@All,
This is something I will be working on as won't be able to return to work for about another 6 weeks or so.
As you can see from the picture below, that as the wheel rotates, a line would wrap itself around a semi-circle. It is shown as a half moon for purposes of better illustrating it.
What I like about this invention is that as the wheel (counter balanced lever/arm in actuallity) rotates, the fulcrum also changes it's position.
This can best be seen when the weight is at a right angle perindicular to gravity and when it is parallel to gravity. It's position will have rotated 90 degrees.
And as you can see from the weight's position when it is 90 degrees perpindicular to gravity that it is at it's furthest point from it's fulcrum in that direction. And that after 90 degrees of rotation, the weight's perpindicular position to gravity and it's fulcrum is along the same vertical path.
It is because of this that the weight could increase the potential of 2 weights while it "falls" back into it's original position.
And if the weight's outer position is 30 cm's from the edge of the half moon in it's direction, and it's line is 10 cm's longer to account for this, then as it rotates, the half moon would use a distance of 15.7 cm's of the line which would mean that the weight would be 24.3 cm's beneath the same edge udes for the orginal over balanced measurement.
I think that is a significant difference in potential.
And if this were built using metal, then in a way it would be defeating one of it's purposes and that is that someone armed with a couple of clamps, a drill and a hand saw could build one.
This would let the average hobbyist be able to try it for themselves and learn a little about mechanics and engineering and how they can manipulate the laws of physics.
p.s., I do have about all details figured out but understanding the basics is more important than the details that might allow it to work perpetually.
edited to add; since someone posted that a force perpendicular to an object can not change it's direction and because it's a cool experiment, thought I would post this link;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H98BgRzpOM
Basic Pm Idea
Moderator: scott
@All,
I guess in reality I shouldn't even be posting this idea. And if it did happen to ne one soltion for perpetual motion, then I'll be rich.
I would have to think though tnat if I were trying to get the average pm enthusiast to understand something like this, who knows, maybe getting rich and famous isn't my goal. But there seems to be little credibility in that.
Still, if it works perpetually, I'd most likely recieve some benefit from it. And since I live in a mid-size city, maybe could by the land so my city would have a park downtown. It seems that's about the only thing it's missing.
Of course, with something like this, it would snow at least one way that gravity could be converted into work.
I guess in reality I shouldn't even be posting this idea. And if it did happen to ne one soltion for perpetual motion, then I'll be rich.
I would have to think though tnat if I were trying to get the average pm enthusiast to understand something like this, who knows, maybe getting rich and famous isn't my goal. But there seems to be little credibility in that.
Still, if it works perpetually, I'd most likely recieve some benefit from it. And since I live in a mid-size city, maybe could by the land so my city would have a park downtown. It seems that's about the only thing it's missing.
Of course, with something like this, it would snow at least one way that gravity could be converted into work.
-
triplock
re: Basic Pm Idea
Hello there,
Right, lets talk turkey.
How is the 'pendulum string' lengthened again once it has wrapped around the semi-circle to retract the weighted bob. ?
Chris
Right, lets talk turkey.
How is the 'pendulum string' lengthened again once it has wrapped around the semi-circle to retract the weighted bob. ?
Chris
re: Basic Pm Idea
Gday Smith.
The advantage of sharing, is that you get people to comment on your design.
Here is my version of string wrapping around hubs to OB on a wheel:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 9801#89801
I highly recommend continuing to build your device. It won't rotate though. It will however provide periods of positive and negative torque, and it can teach you a valuable lesson.
What I proved to myself with my build, is that weight position horizontally means nothing. Potential energy is weight x height. As you lose height, you transfer some of that energy to your wheel, until no more height can be lost. In an OB gravity wheel, the weights have to eventually be lifted back to their starting position, which is the cause of the headache.
Have fun.
The advantage of sharing, is that you get people to comment on your design.
Here is my version of string wrapping around hubs to OB on a wheel:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 9801#89801
I highly recommend continuing to build your device. It won't rotate though. It will however provide periods of positive and negative torque, and it can teach you a valuable lesson.
What I proved to myself with my build, is that weight position horizontally means nothing. Potential energy is weight x height. As you lose height, you transfer some of that energy to your wheel, until no more height can be lost. In an OB gravity wheel, the weights have to eventually be lifted back to their starting position, which is the cause of the headache.
Have fun.
Re: re: Basic Pm Idea
Chris,triplock wrote:Hello there,
Right, lets talk turkey.
