Here is a description of my idea so far- If I can get it to almost work with my extremely limited knowledge and bearings from a kids toy, maybe someone on here can get it to do what I want it to do.
Or maybe it will never work but it is better to have tried than done nothing at all.
Thanks in anticipation
Description
This invention uses three main components, namely a large outer wheel with detachable weights, a smaller pinion type gear wheel and a rack type device aligned to the smaller gear wheel.
Outer wheel
According to the present arrangement there is a large wheel which rotates on a central shaft. This wheel is constructed so that most of its mass is round its outer circumference. The outer part of the wheel is connected to the shaft by spokes or arms. The wheel rotates around the shaft on a set of bearings to allow it to revolve freely.
A key aspect of the design is to have a set of detachable weights on the outer circumference which can be released at the appropriate time. These weights can also be re-attached when required and this will be explained later.
The outer wheel has its weight distributed predominately around its circumference and is equally balanced when all the weights are in place.
Pinion type gear wheel
At the centre of the wheel there is smaller pinion type gear wheel that is attached to the central shaft. This gear wheel is on the same axis as the large wheel and when a load is applied to it, will cause it to rotate in a clockwise direction only and drive the outer wheel. If a load is applied to the gear in an anti-clockwise direction, it will freewheel and have no effect on the driving of the large outer wheel. This is similar to the design of a rear wheel on a conventional bicycle where the small gear drives the larger outer wheel.
Rack type device
This device is fixed and runs vertically within the outer wheel. The rack is aligned with one side of the pinion type gear wheel and this means that when a force acts on the rack type device, this force causes the small pinion type gear wheel to rotate and in turn, the outer wheel also rotates.
The length of the rack type device can vary but will always start at the highest vertical point within the outer wheel and for the purposes of this design will extend to the lowest point within the outer wheel on a vertical plane. The rack type device will be capable of accommodating the detachable weights and these are designed to exert a force on to the pinion gear and drive the outer wheel. It should be stated that according to the present invention, there will always be a weight within the rack type device and this will mean that there is always a force exerted on the small gear wheel.
It is imperative that this force acting on the small gear wheel is sufficient to cause rotation and the diameter of this wheel will be dependent on the diameter and mass of the outer wheel and mass of the weights.
Method of operation
This describes the operating principle of the design and explains the main parts in greater detail.
With reference to drawing 1, the outer wheel (a) rotates on a central shaft (b) and has a number of weights (c) attached to the outer circumference. These weights can be attached and released at the appropriate point by mechanical means or an electrical switch.
The circumference of the outer wheel also has a mass over and above the weights and this will assist in the operation of the system.
The outer wheel also has a smaller gear wheel (d) rotating on the same axis. This gear wheel is aligned to a chain or similar type rack device (e) which is mounted onto a back plate so that when a force is applied to the rack, it causes the small gear wheel to rotate. The device is mounted onto a frame (f) so it can rotate freely.
The rack is designed so that when a weight is placed upon it, the weight will gradually cause the rack to turn and allow the weight to move downwards.
At the starting point of the operating cycle, there is a weight placed on the rack at the highest point. This weight is in addition to the weights attached to the outer wheel. This means that there is more mass acting on one side of the outer wheel than the other and this causes the wheel to turn.
The rotation speed of the outer wheel is based on a number of key factors such as the mass of the weight on the rack- the greater the mass of the weight equates to the greater the force on the small gear.
The diameter of the small gear is also important and is linked to the diameter of the outer wheel.
If we consider that the rack is almost the full length of the diameter of the outer wheel then the weight on the rack will move the same length.
If the diameter of the outer wheel is ten times that of the small gear, this would allow the outer wheel to rotate just over 3 revolutions for every time the weight on the rack moved from its highest to lowest point.
Due to the weight acting on the small gear, this would cause the wheel to accelerate as the weight moved downwards towards the bottom of the rack.
Once the weight has reached its lowest point on the rack, it connects with either a mechanical or electrical switch which releases the next detachable weight at the top of the outer wheel. This weight will act on the rack which in turn will cause the wheel to rotate.
