Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: johnny874 on December 20, 2011, 05:38:33 PM
-
@All,
This is something I have built before. It was 5 feet in diameter.
I have taken the time to understand the math behind it.
Is it possible ? Maybe. With this concept, gravity does all the work.
By this, I mean that when a weight moves, it is gravity moving it without
the use of levers or other mechanical devices.
By using math, the distance the weights actually travel from top center
to bottom center and vice versa can be known. The basic premise is that
the longer path will be further from the center of the wheel. What this
allows for is leverage to be considered. In a rotating wheel, leverage and torque are similar principles.
Torque is what allows for acceleration. And of course, torque is then converted into momentum.
What understanding math allows someone to do is to find where in the design is the
optimum balance, or in this case, imbalance.
Most likely, a design such as this would rotate slowly. Still, even a slow continuous
rotation would be a success, wouldn't it ?
Jim
edited to add; with a basic design like this, it is where a person can have a lot of fun playing with math. The reason for this is because it is not so difficult to find a positive difference ;)
-
I'm afraid there's another dimension here.
The vector of the weight at any given moment. This differs from that of the wheels at the weight's current location, because the weight travels a different path. Good luck with that math, I can't do it.
At any point between its ultimate slot positions, the weight are administering a differnt force on the wheel than its current location would suggest. Let alone when hitting the slot's stop.
The longer the relative length of the slots, and the free-er the movement of the weight, the bigger the effect I try to explain.
-
I'm afraid there's another dimension here.
The vector of the weight at any given moment. This differs from that of the wheels at the weight's current location, because the weight travels a different path. Good luck with that math, I can't do it.
At any point between its ultimate slot positions, the weight are administering a differnt force on the wheel than its current location would suggest. Let alone when hitting the slot's stop.
The longer the relative length of the slots, and the free-er the movement of the weight, the bigger the effect I try to explain.
Cloxxki,
I found an easy way to do the math :D
By using 45 degrees as a base angle, I can pick a point where I want the weight to move outward.
When I decide how much over balance I want, I can find the angle of the CoG. This allows me to follow the true path of the weight.
With this design, the weights can not have more inertia than gravity. If inertia is more than 1 G, then the weight moving past bottom center can not move towards center. This will cause loss of momentum.
I think this is what you were talking about when you mentioned vectors and longer slots, right ? The more over balance, the more inertia, less momentum.
There is something else to consider that agrees with that. In the picture, the longer the slots, the less time there is over balance. Height / distance travelled equals time. And with gravity, time allows for acceleration. And this is what would develop momentum.
Jim
-
Have you tried using the 'Golden Ratio' in some of your 'hypotheticals'? Funny numbers like PHI (and powers of PHI...) have a way of showing up a lot in nature (natural math!). Something to play around with anyways.
Have you tried the same idea using curved slots?
PC
-
Have you tried using the 'Golden Ratio' in some of your 'hypotheticals'? Funny numbers like PHI (and powers of PHI...) have a way of showing up a lot in nature (natural math!). Something to play around with anyways.
Have you tried the same idea using curved slots?
PC
PC,
I have tried using different slots. It didn't seem to gain anything.
One thing I did realise is that if there is a slight drop off, inertia
can be over come. This would start a weight rolling in the desired direction.
With the examole I gave, if the inner CoG is 10cm's @ 45 degrees with 3 cm's
of over balance, then the outer CoG is 10.07 cm's at an angle of 35 degrees.
I use 1R Phi =circ for 180 degrees or one side of the wheel. The basic hypothesis
is that if the average distance from center is greater on the over balanced side,
then it will allow for acelleration.
I think what is missed is that if a wheel is balanced, it will need the minimum
energy to spin. Also, since f = ma, the more it weighs, the more net force it
will need to be able to spin.
Jim
edited to add distance to 35 degree reference point.
-
@All,
Here is a quick math break down that shows the over balanced side would travel
about 2 inches more to rotate 180 degrees.
