position of the two bearings. Small adjustments in any of these seem to make quite a difference in how it performs.
Hmmmm....interesting. I have used WM2D for quite awhile now. I do not trust the polygon functions very much and try to avoid them. I also believe that if one was to build this that they would find the 3rd deminsion kicking in and it would take away from the system in the form of attempting to also oscillate in and out. I downloaded your set ups and increased the air resistance to what I would think are more realistic levels. The first one made two revolutions and died....you had air resistance set to "none", I changed it to the default low setting of .3....the second one you had a low setting of .07, I raised that to .2 and this made the set up more erratic, but it did keep going and maintain an increase. I feel this was in part due to the use of the polygon function in WM2D...I just don't have a lot of faith in it.
Draw a circle or disk about 4ft. in diameter.....pin it in the center and then use the curved polygon function and draw another circle of 1ft. in diameter. Set the two to "collide" and then set the polygon circle inside the regular circle. Hit RUN! This thing will accelerate itself to oblivion! Why? My understanding is that the polygon circle thinks it is on the outside of the circle and rolling off....it just keeps trying to roll off....a software glitch...one reason why I do not trust them....
Steve
Yes, I notice glitches too, Steve; sudden accelerations. I have noticed that there are a number of parameters that need to be balance. It seems to be a balanced unbalance that makes this system work. :)
My apologies, Prajna....I do not think this system will work at all. My main point was....there is no 3rd deminsion in WM2D. Very much like Milkovich, the pendulum is going to want to go backwards and forwards to stop the motion....gravity always wants to win. Think about it, a constant downward force will utilize any means to achieve that point of rest. Even if you try to brace it, this produces friction in the hard mechanics of the system and decreases the output and the whole thing comes to a stop.
Steve
hey prajna,
I modified the lever and pendulum masses. Now it works with an air resistence of 0.3 or more.
I only take reads of rotational speed in this case.
Have fun!
@xnonix: That is fantastic. I think that there is further optimisation to do in terms of biasing the system so that disadvantageous forces from the pendulum are reduced and advantageous forces increased. This is a matter of slowing the pendulum at the correct moment so that its maximum swing force (cetrifugal force) is alligned at 90 degrees or less to the centerline of the counterweight. It is all a matter of timing. We have got it half right with the latching mechanism at present.
@bluesgtr44: You are right, gravity does always want to win but here we are playing off centrifugal force against gravity and gravity wants to win over not one but two centres of mass that are tied together and oscillating about each other. When gravity adds momentum to the system we accept its effort gratefully and when it is being a nuisance we trade some angular momentum to counter its effects. That is the principle that we are aiming at here. We are basically swapping energy from one part of the system to another and looking for a formula that will allow us to always move the energy 'uphill'. That is a matter of timing the maximum centrifugal force so that it is at a useful angle to the overcentre of the two bearings and so that it seldom occurs when the pendulum is more in-line with the axis of the counterweight. That timing can be effected by retarding the pendulum swing at favourable moments. Sure, we lose a little momentum on the pendulum but we have traded that for applying that force at a greatly advantageous point.
You are also right that there was no (or very little) air resistance in the model but when we are examining the effect on a theoretical basis it is considerably easier to see if we have a net gain of momentum if such energy sinks are removed from the system. Yes, a practical system will have to take air resistance (and many other factors) into account but a theoretical model is considerably simpler when we leave them out.
The latching system is good enough as is now. We know the system is accelerating. We can construct it in real with easy off the shelves parts and no logic.
We need the mechanism (2 of them) of the rear wheel of a bike to construct it.
One aplication for fun:
xnonix, I'm very impressed! Nice model. Sure we have acceleration at present and we are using straight mechanics with no other logic but does it not appear to you that there is a heap more energy available from this system if we can increase the asymmetry? We capture a little more of the gavitic effect on one side of our cycle than the other but there is a strong centrifugal force that sometimes adds tons of angular momentum to the system and sometimes robs it of an equal amount. Perhaps there is a simple mechanical way to bias this equasion too.
xnonix, I've taken your model, dropped it to the floor and reset all the velocities to zero. It still works after that dreadful abuse :) and shows acceleration.
I've updated http://declarepeace.org.uk/jhula/ (http://declarepeace.org.uk/jhula/). Playing around with new simulations has produced a variety of very interesting models. Some show chaotic run-away acceleration. It looks like this is a runner. Is anyone building out there? All you need are a couple of bicycle rear axles and some weights. I would advise adding a braking system as well since this machine does appear to accelerate to destruction.
It looks good!
I would encourage you to give some construction details. I'm sure there will be people interested in builing it. It would be valuable for you their feedback.
Regards.
barbosi, there is nothing particularly important in terms of construction; weights and measurements are not critical. Some first approximations are avaiable from the WM2D models (you can download a trial version from their website, linked from my page). The device simply consists of two pendulums, one connected to a fixed point via a one-way hub (like you find as the rear axle of nearly all bicycles) and the second pendulum similarly connected to the first. I believe that there is enough information on my website for any moderately competant mechanic or engineer to assemble a device. Obviously some experimentation will be needed to get the best out of any device.
I'll do it later this evening, mramos. I look forward to hearing how you get on. Meanwhile, if you look at the two connections on the model (marked contraint motor) they are actually freehubs (bile back axles). One connects a pendulum to a frame and the other connects the second pendulum to the first.