Just after the release point of the weight at the top, the wheel will be imbalanced but the aspiration is for the wheel to have sufficient rotational momentum to be able to rotate for at least 180 degrees before it loses its momentum. This would allow for the weight at the bottom to be attached to the space left by the weight recently released at the top and the outer wheel to be balanced again. As the outer wheel would now be balanced and there is a weight acting on the rack, this would cause an over-balance and allow the wheel to continue rotating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Simple wheel idea
Moderator: scott
Simple wheel idea
- Attachments
-
-
Bill_Mothershead
- Aficionado
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:52 pm
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
re: Simple wheel idea
Thanks Bill
I can see what you mean when I look at some of these but when I look at them I do not see how any of them could actually turn.
Mine does turn, accelerates and the only question is that does it accelerate enough to turn through 180 degrees..!
Try this experiment and see what you think:
Get a wheel of about 60 cm Diameter and place a number of weights on the circumference so that the wheel is balanced and ensure it can revolve freely on a shaft.
Attach a smaller gear wheel to the same axis so that when a force is put on it, the small wheel turns the bigger one, similar to the rear wheel of a bicycle
The outer wheel has to turn one complete revolution so the maximum diameter that the small wheel can be is 60cm divided by 3.14= 19cm.
Then attach a 60cm piece of string to the smaller wheel and attach the same size of weight to the other end of the string.
As the circumference of the outer wheel is 60cm, this is the distance the weight will move from top to bottom.
As the weight on the string will come down the outer circumference of the small wheel, this will cause an overbalance and allow the wheel to turn and is meant to replicate the action of the rack on my design.
If we use a 19cm wheel as the small wheel, this will allow the outer wheel to turn one full revolution.
At this point, a weight is removed from the top of the outer wheel and then placed onto the string, having two weights driving the outer wheel. It is hoped that this arrangement has enough rotational momentum in the wheel to allow it to turn 180 degrees- this will allow the weight to be attached to the bottom of the wheel and this string arrangement is meant to replicate how the rack design would work.
Your comments will be greatly appreciated.
I can see what you mean when I look at some of these but when I look at them I do not see how any of them could actually turn.
Mine does turn, accelerates and the only question is that does it accelerate enough to turn through 180 degrees..!
Try this experiment and see what you think:
Get a wheel of about 60 cm Diameter and place a number of weights on the circumference so that the wheel is balanced and ensure it can revolve freely on a shaft.
Attach a smaller gear wheel to the same axis so that when a force is put on it, the small wheel turns the bigger one, similar to the rear wheel of a bicycle
The outer wheel has to turn one complete revolution so the maximum diameter that the small wheel can be is 60cm divided by 3.14= 19cm.
Then attach a 60cm piece of string to the smaller wheel and attach the same size of weight to the other end of the string.
As the circumference of the outer wheel is 60cm, this is the distance the weight will move from top to bottom.
As the weight on the string will come down the outer circumference of the small wheel, this will cause an overbalance and allow the wheel to turn and is meant to replicate the action of the rack on my design.
If we use a 19cm wheel as the small wheel, this will allow the outer wheel to turn one full revolution.
At this point, a weight is removed from the top of the outer wheel and then placed onto the string, having two weights driving the outer wheel. It is hoped that this arrangement has enough rotational momentum in the wheel to allow it to turn 180 degrees- this will allow the weight to be attached to the bottom of the wheel and this string arrangement is meant to replicate how the rack design would work.
Your comments will be greatly appreciated.
-
Bill_Mothershead
- Aficionado
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:52 pm
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
re: Simple wheel idea
I got lost in a sea of words. :-(
-
FunWithGravity2
- Devotee
- Posts: 1040
- Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 10:32 pm
re: Simple wheel idea
I stopped reading at "gear", sorry, i'm not to bright but i love silly little pictures or moving picture stories, got any of those?
Dave
Dave
Si mobile in circumferentia circuli feratur ea celeritate, quam acquirit cadendo ex
altitudine, quae sit quartae parti diameter aequalis ; habebit vim centrifugam suae
gravitati aequalem.
altitudine, quae sit quartae parti diameter aequalis ; habebit vim centrifugam suae
gravitati aequalem.
Re: re: Simple wheel idea
I was going to explain all to you, but I got lost in a desert of words... 8[Bill_Mothershead wrote:I got lost in a sea of words. :-(
re: Simple wheel idea
.
GPS: Never Get Lost Again!
http://static.tigerdirect.com/html/Spot ... Again.html
Just doing my part to help 8P
GPS: Never Get Lost Again!
http://static.tigerdirect.com/html/Spot ... Again.html
Just doing my part to help 8P
What goes around, comes around.