The design allows for 10 degrees of rotation in addition to the 10 degrees of radial shift. This is why the movement upward allows for 190 degrees of movement. When the weight moves towards center, if the wheel does not rotate, the weight will tarvel and extra 10 degrees of rotation. And if the weight moves inward with 10 degrees of upward travel, then it will travel about 1 inch less moving upwards.
edited to add; the math referenced if for an inner position 10cm's from center. Over balanced position is 10cm's from center and 3cm's @45 degrees (paralell with the plane of the axle when it can move outwards).
Jim
degrees % of rotation
115 = 63.8%
20 = 11.1%
45 = 25.0%
10.07 = 63.8 %
8.885 = 11.1 %
7.07 = 25 %
1R Phi x % = length
10.07 * 3.14 * 63.8% = 20.17
8.885 * 3.14 * 11.1% = 3.096
7.07 * 3.14 * 25.0% = 5.549
----------------------------
28.815
degrees % of rotation
55 30.55%
20 11.1%
115 58.33%
10.07 * 3.14 * 30.55% = 9.659
8.885 * 3.14 * 11.1% = 3.096
7.07 * 3.14 * 63.88% = 14.18
------------------------------
26.9
-
@All,
This is the correct math :o
The reason for 190 degrees of upward travel is because the weight advances 10 degrees radially when it goes ob.
While the is about a 1cm or inch short coming, that is with 30% ob. It's a start :D
And if this doesn't work, that's okay. it's good practice.
degrees of rotation = percentage of rotation
115 = 63.8%
20 = 11.1%
45 = 25.0%
12.3 = 63.8% 12.3 * 3.14 * .638 = 24.64
11.15 = 11.1% 11.15* 3.14 * .111 = 3.88
10.0 = 25.0% 10.0 * 3.14 * .250 = 7.85
-------------------------------------------
99.9% of 180 degrees 36.37
55 = 30.5%
10 = 5.5%
125 = 69.4%
12.3 = 30.5% 12.3 * 3.14 * .305 = 11.78
11.15 = 11.1% 11.15* 3.14 * .111 = 3.88
10.0 = 69.4% 10.0 * 3.14 * .694 = 21.80
--------------------------------------------
111% of 180 degrees 37.46
and by increasing the over balance by 1 cm or inch,
the 2 sides are almost equal if the weights shift takes the same
time as the wheel rotates. An example is if the radailly advance is 10 degrees,
then falling it takes 20 degrees of rotation and being lifted it increases travel by 10 degrees.
Of course, with what I am working on, crunching numbers like this has helped me.
and of course, if the weights shift takes less than 12 degrees of rotation, then there wold be a slight ob.
112.8 = 62.6%
24.6 = 13.6%
45 = 25.0%
13.07 = 62.6% 13.07* 3.14 * .626 = 25.69
11.53 = 13.6% 11.53* 3.14 * .136 = 4.92
10.0 = 25.0% 10.0 * 3.14 * .250 = 7.85
-------------------------------------------
99.9% of 180 degrees 38.49
57.2 = 30.5%
12.3 = 5.5%
122.8 = 68.2%
13.07 = 30.5% 13.07* 3.14 * .305 = 12.51
11.53 = 13.6% 11.53* 3.14 * .136 = 4.92
10.0 = 68.2% 10.0 * 3.14 * .682 = 21.41
--------------------------------------------
112.3% of 180 degrees 38.84
-
The math is extremely simple.
If the weights will end up in the same position after one complete revolution - regardless of its initial position, the result is already given.
No output.
Vidar.
-
The math is extremely simple.
If the weights will end up in the same position after one complete revolution - regardless of its initial position, the result is already given.
No output.
Vidar.
Vidar,
This has helped me to get to where I am now. And what does help is knowing how power is devoloped and how a system loses energy.
Jim
Jim
-
Jim,
What I wanted to express, and you may well be onto that for long, is that with the weight moving inside their slots, their actual radial load on the wheel is different from a static one. You could say the wheel is exerting energy to throw the weight into a wider orbit. It's costing energy, because the radial speed of the weight is supposed to be increased at the same time.
There should be a gain on first glance from overbalance, but there isn't because you can't get the weight into the wider orbit AND at increased radial speed. There's not the gravity available to do that. It's just 9.8m/s² on tap like the rest of the wheel is bound to.