Cool. Sure it runs in the simulator but the weights are set extremely high to overcome air resistance. Quite how it will work in practice I am not sure yet. The first version (really xnonix's version) seems to be a little too stable but we haven't really found out what makes a successful version yet. Most versions will run if you take air resistance out or increase the weights so that it is not a significant factor. All we can do is experiment. I have been experimenting with sims and most of them run; some go completely off the scale and some run even with a really high air resistance (think of it in terms of load on the system). I can't say what are the optimum ratios, weights or measurements, it will take experimentation in real life to find out.
Ok, here is a drawing with some labels...
It doesn't even have to be that sophisticated. Something similar to xnonix's version should be fine. Experiment with the various parameters (positions of freewheels, weights, lengths. I will try to get one working with two simple blocks like the counterweight in the first version and xnonix's mod. When building, though, it is likely that people will come up with their own engineering solutions so that they can adjust weight, length etc.
It rotates around the pivot. Look at the animation.
Living in the UK, mramos. Not visiting the US. Police state. Sick country. UK is bad enough. Don't want to be treated as a criminal and terrorist just for travelling. Sorry. When you dudes get Bush and Cheney to fess up and drop all this international terrorism then I might consider it.
.
.
.
Ok builders, here is a very simple version of Jhula; somewhere to begin.
1. The crank axle is fixed to some solid point: a wall, frame or stand etc.
2. The crank is free to rotate anti-clockwise about its axle.
3. The pendulum axle is fixed to the crank.
4. The pendulum is free to rotate clockwise about its axle.
If you grab the freewheel hub (freehub) from a bike you can use it as the axle. The chain sprocket is able to turn anti-clockwise with respect to the rest of the hub but not clockwise. So fix the crank to the sprocket and the hub to a fixed point. Take another freehub. Fix the sprocket to the crank and fix the pendulum to the hub.
What are the appropriate sizes? I don't really know. I would suggest that you make the crank and pendulum as heavy as you think the hubs will withstand; remembering that they will be rotating so you will have to take into account the centrifugal forces involved and that the crank hub will have to handle the combined forces of the crank and the pendulum.
What lengths? I haven't found an ideal yet. There is a relationship between the period of the pendulum (how long it takes to swing from one extent to the other) and the distance between the two axles. Different combinations will behave differently. The machine will run overunity when the acceleration due to gravity is greater than the decelleration due to friction.
post the wm2d file please
Here is the wm2d...
thanks
They could use this to move the shuttle to the launch pad. (c: Looks like a jerky ride - things might shake apart?
Hey Prajna and Co.
I have reworked the latch system coz I didn't trust the motors approach.
Now the system is motor free. You can observe by yourserlve how the latching is made (now is real latching). Is all less complex and now the system obey physics laws, so it STOPS. :-[ :'(
There is a glitch in the program in error metrics management that made the motors give little impulses that we cannot appreciate in the movement.
Here you are the wm2d file to test it.
Sorry to all for the bad news,
xnonix
Well let me just start by saying "beautiful simulation"!
I went and uglied it up, but the good news is it works.
I removed the pendulum lock and added leftward leverage.
It's still not 100% efficient but its pretty damn close...
Once again the spring is acting like a flywheel storing energy...
So once you add a load its going to stop fairly quickly.
It would make a hell of a conversation piece though!
(I want one for my desk at work)
~Dingus Mungus
Cool. Could you post the sim, Dingus?
I already know I'm going to lose a week to replicating
this sim starting from a dead stop... I think its possible.
Just need to beef up the spring and ballance the arm.
~Dingus Mungus
Thanks Dingus. Sorry I didn't notice it above the jpeg.
Dingus, that is a splendid machine. Very simple and elegant. I am a little confused about the rigid joint on the pendulum axle (the counterweight axle just stops it turning counter-clockwise, yes?)
It will be interesting to analyse and to fiddle with parameters. Have you found that weights etc. are critical?
Not really my design per say, just an improvement...
The original design was xnonix's and I was just fixing a bug I saw.
EDIT: Yes, the lock only prevents clockwise movement, and weights and such
are important as the device is pretty close to perfect mechanical resonance.
Definitely change stuff up though! We need to see this thing accelerate!
Thats the only way to extract anything useful from it...
Thanks again to xnonix for the original design.
~Dingus Mungus
HA! About 20 minutes in to the sim the lever
falls out of its beat harmonic but gains energy!
Half hour run time has got me excited! ;D
Yup. Not only that but you can change the weight of the pendulum and it still works. I will have a play with pendulum length and the bracket length too and see what happens.
What you seem to have done with the spring is to bias the over-centre to one side; just what was needed. I'll play some more. Very exciting.
Quote from: prajna on June 01, 2007, 09:25:49 AM
Yup. Not only that but you can change the weight of the pendulum and it still works. I will have a play with pendulum length and the bracket length too and see what happens.
What you seem to have done with the spring is to bias the over-centre to one side; just what was needed. I'll play some more. Very exciting.
:o You may not need to... ;D
Scratch that last post... The sim stopped after about 4 minutes.
Add a rotational load though! Good way to simulate power
extraction when your improving on the design.
:o (again!)
I hope this works even half as well in real life as it does in this sim.
