Advanced and Delayed magnetic field's.

[TinselKoala]

The here and now is fantastic TK,but the wright brothers had no such simulator,and yet there plane flew.
Simulator's are the wet dream of the real thing-there is just no comparison

Not exactly true. The Wright brothers had a lot more going for them than people nowadays seem to think.
In the first place they had the irrefutable examples of powered, heavier than air flight from nature: Birds.
In the second place, they flew many many tethered kites and free-flight gliders and gathered solid numerical data from them, long before they strapped an engine to their best glider design and flew it as an "airplane" in level flight. They actually made sustained soaring flights in freeflight gliders, perfecting their pitch and roll control systems long before they ever attempted powered flight.
In the third place, they had solid data from previous researchers like Otto Lilienthal, and made mathematical extrapolations from that data: What we today would call "modelling" and ... yes.... simulation.
In the fourth place, they developed the Wind Tunnel, for _simulations_ testing their designs of airfoils, control systems and propellers. They used solid data obtained from _simulations_ using scale models in the wind tunnel, to develop their practical fullscale designs.
The Wright brothers used a totally scientific approach, including modelling and mathematical simulations, tested in their wind tunnel to _simulate_ actual conditions and actual structures in full scale.
http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/tunnel.html

Im in no way infering anything OU here,in fact,this machine is very power hungry and inefficient. Im looking for effect,not efficiency.The one thing i have shown very clearly is the difference in drag between ferrite and steel core's. To me,that makes the whole exercise well worth it.But i am going to continue to look a little more at what is happening in regards to the magnetic field's,in fact,im quite enjoying working with this simple little machine.

I'm glad you are having fun! And I continue to maintain that the performance and details of your system can be simulated in a good simulator, and that the simulator will make predictions that you can then test in your real hardware. Simulations are only as good as their programmers... but there are some pretty good programmers out there. Do you think that, for example, your washing-machine motor or your lorry's starter motor or alternator were designed by trial and error, or by some engineers using simulators and formal (mathematical) models (which are simulators stripped of the fancy display hardware and software)?

From the NASA link above:

To obtain data, one of the brothers would look through the view window on the top of the tunnel and record the angles on the balance output dial in the test section. The brothers built models of their wing designs using materials available in their bike shop. Strips of 20 guage steel (1/32 inch thick) were cut, hammered, filed and soldered to produce various shapes. They made between one and two hundred models and made quick preliminary tests in October, 1901, to develop their test techniques and to investigate a wide range of design variables. Some of the models were used in combination to study bi- and tri-wing designs. Following the preliminary experiments, they chose about 30 of their best designs for more detailed parametric studies. In these experiments, only one design variable was changed between models. You can duplicate the wind tunnel tests of the Wright brothers by using our interactive wind tunnel simulation.
At the end of their 1901 wind tunnel tests, the Wright brothers had the most detailed data in the world for the design of aircraft wings. In 1902, they returned to Kitty Hawk with a new aircraft based on their new data. This aircraft performed much better than the 1901 aircraft and lead directly to the successful 1903 flyer. Results of the wind tunnel tests were also used in the design of their propellers.

So I think you can see that simulation was indeed a very important part of the Wright brothers' development of the powered airplane.

[MarkE]

tinman if you prefer doing everything as a hands-on experiment, that's fine.  Simulations can give you insights into what you are seeing and may give you additional ideas for what experiments you want to conduct.  I know a guy who for decades was dead set against simulations in his work.  Now he realizes that he cannot compete without using them.

[tinman]

tinman if you prefer doing everything as a hands-on experiment, that's fine.  Simulations can give you insights into what you are seeing and may give you additional ideas for what experiments you want to conduct.  I know a guy who for decades was dead set against simulations in his work.  Now he realizes that he cannot compete without using them.

It may be hard for me to put this in words that make sense to you,but i'll give it a try.
Here is my situation. my average working week is around 75-80 hour's,and most of that is away from home. About 14 month's ago,i had a lot of time to work on project's,but now my situation has change-financially far better off,free time next to zero. So i can have a lot of free time and enough money to get by but next to none to spend on projects,or i can have next to no free time,and heaps of money to burn-either way im screw'd. So not only do i see a simulator as some kind of cheat method to test devices,and a program that is based around only known outcome's,i also see them as a waste of my valuable time that could be spent building an actual device. Im a hands on man,and most of my computor time is spent right here on the forum's. Let's have a look at TK's last comment,and i'll tell you how i feel about that situation,and what may be happening.

Quote TK: So if you have someone showing a circuit (for example; could be a mechanical device, etc) that is claimed to be "OU" in some manner, and then that circuit is simulated by a circuit simulator like Falstad or LTSpice, say, and the simulator does _the same things_ that the actual circuit does, in terms of the claimant's measurements and phenomena, but the simulator also shows that it is not "OU", because the simulator can make more and more accurate measurements of various parameters ... who is right?

So what if the simulator is wrong?,what if it starts looking for thing's that arnt there just so as every thing adds up to known parameters. Simulators are based around known parameters,so what happens if the unknown happens to show up?-or will the unknow even show up on a device that is based around only the known?.Sounds to much like physics where they just chuck in some variables just so as things all line up. What about buoyancy,can it simulate something like the device in the discussion that Mark and myself are haveing on the !whats wrong with this! thread?.

I guess my biggest beef with simulators is spending time i dont have useing them,and then the fact that we are looking for the unknown,and the sim might just throw in some random junk so as it all makes sense with known parameters.

To easy to miss the big one useing a sim--that is my belief.

[TinselKoala]

Oh, I agree with Ibison's Law, all right. You aren't going to find anything that is "outside physics" with a properly constructed simulation. But you may indeed find that some of the things that are observed from an apparatus that _seems_ to produce "outside physics" results are in fact... not.

For example, take Gerard Morin's demonstrations. Plug his starting values and components into a good electronics simulator and you'll get the same results that he gets in real life. He claims that they show "overunity" or "free energy"... but the simulator will tell you that they do not actually show any such thing, because the sim can make more, and more proper, measurements than he can.  So the simulator can provide a good cross-check.

I've got a couple of "perpetually running" overcenter-springloaded things in Phun/Algodoo, that work without cheats. Since they don't actually work in reality, I think that this demonstrates that that particular simulation is wrong, probably because the precision of the math isn't that precise, rounding errors, etc.  Simulators are not always right, but so far, to the extent that they don't model reality accurately, it's not a problem with reality, but a problem with the simulator.

So I think we are actually in agreement about that part of the question. If you want to demonstrate something that is "outside known physics" like an overunity machine, or a buoyancy drive, then only a working model will actually fit the bill.  But a proper simulation will also be able to help you to avoid going down dead-ends, since you can simulate, test against model, make a change in the sim, re-test against model, until you find, or don't find, some deviation between what the sim shows and what the model does.

ETA: Demands on time are hard to deal with. One of the reasons that simulators are used a lot in "big science", and in the aircraft industry, is that they _save_ time, though. You can run a flight deck crew through dozens of simulated emergencies in a full-motion simulator in a few hours; you can simulate stresses and strains on a machined part in seconds, where it would take days to make an actual part and then test it to destruction. But sims take time to learn and program, and many people like yourself would just prefer to make the model itself. I'm like that too; I usually "build three times" and I prefer "sketching" in the actual metal, rather than drawing up detailed blueprints as the first stage of a build.

[tinman]

Maybe the time is comeing soon for a change or revamp of what we think we know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaELad94KZs