We need the weight to behave in a certain way. And it it would, we'd have OU right there. Unfortunately, the weight just uses up all the potential energy it's got, for the vertical loss available. The outer orbit has a kinetic energy requirement gravity cannot account for. Due to the angle of the slots, whichever angle or curve you choose.
To understand why this wheel doesn't work, might set you on a path to find the ultimate clue, or cheat it.
Until, the search is for a rock that has yet to fall, to use for gravity extraction. Or, a hole that has already been dug.
Anyone ever calculate how much energy it would give to let the surround height slide into the Grand Canyon in a controlled fashion?
-
Jim,
What I wanted to express, and you may well be onto that for long, is that with the weight moving inside their slots, their actual radial load on the wheel is different from a static one. You could say the wheel is exerting energy to throw the weight into a wider orbit. It's costing energy, because the radial speed of the weight is supposed to be increased at the same time.
There should be a gain on first glance from overbalance, but there isn't because you can't get the weight into the wider orbit AND at increased radial speed. There's not the gravity available to do that. It's just 9.8m/s² on tap like the rest of the wheel is bound to.
We need the weight to behave in a certain way. And it it would, we'd have OU right there. Unfortunately, the weight just uses up all the potential energy it's got, for the vertical loss available. The outer orbit has a kinetic energy requirement gravity cannot account for. Due to the angle of the slots, whichever angle or curve you choose.
To understand why this wheel doesn't work, might set you on a path to find the ultimate clue, or cheat it.
Until, the search is for a rock that has yet to fall, to use for gravity extraction. Or, a hole that has already been dug.
Anyone ever calculate how much energy it would give to let the surround height slide into the Grand Canyon in a controlled fashion?
Cloxxki,
I think you've mentioned something that is often over looked.
The thinking behind this design is the weights shift at the same time.
If the weight moving downward moves outward when it is 45 degrees from top center, it will advance radially. But to consider the balance of the wheel, if it advances 10 degrees, and it takes 10 degrees of rotation, then it will be 25 degrees above the plane of the axle.
When the opposing weight starts to move towards center, it will be 35 degrees below the plane of the axle. What I don't know myself is if the weight moves in while the wheel rotates (the weight moving inward is not lifted), how does this effect the momentum of the wheel ?
When I consider the math, this is missing. I only calculated it's path. Why this would matter is this would give the wheel 10 degrees of rotation where 3 weights can accelerate and have a greater amount of combined momentum. Of course, if the weight moves in whileit is being lifted, it will keep it's own momentum.
I think this is one of the reasons why I like this seemingly simple wheel.
Merry Christmas Cloxxki.
Jim
-
cloxxki,
Remember when you mentioned that the weight A has unused energy ?
I have thought of something. If when it stops, it's stop is at an angle, it's
force can be directed in the direction the wheel is rotating.
Why this can help is when weight B moves to it's start position, it will lose
momentum. This will help to over come that. Also, when weight B moves inward,
it's momentum can be deflected upwards and downwards. This would keep it from
trying to rotate the wheel backwards. That is something I have always over looked.
If you look at it's position, it rolls inward in a direction that stays below the level
of the axle. But if the end of it's slot has 2 angles, then it's momentum could effectively
be cancelled. Then it might have a chance of working.
This would be because while weight B is moving to it's start position, the other 3 weights
would be accelerating, basically acting as a flywheel. Then it might be able to coast in a balanced position. While it is balanced, it would use a minimum amounbt of energy to continue rotating. And it seems a minimum of about 40% overbalance is required. If it's inner CoG is 30 cm's from center, then 30*4= 12cm's of over balance.
There are a few tricks that would/could help to time and increase the shift of the 2 weights.
Jim
edited to add; first pic shows how weight B can have it's force redirected in 2 different directions. This will allow the momentum fromweight A to
have more potential. The 2nd pic shows how a small drop will get the weights rolling. With weight B, this can help to over come inertia. And because of inertia, the drop off for weight B might need to be a mm or 2 higher than weight A.
in the end, if the wheel can accelerate for 10 degrees out of every 90 degrees of rotation, it might have a chance. Also, if the over balance is a little more than 40% it should help. One thing to remeber though, the more over balance there is, the less time for acceleration.