Free energy via an unbalanced gavity wheel would be pretty neat!
(I really hope this isn't a glitch of some sort...)
Well Dingus, I just shortened the pendulum and increased its weight slightly. Excellent result; it just keeps going. We already have some load in terms of air resistance.
wm2d starts to look like a prophet of the free energy age, eh? :)
let's hope nobody closes wm2d company after some of you recover a working free energy device... If gravity is really the same as DC current flowing from ground to sky... Then I believe there should be no problems creating a free energy device... probably if wm2d shows a constant movement..in reality it can turn into acceleration. :) (just a bit of fantasy, sorry :)
Well acceleration (and decelleration) are limited in this machine. It operates in a band between the two. So long as it has enough momentum to pass the over-centre point it runs (that is the minumum speed). If it accelerates too much then it gets out of sync and slows again.
WM2D is fab. I wish it handled magnetic forces too; then it would be awesome.
I wonder - can anyone try to replicate machine presented on now gone www.newenergymachine.com with WM2D? At least to the point of sustaining oscillation like in the last model above.
Here is a new simplified version of Jhula. You'll notice from the graphs that it accelerates up to its operating speed and then sits there in a stable speed range.
why is Air Resistance set to None?
Oops, it was not meant to be. I must have set it as a default before creating the new model. I'll sort it for the next version. The previous one had air resistance set. Thanks for pointing it out.
Did no one catch the fact that I'm extracting useful wattage in the last sim I posted???
I ran it for over 20 minutes before I paused the simulation and went to bed!
It doesn't appear to want to stop even when under a constant load...
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D2138.0%3Battach%3D9308%3Bimage&hash=dbf8634c6ece09e91767af5461253da0cd6be373)
I'm just really suprised this is getting so little attention thus far...
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on June 01, 2007, 09:37:35 PM
Did no one catch the fact that I'm extracting useful wattage in the last sim I posted???
I ran it for over 20 minutes before I paused the simulation and went to bed!
It doesn't appear to want to stop even when under a constant load...
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overunity.com%2Findex.php%3Faction%3Ddlattach%3Btopic%3D2138.0%3Battach%3D9308%3Bimage&hash=dbf8634c6ece09e91767af5461253da0cd6be373)
I'm just really suprised this is getting so little attention thus far...
thanks! i missed that for some reason i just saw the .jpg format.
peace
HI Dingus:
I have been peeking this thread and I find amazing that you have managed to get a perpetual motion in WM2D, but I have not had much time to give it a thorough check. I am thankfull for your efforts. Please keep going, I'll have more time next week and then I will try to provide more feedback
Regards.
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on June 01, 2007, 09:37:35 PM
Did no one catch the fact that I'm extracting useful wattage in the last sim I posted???
I ran it for over 20 minutes before I paused the simulation and went to bed!
It doesn't appear to want to stop even when under a constant load...
I'm just really suprised this is getting so little attention thus far...
This is a really great result! I believed even Newtonian physics may allow it, and it seems your model is exactly this case. (though, I still have a hope in Milkovic device).
Now you'll only need to reduce the size of this device and increase mass of each element - and you'll be able to get much higher frequencies and bigger output load.
I've also noticed that the device accelerates a bit - maybe by 2% near the end, but that's huge compared to stopping. :) (maybe that's just a lack of resolution)
You didn't post the sim, Dingus, only a jpg. I am trying to reproduce the system from scratch but the new one doesn't seem to be OU. What is the t<0 formula you have used on the pendulum joint?
Quote from: prajna on June 02, 2007, 06:22:29 AM
You didn't post the sim, Dingus, only a jpg. I am trying to reproduce the system from scratch but the new one doesn't seem to be OU. What is the t<0 formula you have used on the pendulum joint?
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=2138.0;attach=9306
You are using results from an intersting programm. Can you tell me more about that or where can I find one?
Quote from: cyberdust on June 02, 2007, 03:56:54 PM
You are using results from an intersting programm. Can you tell me more about that or where can I find one?
http://hackersclub.net/unity/download.php?view.5
:)
Thank you, I'll try it. I hope it'll easy to learn.
Quote from: prajna on June 02, 2007, 06:22:29 AM
You didn't post the sim, Dingus, only a jpg. I am trying to reproduce the system from scratch but the new one doesn't seem to be OU. What is the t<0 formula you have used on the pendulum joint?
You can delete that joint... it means its only rigid if time<0, aka never.
Quote from: prajna on June 02, 2007, 06:22:29 AM
I am trying to reproduce the system from scratch but the new one doesn't seem to be OU.
Heres a new example:
Only 6 feet tall and it averages 32 RPM...
I'm currently working on an even further scaled
down realistic version for physical replication.
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on June 03, 2007, 03:50:13 AM
Heres a new example:
Only 6 feet tall and it averages 32 RPM...
I'm currently working on an even further scaled
down realistic version for physical replication.
Great model! Slow increase in rotational speed is immediately visible on the top graph. For constant mass of the model and absence of driving motor it means torque is increasing as well.
That version stops after about 18 minutes, Dingus. This could either be because your locking joint on the counterweight 'slips' (rv<0 rather than rv=0) or because the pendulum joint 'drifts' after a time (I have never worked out why this happens in WM2D). I have attached the graphs.