-
Bill_Mothershead
- Aficionado
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:52 pm
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
re: Simple wheel idea
you might want to look at a few drawings from here:
http://www.orffyre.com/mt41-60.html
MT 48 and 49 might look kinda familiar.
http://www.orffyre.com/mt41-60.html
MT 48 and 49 might look kinda familiar.
-
daanopperman
- Devotee
- Posts: 1548
- Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2010 7:43 pm
re: Simple wheel idea
Hi bilbo ,
In the second drawing there is a weight just beginning to descend on the trapeze and at 11 o clock there is a weight on the wheel rim , this means at some stage there must have been 3 weights on the left side of the wheel going up and only one going down , every weight not sticking to the wheel rim to the end will cause a imbalance on the left and right side of the wheel . Once the weight on the trapeze reaches the bottom you start all over again with 2 weights at the same spot that has to be lifted to 12 before they can do work .
In the second drawing there is a weight just beginning to descend on the trapeze and at 11 o clock there is a weight on the wheel rim , this means at some stage there must have been 3 weights on the left side of the wheel going up and only one going down , every weight not sticking to the wheel rim to the end will cause a imbalance on the left and right side of the wheel . Once the weight on the trapeze reaches the bottom you start all over again with 2 weights at the same spot that has to be lifted to 12 before they can do work .
re: Simple wheel idea
Hi Bill
I have looked at both of these and agree they look familiar but both work on the principle that the rack is merely to move the weights back to the top and give the impression that the outer wheel will always be overbalanced due to the layout of the weights on them.
we all know this is not the case and I am even unsure what the direction of rotation is meant to be in these drawings.
My design has a rack attached to a central gear that drives the outer wheel.
At the start of the cycle, there is one weight on the rack and the outer wheel has weights placed evenly around its circumference to make it balanced. When the rack starts to move, one weight is transferred from top to the bottom of the outer wheel.
During this movement, the outer wheel does speed up because it is balanced and the movement of the rack exerts a force on it.
The main question is, can you get a configuration that allows for the wheel to have sufficient rotational momentum at the point when the weight in the rack is at its lowest point.
This is when a weight is placed from the top of the outer wheel onto the rack.
The wheel at this point is under balanced as it is now lighter at the top due to the weight being placed on the rack.
the positive aspect of this is that it means there are 2 weights on the rack trying to drive the small gear and turn the outer wheel.
It also means that the wheel would require sufficient rotational momentum to turn 180 degrees to allow the weight now at the bottom to be placed on the outer wheel when it rotates to the required point
This would balance the outer wheel and the weight now in the rack would exert a force on the gear and turn the outer wheel.
I Hope I have explained it better than previously- which, to be fair would not be too difficult...!
As always- I really appreciate your comments.
I have looked at both of these and agree they look familiar but both work on the principle that the rack is merely to move the weights back to the top and give the impression that the outer wheel will always be overbalanced due to the layout of the weights on them.
we all know this is not the case and I am even unsure what the direction of rotation is meant to be in these drawings.
My design has a rack attached to a central gear that drives the outer wheel.
At the start of the cycle, there is one weight on the rack and the outer wheel has weights placed evenly around its circumference to make it balanced. When the rack starts to move, one weight is transferred from top to the bottom of the outer wheel.
During this movement, the outer wheel does speed up because it is balanced and the movement of the rack exerts a force on it.
The main question is, can you get a configuration that allows for the wheel to have sufficient rotational momentum at the point when the weight in the rack is at its lowest point.
This is when a weight is placed from the top of the outer wheel onto the rack.
The wheel at this point is under balanced as it is now lighter at the top due to the weight being placed on the rack.
the positive aspect of this is that it means there are 2 weights on the rack trying to drive the small gear and turn the outer wheel.
It also means that the wheel would require sufficient rotational momentum to turn 180 degrees to allow the weight now at the bottom to be placed on the outer wheel when it rotates to the required point
This would balance the outer wheel and the weight now in the rack would exert a force on the gear and turn the outer wheel.
I Hope I have explained it better than previously- which, to be fair would not be too difficult...!
As always- I really appreciate your comments.
re: Simple wheel idea
Hi Daanopperman
If you look at the picture in question and disregard the "trapeze" and the weight on it, the outer wheel is still balanced.
At the very start of the cycle, there is weight on the rack and 4 or more round the circumference of the outer wheel.