What might be an odd thought is this, while weight B is moving towards it's start position, if it isn't creating much resistence, then the distance it is from center for the period of rotation is a non factor. This means that for the extra 10 degrees or so that I added to the under balanced side would be putting limits on it that might not exist to that degree. Of course, if all things are equal, then the wheel being able to accelerate is what is important. It is acceleration that is converted into momentum.
Happy New Year All
Jim
-
The problem with B moving inward, is that it's immediate falling behind radially and vertically. You can temporarily save some inertial cost from it by letting it roll "back". the wheel would only support B, not lift it for a moment. Then though, it leaves fewer degrees for the wheel to complete B's lift afterwards.
In the various Abeling discussions, we found that even a weight path along the axle doesn't help. Not with all the leverage in the world, because leverage goes at the equal cost of angle.
Abeling, as far as we could tell, made the B side lighter by letting the weight roll up a ramp not part of the rotating wheel. But as a weight rolls up a ramp, it loses potential energy it might as well have invested in the wheel.
Off-topic for a moment because I think it might be the key to all gravity wheels that were or weren't.
If Abeling is for real, I expect weights to be spinning magnets, of which the orientation varies the load on the wheel up and down. Using the inertial differences at free moving speeds rather than the mass which is equal when stationary.
Let's take for a fact that there's a is difference between a single magnet falling off a roof, versus 2 magnets pressed together in opposing mode, or spinning relative to earth in a certain direction. A scale won't be able to tell, but experients I've read on, suggest that there is a difference in flight path and duration.
If earth cannot pull as well on a magnet in a certain spin or situation, it may also be cheaper to smack up, to reach height Y. I can think of several way to then change orientation to earth, or other magnets, at no or little cost, possible smaller than the gains to be had in the vertical part.
What if Bessler and Abeling had pretty basic machine exploiting an anomalous characteric of the chosen weight? The various designs are the smoke screen, the trick is what you're lifting, not as much how. that's how I'd patent something like that. Describe, vaguely, all ways that will work for the anomaly, without mentioning it.
Bessler kept his weights a secret right? They could have been magnets. Oriented differently up than down. Or being spun up by the wheel, either by rolling on a smaller stumb than its outer diameter acting as axle or cog to get good rpms. The inertia being recovered at the end of the lift or drop, and used to repeat. A clock maker would know how. A simple spring would collect most of the spin from the weight, and pass it on to the next weight that needs it.
-
The problem with B moving inward, is that it's immediate falling behind radially and vertically. You can temporarily save some inertial cost from it by letting it roll "back". the wheel would only support B, not lift it for a moment. Then though, it leaves fewer degrees for the wheel to complete B's lift afterwards.
In the various Abeling discussions, we found that even a weight path along the axle doesn't help. Not with all the leverage in the world, because leverage goes at the equal cost of angle.
Abeling, as far as we could tell, made the B side lighter by letting the weight roll up a ramp not part of the rotating wheel. But as a weight rolls up a ramp, it loses potential energy it might as well have invested in the wheel.
Off-topic for a moment because I think it might be the key to all gravity wheels that were or weren't.
If Abeling is for real, I expect weights to be spinning magnets, of which the orientation varies the load on the wheel up and down. Using the inertial differences at free moving speeds rather than the mass which is equal when stationary.
Let's take for a fact that there's a is difference between a single magnet falling off a roof, versus 2 magnets pressed together in opposing mode, or spinning relative to earth in a certain direction. A scale won't be able to tell, but experients I've read on, suggest that there is a difference in flight path and duration.
If earth cannot pull as well on a magnet in a certain spin or situation, it may also be cheaper to smack up, to reach height Y. I can think of several way to then change orientation to earth, or other magnets, at no or little cost, possible smaller than the gains to be had in the vertical part.
What if Bessler and Abeling had pretty basic machine exploiting an anomalous characteric of the chosen weight? The various designs are the smoke screen, the trick is what you're lifting, not as much how. that's how I'd patent something like that. Describe, vaguely, all ways that will work for the anomaly, without mentioning it.