I have also attached a modified version of the previous model, which runs fine, albeit slightly slower. The pendulum pin also drifts in this version but not so much and it doesn't seem to effect the speed; it is still running fine after 1 hour.
DOH! :-\
I'll need to go rework that model anyway... Too light weight.
Well we just need to keep working on models untill we find the answer. I think the "energy tap" is coming from loading the spring when it aligns with the axel,
and releasing the kinetic energy on both the pendulum and the counter wieght.
~Dingus
I really think this pendulum driven gravity wheel could work if built well.
Maybe not perpetual motion but hopefully overunity...
Don't panic, Dingus; I have found the sweet spot with the mini version. I changed the counterweight to steel, which is handy since it gives us a known material for prototyping, reverted the freewheel gear for the counterweight axle to the old formula and rebalanced the pendulum. Now it runs great and the freewheel gear only engages during the first few seconds before the system gets in sync.
I've attached the graphs and the sim.
I think the spring may bias the pendulum to the left but I have yet to investigate properly.
Oops, the sim didn't attach. Here it is:
Hey Prajna and Dingus, you are more than 20 posts ahead from me. I'm studying your results and the way you get there.
Congrats on your investigation and models,
xnonix
Nice to see you back in the thread, xnonix. Dingus revived it with a mod to our Jhula and the sexiest way to impliment the freewheel mechanism in WM2D. I am pretty sure this is not running just because of some WM2D 'feature'; it is running despite air resistance, which is placing a load on the system. I am currently investigating what gives us the acceleration. I thought that the spring might bias the pendulum to the left but I am not so sure now. Possibly it is that the pendulum is more in-line with the spring anchor when it is on the right, so it tends to put potential into the spring rather than into the torque. When it is on the left the alignment between the spring and the pendulum means the potential is transferred into torque. I probably haven't explained very well; I'm still working on it.
Your models may be close to 'newenergymachine' discussed on the other thread. That machine also runs via weights and temporary energy storages: air cylinder and a set of springs (as author wrote). That machine runs at a speeds lower than 60 RPMs judging on the video. So, you've got it almost right (more than 30 RPM it seems). But I think you should try to get a higher RPM reading. Something like 300 RPM would be better. :) I think it is more efficient to have two smaller generators running at 200 RPM each than 1 big generator running at 60 RPM, at least for home use.
Spring may indeed be the key factor in such gravity machines. They may work like capacitors that store 'free' energy collected from the gravity force. So, they should be optimized not to interfere with the rotation, but give off their energy at the correct time - probably there can be a couple of points (like close to highest weight or close to weightless state) where spring's pull may be especially useful.
On the other hand, judging on 'newenergymachine', some non-linear elements may be required. For example, spring may need to be disconnected at some point, to release its full potential, and then reconnected at the other point.
Also take a note that such device can be enclosed into a hermetic vacuumized enclosure. In that case air resistance and noise can be lowered a lot.
hi all,
well, I made a model to see the machine doing some work carrying a weight over distance.
Quote from: xnonix on June 03, 2007, 04:00:16 PM
hi all,
well, I made a model to see the machine doing some work carrying a weight over distance.
that is awesome! lol nice job.
peace
Very nice, xnonix.
Please can you post movies or GIF animations for those who don?t have WM2D installed ?
Many thanks in advance.
Regards, Stefan.
Okay, I just did install WM2D now finally to have a look at it and here is the first
converted movie attached.
Looks good so far. It is an AVI movie.
You must have the DIVX.com codec installed to view it.
Here is the next one, the Mini Version...
Enjoy !
Looks really neat !
Maybe the spring still needs a bit of different spring coefficient,
so the pendulum will really accelerate !
Quote from: xnonix on June 03, 2007, 04:00:16 PM
hi all,
well, I made a model to see the machine doing some work carrying a weight over distance.
Now here is this thing on a waggon and it moves the waggon !
;)
By the way, what is a good and natural setting for the air resistance ?
It was set inside the program, but maybe it is too low ?
I can already get a simular design withouta spring to accelerate to selfdestruction,
if I set the air resistance to Low speed and
at:
0.300 kg/ms
What is a good value for it that correspondens to a normal realworld setup ?
Here, play with it with the attached files.
Is the spring necessary? Or is it just another type of clutching mechanism (to bring the pendulum back)?
I know where to purchase some one-way clutching bearings, but I need confirmation that the physics aren't flawed in this software. Is there friction being calculated within the pivot points?
Anyone know of any other simulation software out there?
Quote from: Sataur? on June 04, 2007, 01:40:26 AM
Is the spring necessary? Or is it just another type of clutching mechanism (to bring the pendulum back)?
I know where to purchase some one-way clutching bearings, but I need confirmation that the physics aren't flawed in this software. Is there friction being calculated within the pivot points?
Anyone know of any other simulation software out there?
As the author of 'newenergymachine' replied on the other thread, springs and air cylinder are used in his machine for damping only... Though, I personally think they may be required for more than that.
But if hartiberlin's model is OK (could you post an AVI please?) without springs, then springs may not be required - and this is what 'newenergymachine' author wrote (without dampers his machine runs into selfdestruction).
As far as WM2D is concerned, I do not think $3000 software can carry invalid physics model. I would sue them if it were.