The weight at 1 O'clock is balanced by the weight at 7 O'Clock and the weight at 4 O'Clock is balanced by the weight at 10 O'Clock.
I apologise for not explaining it properly but if you take it that once the machine is "switched on" for want of a better phrase, there is a weight at the top of the rack, over and above the weights on the circumference of the wheel.
The weight on the rack moving downwards and driving the outer wheel is hopefully enough to create the requisite amount of rotation and overbalance to overcome the underbalance when the weight is released from the top of the wheel onto the rack.
If you look at the picture in question and disregard the "trapeze" and the weight on it, the outer wheel is still balanced.
At the very start of the cycle, there is weight on the rack and 4 or more round the circumference of the outer wheel.
The weight at 1 O'clock is balanced by the weight at 7 O'Clock and the weight at 4 O'Clock is balanced by the weight at 10 O'Clock.
I apologise for not explaining it properly but if you take it that once the machine is "switched on" for want of a better phrase, there is a weight at the top of the rack, over and above the weights on the circumference of the wheel.
The weight on the rack moving downwards and driving the outer wheel is hopefully enough to create the requisite amount of rotation and overbalance to overcome the underbalance when the weight is released from the top of the wheel onto the rack.
re: Simple wheel idea
So based on the information above, can anyone tell me why this idea will, or wont work ?
I have not looked in great detail at optimum small and outer wheel size- weights and their spacing- length of rack but have considered a gearing mechanism between the small gear and the outer wheel.
Your comments on this design will be welcomed.
I have not looked in great detail at optimum small and outer wheel size- weights and their spacing- length of rack but have considered a gearing mechanism between the small gear and the outer wheel.
Your comments on this design will be welcomed.
-
preoccupied
- Devotee
- Posts: 1990
- Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2011 3:28 am
- Location: Michigan
- Contact:
re: Simple wheel idea
Gears trains require equal forces or compound gear trains require less than or greater force. Your gear moving the vertical requires equal forces. You've chosen a mechanical method that does not give you an advantage.
Cars use gear trains. And bikes. But they do not use them to stop accidents, but they might in the future.
Conceptual idea:
Hardened carbon fiber is not elastic and breaks like glass. If there is a car crash and a carbon fiber frame were to break it would absorb impact because of the break absorbing the forces. So if the right amount of carbon fiber breaks, it is possible that the person experiencing any level of car accident wouldn't feel it or even move forward much upon impact.
Speed of an incoming object could have any amount of forces but speed bending to the elasticity of an object is measurable. Let the force of the impact be measured by the speed through a bending metal shell into levers on the inside. Use the levers and a row of gears that incrementally add to a location and a compound gear train to move the correct number of carbon fiber breakable levers into place. This would be equivalent to the thermal advantage of burning a space ship upon re-entry but for impact in a car accident.
Gears can absorb some impact because of the work put into moving them, but the carbon fiber eliminates the whip lash and casualties. If somehow gears totally absorbed the impact the thing being hit would break, so carbon fiber is the best solution because both impacts would be reduced, the person being hit and the person hitting.
Another conceptual idea:
Same thing as the previous one except impact is generating energy for the vehicle. Crash energy but no care for what is crashed into.
Cars use gear trains. And bikes. But they do not use them to stop accidents, but they might in the future.
Conceptual idea:
Hardened carbon fiber is not elastic and breaks like glass. If there is a car crash and a carbon fiber frame were to break it would absorb impact because of the break absorbing the forces. So if the right amount of carbon fiber breaks, it is possible that the person experiencing any level of car accident wouldn't feel it or even move forward much upon impact.
Speed of an incoming object could have any amount of forces but speed bending to the elasticity of an object is measurable. Let the force of the impact be measured by the speed through a bending metal shell into levers on the inside. Use the levers and a row of gears that incrementally add to a location and a compound gear train to move the correct number of carbon fiber breakable levers into place. This would be equivalent to the thermal advantage of burning a space ship upon re-entry but for impact in a car accident.
Gears can absorb some impact because of the work put into moving them, but the carbon fiber eliminates the whip lash and casualties. If somehow gears totally absorbed the impact the thing being hit would break, so carbon fiber is the best solution because both impacts would be reduced, the person being hit and the person hitting.
Another conceptual idea:
Same thing as the previous one except impact is generating energy for the vehicle. Crash energy but no care for what is crashed into.