Bessler kept his weights a secret right? They could have been magnets. Oriented differently up than down. Or being spun up by the wheel, either by rolling on a smaller stumb than its outer diameter acting as axle or cog to get good rpms. The inertia being recovered at the end of the lift or drop, and used to repeat. A clock maker would know how. A simple spring would collect most of the spin from the weight, and pass it on to the next weight that needs it.
Cloxxki,
Last night, I was looking at 2 drawings I had printed. I realized they do go together.
They also have a detail that is in a 3rd drawing. They do support what I am building.
Thse 3 drawings would be the proof of Besler's wheel. I think this is where now I can relax and
enjoy doing the build.
Because I am building, I am going to focus on that. I hope you don't mind.
@replaced, there is still hope for you. Of course, I could be wrong.
Jim
-
@All,
By starting with something like the 4 weighted wheel, I have progressed to this.
Mt's 66 & 67 go together. They are similar to another drawing Bessler made.
If you consider how Bessler lettered certain things in the 2 drawings, they are
combined to be A,B,C,D and E. A complete sequence.
In Mt 66, A is a tube that goes from the bladder at the bottom to the bladder
at the top. In Mt 67, A is to the right where the bladders are filled. This could
be his way of showing a tube's location. Also, as surprising as it may seem, D
would be the same in both drawings. The third drawing links them together. If
so, then A is a tube, B is a pump, C is a lever, D is going unmentioned for now
and E would be a weight.
In Mt 26, the weight rolling in a channel to the outside edge from the center
of the wheel is the same letter as in Mt 27. Where he placed a weight that "rolls"
around a channel on the outside edge of the wheel.
The detail I mentioned in the previous post is not to one of his Mt's. Today, I
might start building a new board warping fixture. It does need to be precise
as a wheel is a machine or motor, depending on which way you want to look
at it. By next week, I should be warping boards and then can think about other
details I need to build.
I know this will probably be doubted, but then, I am the one building it.
Jim
edited to correct direction.
-
@Eagle1,
This is what I was talking about as far as a simple idea goes.
I've done the math before and tonight I will do it again. I'll come up with a radius
and an over balance that will give the weights moving downward a longer path
than the weights being lifted. I should be able to come up with something I like.
If so, then tomorrow I can start work on it. Maybe have it done this weekend.
Then at least we will know how well math helps us to understand what might
or might not work.
And of course, I'll post the math. And with a build, it would be an actual engineered
project.
Jim
-
what i am hearing is 'working in pairs' and 'one side full one side empty' also 'faling towards the centre'
If your wheel is rotating clockwise, and your weight is moving counter clockwise, you are effectively splitting gravity into clockwise and counterclockwise movement/rotation at the same time.
This proces is continuously disturbing the equilibrium it is trying to find because the normally one way motion gets converted and stored into two way motion, which is moving away from each other and therefore can never find rest.
Duck Weed.
Duck,
What you are describing is what I believe to be one of Bessler's wheels. With what I believe he had found, he could have the levers fall towards center and strike the hub. This could explain the 8 knocking sounds that people heard. If he tethered the weights, then he could control the mechanics of his wheel and employ a different principle.
With the 4 weighted wheel, it is something I thought of while trying to understand what Bessler might have known.
If you look at the first few drawings in the link, it is the simplest way to have gravity do all the work. http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=MT_1-20 (http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=MT_1-20)
I did the math last night and made one slight mistake which I corrected this morning. With the basic diagram, if a weight as an example has it's CoG 10cm's from center and it's CoG can move from that point 2cm's at an angle of 45 degrees, the downward path is about 3 cm's longer than the path the weight moving upward would follow.
This extra distance shows an over all over balance and would give this dersign a chance of working. Would it be able to rotate continuously ? I'm not sure. Any extra rotation of the wheel past the point where the weights can either move inward or outward is lost over balance.
It's interesting though. The last time I discussed this design with other people, one person wanted to know how it worked so they could build it. They didn't care to know the math or science behind it. As it turns out, without understanding the math behind it, it might never work because more over balance is always assumed to be better. But in this instance, limiting over balance helps to find the "Golden Zone". A spin of the Goldilocks scientists use when refering to the habitability of the Earth and it's orbit around the sun.
Jim
edited to correct the value of over balance
-
@All,
I'll see what I can do about getting some work done to demonstrate the 4 weighted wheel.