Hartiberlin the air resistance is set at 0.7 kg/ms in the wagon version.
Cheers.
Well, that blows my spring theory (ha, ha)... I just deleted the spring from the mini model and it still works! This is back to the simple Jhula model I began with!
I really don't know why it works. I have attached an image with the pendulum centre of mass tracked, which may help to shed some light on it. I wouldn't put it past being an artifact of WM2D (despite its $3000 price tag it does have errors, particularly in handling polygons). Accelerating to destruction is something that I really don't trust since the pin joint on the pendulum 'drifts' and I am pretty sure that indicates a WM2D error. I guess building a physical model is the only way to test it but it takes a bit of tuning to get it to run well.
hi all,
I have just discovered what is going on with this model. We all know this doesn't work in reality but we need to know why. Well the thing is called geometry. The problem is the L shaped piece. When you change it for another made by 2 rectangles joined then you get the correct result.
It STOPS faster than the original, coz you have more contact surface with air. Again bad news.
Cheers,
xnonix
We have to study this model prajna made inside a big circle.
I didn't get positive results with that, xnonix (except when there was no air resistance load). I designed it that way because I suspected the (polygon) angle bracket was causing the effect. Damn, I wish WM2D would sort their polygons.
I am still not convinced that the design will not work in reality; there is a possibility that a spring could bias the torque to one side. Worth pursuing, I think.
It is certainly the polygon problem. I replaced the angle bracket with a triangle and it runs the same.
Quote from: prajna on June 04, 2007, 08:00:32 AM
I didn't get positive results with that, xnonix (except when there was no air resistance load). I designed it that way because I suspected the (polygon) angle bracket was causing the effect. Damn, I wish WM2D would sort their polygons.
I am still not convinced that the design will not work in reality; there is a possibility that a spring could bias the torque to one side. Worth pursuing, I think.
At least we found another bug in WM2D.
The design with the spring is a bit confusing coz a spring cannot make any work.
Well, I'm not so sure again. I replaced the bracket with a rectangle and it works. Dingus drew the counterweight as a polygon too so I'll try replacing that.
Hi all,
if you compare the last designs now with the Milkovic 12 times more output device,
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1763.0.html
we have exactly the same setup !
a See-Saw where at one lever arm is a pendulum !
So we only need to find the right relationship from lever arm weight and lever arm
length to pendulum weight and pendulum swing frequency...
that is all. Then it will accelerate.
Hi Pranja,
as you are the expert on WM2D,
please also try this one:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1213.0.html
I tried it yeasterday again with the new installed WM2D
and when I change the parameters a bit,
I almost get it to selfaccelerate..
I guess I still must change the spring?s coefficient somehow...
I guess I must change it to kx^3 ??
What is a realworld spring like ?
This model was made for me by Tinhead and I still
must see how WM2D works, so I havetofind out,
how I can change the weights of the disc and the ball weight
and get a right spring and weight relationsship.
Hi prajna,
can you please post your latest WM2D file?
Many thanks.
Well, so much for the polygon idea. I have a new version with no polygons and it still works!?
Stefan, to modify the weights or spring tension just double-click the object and it will bring up the properties dialogue, where you can modify these parameters. I wouldn't call myself a WM2D expert :), others have a much better idea about it, I just experiment.
Sure this is like Mikovik, I developed it from that device.
If what we are seeing is real then I guess it works like this: When a pendulum swings it has maximum pull on its axle when it is at the mid point of its period and minimum pull when it is at the ends of its period. With the Jhula setup the pendulum axle rotates and it seems possible, with careful adjustment of the period, to make it so that the mid point of the pendulum period is to one side of the counterweight axle. Thus there is more pull (generating torque) on that side. I am sure there is more to it than that, obviously the load (air resistance in this model) causes the pendulum to slow but it appears that as it does so the torque on the counterweight changes, giving the pendulum a slight boost.
I'll look at that other model and get back to you.
Which model did you want posted? I didn't save them all but I'll post the latest.
Hi All,
I played a bit more with WM2D and have replicated just the Milkovic
principle with the following setup.
It is quite easy.
As in my idea, that you can use shifted mass via a spring to
unbalance lever arms in a wheel and tap the gravity this way,
see:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1213.0.html
Mr. Milkovic is just doing this via a pendulum.
So always one lever arm is heavier than the other and this accelerates the
lever (in my case the wheel) and this gives again a feedback to the pendulum, which
will be again accelerated also.
In this version here, the parameters are still not optimal.
You need a very harmonic relationship of weights, pendulum
frequency, pendulum length, pendulum mass and
lever arm mass relationship to really accelerate it very fast
and earn more energy from the gravity field.
It is now the quest to find these "harmonic" relationsships to
get the most out of the gravity field.
See it this way.
Gravity is a force like blowing wind.
If you put a lever arm ( see-saw) into
blowing wind, you can make it only rotate, if you shield one
lever arm and the other arm is exposed to the blowing wind.
Exactly the same we are doing here.
With the help of the pendulum, we make one lever arm heavier at the right moment
so it can react to gravity. We gain the energy of this heavier
lever arm by letting it accelerate and then the pendulum changes its
position and when the pendulum had moved to the side ,
its "shields" gravity, by being at an angle to it, so gravity
is weaker then and the othwer lever arm gets heavier
and the unit thus can turn 360 degrees and the cycle can repeat itsself.
