Why would he have to simulate it using software if he already has a working wheel as he has claimed?  He claims it works so, no simulation needed.  Of course, I still have my doubts about this.

Bill

2d vs 3d question;

I think the Grurangax should consider gaining access to a student version
of a professional package of a 3d drawing and 3d mechanical simulation
computer software. He may have to become a "virtual" student to do it and to get
access to a low cost student version of the software. This is especially true
if he has end-to-end confidence in his design. Hopefully this software would
come with an "evolutionary" design simulator that would allow computer
driven experimental parameter adjustment of subsystems. This type of method
would save time, especially in the worst case should his methods fail to converge
to a solution...

There is absolutely no point in simulating this (or any similar mechanism) using  engineering software and expecting to find an over-unity or self running result.

All such simulations have conservation of energy and momentum built in to equations of motion. If they show an over unity result then this is simply an artefact of the method of calculation and is incorrect.

In case you hadn't realised these principles ABSOLUTELY PRECLUDE any device from being a self runner. It simply does not matter what geometry you come up with.

What would be the point of modelling a device such as this when you already know the result will show that it does not work?

Except for one thing. Gurangax has already created several perpetual motion machines in wm2d, which seems to contradict your point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zplmhei761s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPkZhh3LVPo
...

Your obviously failed to note my point that:

"If they show an over unity result then this is simply an artefact of the method of calculation and is incorrect."

Many simulations use numerical methods to approximate solutions to systems of partial differential equations.
Depending on the problem at hand these equations can become unstable depending on the starting conditions and may not always converge smoothly on a solution.

In this situation the numerical approximation to a system that would be conservative if it could be solved implicitly may give a non conservative result when solved numerically.

Most simulation software seeks to minimise such behaviour. However, depending on the accuracy and computation intensity desired the design of the simulation algorithm may allow some degree of 'non physical' results.

LibreEnergia, stop your ignorant blabbering, you know nothing of such software.

These arrangements do create more power in the simulations and that does translate into reality, I have proof.

You dont know how to cheat gravity, you are not initiated like me and Gurangax.

Software is only going to tell you a combination of the assumptions built into its programming and what you tell it.  LibreEnergy is absolutely correct about a lot of software, including virtually any that utilizes finite element methods.  If the mesh is not fine enough, or does not extend far enough then the model is an inadequate approximation of reality.  Typical modeling software solves large numerical matrices.  The finite resolution of numbers sets a limit as the the ratio of the largest and smallest numbers that the program can add or subtract.  You can test for the limits by creating entities that have disparate dimensions and adding them together.  For instance in Excel, you can add 1E-X to 1 for progressively larger values of X and see where the value degenerates to 1.0 no matter how many digits you display past the decimal point.

If you manage a simulation that indicates something extraordinary, then the next step is to test the validity of the result.  That can be done several ways.  One way is with a physical experiment.  Another is by applying a set of relevant knowns to the software and seeing if it predicts the known results or not.  The other thing that you should be very careful about:  Power is not energy.  There are many ways to multiply power.  There are no known ways to multiply energy.  If you have discovered one, that would be a first.

LibreEnergia, stop your ignorant blabbering, you know nothing of such software.

These arrangements do create more power in the simulations and that does translate into reality, I have proof.

You dont know how to cheat gravity, you are not initiated like me and Gurangax.

It would appear that your ignorance knows no bounds.

As it happens I studied mechanical engineering at a reputable university for 4 years. During that time were shown how to derive mathematics that are at the heart of modern simulation software from first principles, and built numerical solver algorithms that were then tested for validity against physical models.

Since then I have been a software engineer for 25 years. I feel I am more than qualified to make pronouncements on how simulation software is developed including any limitations it may have.

As to your ability to 'cheat gravity', such pronouncements put you firmly in the category of other known fraudsters on here such as Wayne Travis.

Unfortunately the world doesnt run by that specific program of yours, otherwise there would be no OU aaa but there is.

Ok so the unaltered program show over power, what are you debating exactly ?

It is obvious from that statement that you don't know the difference between power and energy. Like most on here this lack of understanding gives rise to false claims of OU with monotonous regularity.

And, more often than not, Sterling backs their claims...at least for a while until it is obvious to all that the device does not work at all.

Bill

" I have overunity! "

Great, congratulations! Please prove it, by providing credible data from a _real object_ that supports your claim.

" No. Not yet. I am waiting for (insert some future date/event) here. But I have overunity! Because volts. Leverage. Negative resistance. Scalar gravity."

OK... that sounds a little strange, here's why, so you really should prove it.

" No. You are stupid if you can't understand my overunity. Split positive, convert gravity, leverage, you idiot."

Er.... (lists qualifications and more reasons why it can't work as described)....

" Your qualifications and experience are irrelevant because I HAVE OVERUNITY. Bessler. Bedini. TESLA, ffs. "

Well..... prove it then, by providing a demonstration of your actual apparatus.

" NO. You people are all too stupid and I don't have to prove anything to stupid people. I don't need to show you no stinking badges. Goodbye, and thanks for all the fish."


How many times have we heard some variation on this theme?

 

In a perfect OU world.

What people seem to not understand is that any voltage reading to some random
waveform is only going to an estimate to a number. The very best measurements
are only going to be approximations in these situation. RMS is not something from
mathematics or electronics, it is from Statistics.

I want my approximation to be converting the desired waveform into DC by a high
speed bridge rectifier, filtering until the Voltage and Current signals have no AC
riding on them. Then feeding the signal into a modern ~95% efficient high voltage
DC to AC power inverter. Now I can measure near perfect wattage by DC voltages
and DC currents with a 1000:1 current shunt so I use my DVM the way it was
designed to be used and multiply the two numbers with a calculator. Plug in my
KillaWatt meter into a AC outlet producing absolutely pure sine waves.  Show
that my wattage numbers nearly match one another. Letting the Inverter eat
up any Power Factor corrections by combining them into its efficiency numbers.
Then light N incandescent light bulbs with no high voltage fluorescents, completely
devoid of negative resistance stabilization effects as my DC to AC inverter is already
stable. Then plug in driver source so that it produces a nice stable self running
infinite loop.

Then be able ignore the negative vocalization of all OU critics as the day is very
nearby when we can simply cast our vote with best educated beliefs from our own
individual pocketbooks.  Ah...Justice at last.

:S:MarkSCoffman