That one similar to what we already spoke about (see attached).

I just did a quick sim to show you what I mean. Have a look at where the system centre of mass is on this one.

Hans von Lieven

I thought so, I was just making sure we are talking about the same thing.

In WM2D you do not get a centre of gravity as such. In some simulations you can, but not in this one. WM2D gives you the "System centre of mass" which is not the same thing, since it includes the mass of your ramps, hence the discrepancy.

Hans von Lieven

Remove the ramps and try it. Center of mass is still to the right. In that respect your wm2d example doesn't apply.

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?  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?

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. 

I don't know what you have done, maybe left something somewhere. I removed the ramps and it behaves as expected, it finds equilibrium.

Hans von Lieven

Remove the two elliptic pieces forming the ramp and have only the wheel and the spheres remain. Go View>System Center of Mass. Center of mass is to the right of the axis of rotation

Open again the file, let it run for a while. Then go Stop>World>Start Here. Then remove the rwo ellipsoid pieces forming the ramp and have only the wheel and the sphere on the screen. Again go View>System Center of Mass. Center of mass is again to the right of the axis of rotation.

Center of mass is persistently to the right of the axis of rotation according to the wm2d, therefore, this must be a perpetuum mobile if we are to believe the program. It is quite possible that @mondrasek's analysis applied to the right construction (recall that his analysis was only applied to a mock up just to show the methodology) may also prove perpetuum mobile. More work is needed.

EDIT: Notice, if you get rid of everything else but the wheel the center of mass falls right where it's expected to be. That's a check that wm2d determines system of mass correctly.

@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.

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...