This must be done in a very harmonic way ,so the movement relationsships
fit to each other.
Okay, now have a look at the GIF pic and the AVI movie and the WM2D file.
Looking good!
Pranja, is there a reason you removed the ratcheting system from the pendulum pin joint (I noticed it swinging both directions)? What happens if you add one in?
Also, have you tried adding a "load" to the device to see what happens? Is it possible to simulate a resistance on the pin-joint of the counterweight?
Cheers!
Sataure, Dingus dropped the ratchet on the pin joint. I don't think it helps and it is not necessary. I might try adding one but I doubt it will improve anything.
Adding a load is easy enough. Dingus did it on one of the sims a while back.
Stefan, I am still not convinced this isn't just a bug in WM2D. That said, it may be possible to design something based on this idea that may work as I described in a previous post. If the pendulum is swinging on the way up and not on the way down (perhaps that energy is transfered to a pendulum on the opposite side) there may be a difference between the dead weight of the stopped pendulum and the swinging one. Easy enough to test that in WM2D, I guess.
I tried getting the simple Jhula (the one you simmed) to run but I haven't succeded. This is one of the things that suggests to me this is just a bug.
Hi all,
In this "simple" model we have to many variables to tweak at the same time to make it as efficient as possible (I "still" think is not overunity).
We have two solutions to this problem:
1. Make a program that simulates millions of setups possibilities to find working patterns to find the best options.
2. Try ourselves by trial/error. This way is funnier for us but I think the best solution is above.
I will try to tweak only the weights of pendulum and lever in a dynamic way with wm2d keeping lenght an geometries constant.
Good luck with your models,
xnonix
EDIT: One more thing. Gravity is not like wind. Wind need contact surface to induce a force. Gravity only need MASS (but not surface) to act.
Quote from: xnonix on June 04, 2007, 05:01:50 PM
EDIT: One more thing. Gravity is not like wind. Wind need contact surface to induce a force. Gravity only need MASS (but not surface) to act.
Simply perceive objects as porous when comparing gravity to river stream.
We do not know much about gravity, but there's no reason to say 'no' to such devices since: 1. physics does not know anything for sure about gravity. 2. if you will be using your own concepts about gravity, it won't change anything for bad due to 1.
So, we are safe not to look like dumb-asses when dealing with gravity. Because those who instantly say 'no' are more dumb-asses than we are. :D
Quote from: aleks on June 05, 2007, 12:04:01 AM
So, we are safe not to look like dumb-asses when dealing with gravity. Because those who instantly say 'no' are more dumb-asses than we are. :D
Well, I won't enter this spiral. Gravity is gravity and there is not known shield to avoid it. But we can put a wall to avoid wind. So I won't compare both. If you find a gravity shield you find overunity.
Quote from: xnonix on June 05, 2007, 02:39:41 AM
Quote from: aleks on June 05, 2007, 12:04:01 AM
So, we are safe not to look like dumb-asses when dealing with gravity. Because those who instantly say 'no' are more dumb-asses than we are. :D
Well, I won't enter this spiral. Gravity is gravity and there is not known shield to avoid it. But we can put a wall to avoid wind. So I won't compare both. If you find a gravity shield you find overunity.
Your "gravity is gravity" does not talk about the essense of gravity, from the point of view of atomic level physics for example. It talks about visible effects only.
I know that modern science tends to look at the gravity as an effect of skew of space-time continuum... But even in that case what's more important in all this stuff is that gravity creates motion.
For example, as far as I know some japanese inventor created a working naval vessel that uses random underwater currents and transforms them into a directed motion. This is not related to gravity, of course, but this shows an alternative TECHNICAL approach to the problem.
Beside that, physics has a strong economical trace in its studies. So, in my opinion physics is not about studying effects, but about measuring economical feasibility. That's why it may not count some effects that can be used to extract free energy. It's like a filter of perception: due to the filter (physics) you do not see some things, because if you start seeing them, most instruments immediately become obsolete (including physics as a part of economical science). One of the filters created in 1773 (if I'm not mistaken) in France is that 'perpetual motion is impossible'..while this of course, contradicts things we see: winds blow, rivers flow, sun shines..seemingly forever (at least for our civilization's lifespan).
That's just my point of view - no need to argue with it. I'm certainly wrong. :)
Here is a version that should be good to study because a) it is about as simple as I can get and have it running well. b) it is very well balanced. c) we have got best speed (about 120rpm).
I think the pendulum swing has most effect when it is swinging left and right at the top and bottom of the counterweight rotation. When it swings left at the top and right at the bottom then the pendulum's momentum increases the torque. When it swings right at the top and left at the bottom it reduces the torque. If the torque increases or decreases too much then the period of the pendulum gets out of sync with the rotation of the counterweight. When we start the system the rotation is too fast for the pendulum to be in sync and the average angular momentum of the counterweight begins to slow. If we are lucky (we have a fairly regular period on the pendulum and a narrow range of angular momentum on the counterweight) then the system gets in sync and stays in that state because as the load tends to slow the counterweight it brings the pendulum period more in sync with the top and bottom of the counterweight rotation. As that happens the pendulum accelerates the counterweight. Too much acceleration and the pendulum 'overshoots' and gets out of sync. Too much load and the pendulum undershoots.