It would be a straight conversion of gravity into mechanical energy. This would also help to
give me something to discuss while I'm working at my own expense on Bessler's wheel. I
think it will be one of the best free energy devices of a mechanical nature.
Hopefully I can post some compl;eted work by tomorrow evening. Who knows, it might lead
to the simplest open source idea that would be easy to replicate and verify independently.
Of course, if it works, still might make some money off of it. If that happens, guess I'll have to
live with as well ;) ;)
Jim
-
@All,
I do know i post a lot ;D
I'm addicted to pm, what can I say ?
I did get a small start today. I hope to get an earlier one
tomorrow so I can show something. This is something I
have built and posted a video of. This time, it might work.
The 4 weighted design is pretty basic and this should help
me to get a lot done tomorrow. Also, have been over the math
quite a bit over the last few years. That kind of gets old because
a wheel can express it so much better. I have thought of possibly
2 wheels with different over balances to show the difference.
To understand the difference though would require getting into
trigonometry, could be quite a bit :) Math is the heart and soul
of engineering, comes with the subject.
One basis of this concept is that the over balance creates torque
which is defined as a turning force. The more torque, the quicker
the acceleration, the same as with a car or motorcycle. It would be the
mass of the wheel that power (horse power) would come into play. That
would be the over all mass times velocity under load or having resistence
that is constant. basically the same thing.
Jim
-
@All,
All I can say is it's a start. Have only been out of surgery a week so it is something.
It will be about 23 inches in diameter. Depending how things go, could go to a larger
diameter and use slightly heavier weights.
I'll make a box for my router so the weight locations will all be the same. There are
3 ways this might go perpetual. Webby1 gave me a good idea in using something
similar to a flywheel. For something like that, it would take a bit of work but could be
worth it. Of course, if that works, Tom would have to take credit for his idea.
The 2 pics show the initial build process. I had to buy a rotary tool to drill hole locations.
And the other shows the CoG of the weights path being drilled using a hole saw. After I
route it, then I can route the outside radius and be close to completion.
What I am trying for with this is 90 degrees of rotation for each weight. 360/4=90.
I think understanding the basics helps to understand how potential can be realized.
Jim
-
@all,
Tomorrow I,ll be able to upload some pics.
With a wheel, there is no reversing of direction.
What I like about this build is that it will help to understand how much overbalance is needed to rotate a wheel.
After a while, you may come to understand why I like Bessler,s wheel so much.
Jim
-
@All,
This is a part of what I've done. I have the 4 slots finished.
I have given the math a little thought. Since I am using 4 -1lb.
weights, with a 30% over balance, the initial over balance will be
4 ounces @ about 23 inches. Or about 1/2 foot pound of torque.
To rotate a wheel of 4 1/2 lbs., I will need to trim off any excess
material while allowing for structural support.
This will help to show a relationship between torque and acceleration.
In Netwon's terms, f=ma of which the a represents acceleration.
Also, a customer service rep and the Woodsmithshop show have
mentioned kerf boards if I remember right. They can form radii easily.
This would let me use a build similar to this as this as the form for
Bessler's wheel. It seems one build leads to the other :o 8)
To finish even a basic wheel like this I may take another 2 weeks to do.
This is because I will need to think about what template or process to
remove more wood thus making the wheel as light as possible. And
remember please, with this build, 90 degrees of rotation per weight is the
goal. After that ... heck, I'll wait until I get there to worry about it.
Jim
edited to correct torque estimate
-
@All,
This is the basic 4 weighted wheel. One I previously built was over 5 feet in diameter
and had 8 inches of over balance.
With this build, it's about 10 inches at the start position and 13 inches in the over balanced
position. since it is a rotating wheel, the over balance needs to be considered from the center line. At 45 degrees after center, if the weight moves straight out, it is moving from 7 inches from the center line to 10 inches and would be about 52 degrees after top center.
The video is short but makes it's point. Not enough torque (acceleration) is generated. I used nylon bushings with no lubrication. The next time I am at my shop, I will remember to
take some white grease with me. It's in a spray can and should help to lower resistence.
Might even try bearings and trimming off excess material as time goes by.
