Hey Cloxxki,

I am not understanding where you come up with a 9% time gain.
What formulas and values did you use?

If you have a 9% time gain on 180 degrees of the wheel  (the ascending side), as compared to the other 180 degrees of the wheel ( the descending side). there would be more like 16.2 degrees of advance. Not just a couple degrees. Internal timing is critical to the function of the wheel.

When I look at my design there is actually a 90 to 95 degree advance on the ascending side, but this is combined with a slower pace of the weight, followed by the timing being retarded but at about half the rate of the advance.

Once the weight is fully shifted to the axle, the timing is automatically retarded, by the design of the wheel, to come back into sync once the weight reaches 12:00.

Now one can try to use individual wheels for each weight then try to sync them, but I am not sure what that design would look like. I imagine it would have to transfer so much energy to resync itself, that the gain would be dramatically less.

Imagine the weight at 7:30 and taking up energy to be sent to the top on the perimeter of the wheel. But at about 7:30 the weight disappears and reappears at about 12:00. This takes less than 1/2 second if the wheel is turning 20 rpm. Compared to over 1.5 seconds if it were just rotating around the wheel. Now that the timing is advanced, there is no power needed to lift the weight any longer.

This leaves all kinds of power to shift the weight to the axle, if it were still around 8:00 to 8:30. (not 7:30 due to the less than 1/2 second we spoke of) Which it is. The weight is effectually in both places at the same time.

Kind of a cool trick.

The advance of the timing happens in less than 1/2 of one second. From 7:30 to 12:00. However the retarding of the timing happens much slower.
Keeping an advance in the ascending side as long as possible before coming back into sync.

Now when we think about this for a minute the weight against the axle is moving much slower than the perimeter weight. Add this factor to the effect of the timing being retarded, we can see that the rate of the timing being slowed is much less than the rate of advance.

In actuality it must be close to twice as slow as the advance in timing.
When we look to the universe we see objects speed up and slow down as they go around their orbits.

For instance a comet travels much faster just after it goes around the sun than it does just before it turns to head towards the sun in its outer most part of its orbit. This is a principle of perpetual motion. 

When we look at designs, this too must happen in my opinion. The weight must be traveling fastest as it leaves the axle or tightest orbit.  Now almost opposite of the fastest point would be the slowest point, but that's when the advance in timing occurs. Eliminating the effect of gravity on the ascending side, until the tightest orbit is achieved. At which point the weight is retarded to get back into sync, then speeds back up to its fastest speed as it leaves the tightest orbit. Then the cycle repeats itself.

We can pull designs out of a hat and then build them for the next however many years. Or we can look to the principles which already exist and create a design that mimics what already works.

Well I have things to do , so I must bid you farewell at this time.

  Have fun!   

"If you are a mathematician then you need not be told about the beauty of a mathematical theory of physics, and if you aren't one, then nothing could convince you of it"

Cloxxki,

I do not understand why you are comparing a weight falling straight down to one on the perimeter of a wheel. This comparison to me doesn't reveal anything useful for designing a wheel.

The way I see it is, one must compare the ascending to the descending. This will give us useful information. Unless the ascending weight is rising straight up at the same rate, that same weight falls straight down, I see no useful information that can be extrapolated by comparing a free falling weight to one in a wheel.

The advance in timing I am speaking of is ascending verses descending.
The advance in timing of the ascending weight happens without lifting the weight. Once the timing begins to advance, no power is needed for lifting and all power at that point in time can be used to shift the weight to the axle.

Then after the weight is against the axle, the timing being retarded actually creates a gain until the weight is back in sync. Seems if you design a certain way, you have power losses at every point you examine. The better design creates gain automatically and it seems like there are small gains at every point you examine. It is inherent to the design.

Well I have to go work on something.

 

"Science does not know its debt to imagination."

Hello all,

I am working on number 5 of the list and have a modification. This may not be the last modification.

5) All parts inside the wheel, that touch a moving part, must move. All moving parts that come in contact with a separate part. Must cause the separate part to move in the same relative direction as the part contacting it. The larger the direction change the larger the power loss.


Have Fun     

"We can lick gravity, but sometimes the paperwork is overwhelming."