How is that for a theory? Can we test it or analyse it from the model?
I suggest we leave the gravity debate alone: Gravity is the same on both sides of the device; any acceleration from gravity on the left is matched by deceleration on the right. I think my theory is more likely and logical.
Quote from: prajna on June 05, 2007, 06:42:44 AM
Here is a version that should be good to study because a) it is about as simple as I can get and have it running well. b) it is very well balanced. c) we have got best speed (about 120rpm).
So, how much load can you get without system stopping?
12 times more out than in ;). No, very little on this scale, I would think. With heavier weights then more because it is the momentum that is increasing the speed. Of course the system would have to be rebalanced for the load in order to keep it within its synchronisation band. I think we need to investigate how to widen that band. At the moment we are just overcoming the air resistance but, according to my theory, we change the balance a little so that it tends to accelerate out of sync and apply a load to bring it back in. There will be a limit where the inertial advantage is less than the load. It is a delicate ballancing act between the system accelerating out of sync into a chaotic pattern and decelerating.
If you study the principles of chaos mathematics you should be able to understand this balance. If you have a steady increase in an input to a chaotic system the output is not steady; rather it goes from one stable state to a different stable state and so on until the next state is a chaotic one. Consider a tap (fawcet, for you prisoners of the great satan), as you turn the tap on the water begins to drip out of it. To begin with the drips are slow and regular. As you continue to turn the tap eventually the drips become quicker and regular. Continue to turn and the drips eventually change to very fast but still regular. Eventually the water flows (a chaotic state where one can no loger predict the path of any particular water molecule). I believe that is a good basis on which to study this model.
Interesting Prajna.
I was thinking last night over your theory (on your website) about removing energy from a system to allow for more to be produced. It came to me that we are not exactly removing any energy by stopping the pendulum or counterweight from spinning in a certain direction, rather we are just stopping the process of converting potential energy->kinetic energy.
But the interesting thing here is not that. Its that secondary oscillations from pendulums appear to produce more energy output than input. What we should try next is to use your balanced model, apply a load, and then put the energy gathered from that load to reinforce the swinging energy of the pendulum (perhaps this is where the motor or torque functions may come into play). I'll try and tweak some of the scripting to try and simulate this.
Cheers!
Excellent, Sataure. The theory on my website was an early one. From watching the random-like movement of the system I got the feeling that if one was to lock the pivot at the right time the energy would be converted from kenetic to potential, just as you noticed.
When you are on a swing you add energy to the swing by swinging your legs as the swing passes its lowest point. In this system the swing from the pendulum occurs as the pivot is moving in that same direction - it 'swings its legs' at the right time when it is synchronised. However you increase the swinging energy you must make sure it stays synchronous with the rotation of the counterweight. The problem is that a pendulum has a fixed period, so you would need to shorten the pendulum as the rotational velocity of the counterweight increases.
Quote from: prajna on June 05, 2007, 06:42:44 AM
Here is a version that should be good to study because a) it is about as simple as I can get and have it running well. b) it is very well balanced. c) we have got best speed (about 120rpm).
Hi Pranja,
nice model, I just tested it, but there was some kind
of jerky motion at the starting time...
why is this ?
How did you exactly build it ?
What parts did you build it with ?
Why do you use 2 different beams, that overlap ?
Why is the rod of the pendulum going through the fixing
of the 2 beams when it rotates ?
Please explain.
P.S: If you set the air resistance to 0.7 kg/m^2
it gets slower,but still runs..
What is an realistic friction in this system.
Can also be other friction components being set,
like point turning friction ?
What about the "optional friction model" under
menupoint "World/Accurancy/More choices"
Must this be enabled or not ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Stefan, The jerky movement is not necessary, it could be started in sync. But it is interesting that it comes into sync, is it not?
There are two different beams. The main counterweight is 1.44Kg and the trim tab is 30g. Changing the length of the trim tab makes a subtle change in the centre of mass of the counterweight. Without it I would have to change the position of the counterweight axle (which is difficult). The pendulum doesn't really go between the beams, you can select the pendulum and press Ctrl-F to bring it to the front.
I haven't played with friction in WM2D. I am currently working on a model that runs much faster and accelerates to destruction. I have added a rotational damper to that one, which kicks in when it turns faster than 10 rads per second.
Hi Pranja,
please try yourlast model with other friction settings than
High air resistance= 0.3 kg/m^2.
If I set it to 0.2 or 0.5 kg/m^2
it comes to a stillstand.
I even removed the damper !
So we have to find a model, that works at least in a wider
air resistance range, otherwise I would guess it is a program error...
Regards, Stefan.
This kind of swinger works also until selfdestruction
over awide range of air resistances !
Test it out:
Attached the model
Hi Pranja,
how do you make easily this one way gear in this pin joint ?
I saw, that you make a rigid joint over a pin joint and define:
(Constraint[3].dv.r<=0)
What does mean dv.r ?
Did you set this manually or does the program do this for you ?
I believe dv.r is change in rotation of a particular joint (labeled Constraint['x'] where 'x' is the number label of the joint).
If dv.r is negative, it means the joint is rotating in one direction (counterclockwise I believe), and when its positive, its rotating in the other direction.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this Prajna.