This simple build is helpful to me. For you critics, do you think I would spend the money if
this is what I wanted ? it's not, but it is to help everyone else to understand some of what
I have learned over the last few years.
Between building this and what I can observe about mass to net force and it's ability to accelerate this wheel helps me to better understand what I need to be concerned with when I build Bessler's wheel which is in the end, what this is about. And the next visit to my shop I will most like start building the form I will need to get started on that build.
Going by simple relationships, the 4 weighted wheel has about 1/2 foot pound of torque.
With Bessler's wheel, using twice as much weight, I will be trying to attain 4 foot pounds of torque. This means I would be using a 1 pound weight to move quickly (4.9m/s) 2 pounds of weight.
This will let me know befor I even build it what the dimensions will need to be.
As for this side project, I am using materials I already have so it's paying for itself :D
Jim
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcdYVnUYrw8&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcdYVnUYrw8&feature=youtu.be)
edited to add; did some quick math and to achieve 60 rpm, a diameter of 1.56 meters
would work. That's about 60 inches. with a 40 inch wheel, moving a weight at about 3m/s
should do it and the design I've been working on is close to what is needed.
One thing Conrad mentioned to me is that this being a hobby, I should only budget so much money to spend on it. I think that is a very good idea and advice I plan on following.
-
Very cool,but I predict you will not have success with this one. A lot of us have drawings like this in our old notebooks and a lot of old wheels in the basement. The math that you need to understand is trigonometry which can be elegant and agonizing in its precision of showing you exactly where your limit is.
To put it briefly, for every 1 degree of motion on your wheel, the 4 weights will each have a change in sine. In other words, they would each have a slight net increase or decrease in upward motion relative to the center of the wheel. Sum the changes in sine for all 4 weights and you will know if that 1 degree of motion would tend to be clockwise (negative net sine) or counterclockwise (positive net sine). When you find the point where one degree is positive and the next degree is negative, that is where your wheel will stop.
To leap ahead, what you will discover is that all that matters is the total net sine change over one complete rotation. And if, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, you are in exactly the same place after one rotation, the the net positive changes in sine must always (precisely, dammit!) equal the net negative changes. Bottom line: You can't go down more than you go up.
I have an Excel spreadsheet that I developed that helps me calculate these because I haven't given up on it either. I would be willing to share if anybody wants to see it. Keep plugging !!
Jameson
-
Hi jameson,
With this- it,s okay if it doesn,t work.
One thing it helps to understand is to understand weight to force ratios and acceleration.
It has helped me to know what to look for in Bessler,s drawings that had the potential for a lot of torque which is also known as overbalance.
Jim
-
Very cool,but I predict you will not have success with this one. A lot of us have drawings like this in our old notebooks and a lot of old wheels in the basement. The math that you need to understand is trigonometry which can be elegant and agonizing in its precision of showing you exactly where your limit is.
To put it briefly, for every 1 degree of motion on your wheel, the 4 weights will each have a change in sine. In other words, they would each have a slight net increase or decrease in upward motion relative to the center of the wheel. Sum the changes in sine for all 4 weights and you will know if that 1 degree of motion would tend to be clockwise (negative net sine) or counterclockwise (positive net sine). When you find the point where one degree is positive and the next degree is negative, that is where your wheel will stop.
To leap ahead, what you will discover is that all that matters is the total net sine change over one complete rotation. And if, as was mentioned earlier in this thread, you are in exactly the same place after one rotation, the the net positive changes in sine must always (precisely, dammit!) equal the net negative changes. Bottom line: You can't go down more than you go up.
I have an Excel spreadsheet that I developed that helps me calculate these because I haven't given up on it either. I would be willing to share if anybody wants to see it. Keep plugging !!
Jameson
Jameson,
In the picture, the motions A and B cancel each out as well as C and D.
This would leave the area between them as over balance. What could be a
problem with this design is where D is when the weights shift. It would have
lost momentum.
If enough torque were geenrated, it might be possible to have the weights strike
a stationary post and shift quicker, a reflexive type action if you will. If so, then
D might maintain it's momentum. It's kind of a study in motion.
Maybe you might rethink cause and effect ? maybe ?
Jim