Hi all, I made another model from prajna's last that is a perpetuun mobile.
The wm2d software have many glitches so the model won't work in reality as we all know.
We can't use the custom materials. We don't get trusted results as I probe with my model.
Edit: About the (Constraint[3].dv.r<0) is easy to explain. The result of this is True (Activated Latch), if not is false (Deactivate it). dv.r is the instant rotational velocity (if <0 clockwise and if >0 anticlockwise)
Quote from: Sataur? on June 05, 2007, 10:31:08 PM
I believe dv.r is change in rotation of a particular joint (labeled Constraint['x'] where 'x' is the number label of the joint).
If dv.r is negative, it means the joint is rotating in one direction (counterclockwise I believe), and when its positive, its rotating in the other direction.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this Prajna.
Actually dv.r will return the rotational velocity of any object not just joints.
HERE:
"The Hammer" making some usefull work.
More work accelerating to selfdestruction.
Accuracy 100/s
Air Resistance: Slow 0.7 kg/ms
Well, I guess these models with no pendulum prove that it is simply a WM2D 'feature' that is producing the OU. We're chasing rainbows again. It would be nice to be able to test designs based on complex pendulums without these misleading results.
Just noticed you are running Ubuntu. Cool.
Yep, Ubuntu. Humanity to Others. 2 Months without window$ here.
Well, I found the bug.
The thing is the rigid joint position. In the model I post below there are 2 "hammers". the position of the rigid joint is different between them. The one on the left is the buggy one and the other on the right is the correct simulation of this system. So it STOPs again.
Cheers,
xnonix
Well done, xnonix. What a crap bug. It is nice that there is a workround but it won't always be possible to use it. I intend to keep thinking along these lines though, I can't help thinking that we might be able to unbalance something in this model.
Quote from: xnonix on June 06, 2007, 07:16:54 AM
Well, I found the bug.
The thing is the rigid joint position. In the model I post below there are 2 "hammers". the position of the rigid joint is different between them. The one on the left is the buggy one and the other on the right is the correct simulation of this system. So it STOPs again.
Cheers,
xnonix
Hi xnonix,
can you please exactly describe, what you mean ?
Which rigid joint do you mean ?
Between the steel part and the plastic part ?
If I set a few more rigid joints there,the left unit still accelerates...
Why is the right one working ?
It has the same rigid joint as the left one, as I see...
but it is placed just a bit more into the center...
So what can we exactly do with rigid joints and what not
to avoid this program bug ?
2.So how do we now design a joint, that can only turn
in one direction without this error ?
Please post exact details.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
I saw just, the model harti_swinger01.w2d has the same problems with this joint.
So how do we put now 2 weights together without stumbling onto this bug ?
Quote from: hartiberlin on June 06, 2007, 03:22:21 PM
I saw just, the model harti_swinger01.w2d has the same problems with this joint.
So how do we put now 2 weights together without stumbling onto this bug ?
Easy. We only need 2 pin joint this way.
But why do 2 rigid joints not work ?
Are the rigid joints buggy in this program ?
How do we make now one way only rotating joints
without bugs ?
The program is buggy so I only trust what is known as working properly. I won't use rigid joints anymore in my models. The 2 pin joints solution is good enought.
The problem with wm2d are not the polys as we thought, is only those buggy rigid joints.
Cheers,
xnonix
EDIT: For doing one way rotating joints rigid joints function as expected.
Or you can use a rotational damper to only enable
one way pin rotation like the solid joint would.
~Dingus
First post here and i'm thoroughly enjoying all your efforts!
Originally, I was thinking of this pendulum design (jpg attached) to be added to the Milkovic design so you could utilize very little energy to swing the pendulum. It would be a swinging pendulum device per say with very low energy consumption...
But NOW i'm thinking you could possibly extract energy from the swing itself. The overall idea would be to 'brake' the pendulum arm at the top of the rotation point, just long enough to drop the secondary legs down (shown in red - using legs like your legs on a swingset). If you use magnets (shown in yellow) that are strong enough to hold the legs in place, but not strong enough to hold the legs when you stop (brake) the pendulum at the top of the swing, i think the legs would slap to the other side (by way of gravity and inertia) and hold well enough to run another rotation. Maybe it could be done with an alternating electromagnet on each side instead of a permanent magnet.
Food for thought!?!?!
Welcome on board, DT. I'm not sure that there is new energy coming in with this design. I'll sim it when I get a chance and see what happens.
Quote from: prajna on June 19, 2007, 01:58:37 PM
Welcome on board, DT. I'm not sure that there is new energy coming in with this design. I'll sim it when I get a chance and see what happens.
Thanks! This is an awesome site. I'm not sure either whether it will create new energy, and I look forward to the simulation. I do however think the braking method would be an efficient way to swing the pendulum for the Milkovic design.
Also, even though they are using compressed air for the demonstration, isn't this similar to the two part swinging theory as i describe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWIN_b95GoI&NR=1
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,371.0.html
Quote from: prajna on June 05, 2007, 06:42:44 AM
Here is a version that should be good to study because a) it is about as simple as I can get and have it running well. b) it is very well balanced. c) we have got best speed (about 120rpm).
All,
I found a basic error in this model that results in strange behaviour. Set pin joint 4 to measurable and the whole thing acts as it should.
Only use measurable pin joints..