How is the 'pendulum string' lengthened again once it has wrapped .around the semi-circle to retract the weighted bob. ?
Chris
The line would be lifted by something attached to the lever. What could be used to hold it in place is a knot or a metal crimp.
While the line might fit in a slot, anything larger would get snagged.
@Kaine,
I didn't get to good of a look at your design. I'll neec to wait until the next time I'm at the library to get a good look at it.
I think one way this design is different is that it rotates slower than gravity's rate of acceleration.
This would mean that when a weight rolls awzy from center, it is because gravity is doing the work.
What could make that more efficient is possibly having the round weight perched on a small shelf and have weight slightly out of round.
After all, as it falls/rolls back into place, those things could used again to help reseat the weight.
edited to add; Chris, over the next couple of days I'm going to see about building something that will show one way the line can work. I think a demonstration is something that will help everyone to understand it better.
@All,
Because of the simplicity of this idea, testing it to see if it's feasable is a simple enough proposition.
Because peak torque would be applied for a rotational period of about 20 degrees.
With this in mind, a weight equal to the over balance could be used for about the same 20 degrees of rotation to see if 2 counter balanced weights could rotate for a period of 160 degrees or more.
There is one thing to remember though, the over balance on an actual build would be for a period of 90 degrees. It's just that between how little force some of the over balance would generate and by using more stringent testing values, the better the chance for success if it's to be had.
edited to add; I'll throw some math at you guys. If you have 2 - 300 gram weights 25 cm's from center and the over balanced position is 30 cm's crom center, the increase in torque would be equal to a 60 gram weight being placed on the lever for a rotational period of 20 degrees.
Myself, I wouldn't be surprised if it rotated a couple of times if not more.
I'm not sure on this but do think that this idea is simple enough.
Have decided since the numbers look good enough, will go ahead and build.
That will take out a lot of it being a hobby and make it more like a job.
Because of the simplicity of this idea, testing it to see if it's feasable is a simple enough proposition.
Because peak torque would be applied for a rotational period of about 20 degrees.
With this in mind, a weight equal to the over balance could be used for about the same 20 degrees of rotation to see if 2 counter balanced weights could rotate for a period of 160 degrees or more.
There is one thing to remember though, the over balance on an actual build would be for a period of 90 degrees. It's just that between how little force some of the over balance would generate and by using more stringent testing values, the better the chance for success if it's to be had.
edited to add; I'll throw some math at you guys. If you have 2 - 300 gram weights 25 cm's from center and the over balanced position is 30 cm's crom center, the increase in torque would be equal to a 60 gram weight being placed on the lever for a rotational period of 20 degrees.
Myself, I wouldn't be surprised if it rotated a couple of times if not more.
I'm not sure on this but do think that this idea is simple enough.
Have decided since the numbers look good enough, will go ahead and build.
That will take out a lot of it being a hobby and make it more like a job.
re: Basic Pm Idea
@All,
On Monday, I'm going to order a pair of 1/4 inch roller bearings and also see about ordering 2 - 300 gram sperical weights.
Then when I get my staples removed in a couple of weeks, I'll be able to start safely (as far as my health goes) building it.
I think my health and well being are more important than a ppm device if this turns out to be workable.
edited to add; since this design has a chance of working, I'm using my down time to get some things that will make a better go and show of it.
I have spherical lead weights that are round and could poor what ever weight I need.
Myself, I usually brain storm an idea in metric because science ( i.e., Newton, etc.) uses/used it and it scales so nicely.
However, since this design is capable of working (has the potential), I am going to try to do this build using 100% metric measurements. This would also include calculating the torque in n-m's.
This would allow(possibly) to understand how efficient the conversion of gravity to mechanical energy is and how much entropy the weights would suffer while trying to conserve their angular momentum.
Of course, I don't know calculus so that could be a problem.
BTW, I'd leave understanding how it is to the science professionals who went to school to know how to do things like that.
It's just that while enjoying my hobby, if all works out, then I would be giving them some good information to work with :-)
On Monday, I'm going to order a pair of 1/4 inch roller bearings and also see about ordering 2 - 300 gram sperical weights.
Then when I get my staples removed in a couple of weeks, I'll be able to start safely (as far as my health goes) building it.
I think my health and well being are more important than a ppm device if this turns out to be workable.
edited to add; since this design has a chance of working, I'm using my down time to get some things that will make a better go and show of it.
I have spherical lead weights that are round and could poor what ever weight I need.
Myself, I usually brain storm an idea in metric because science ( i.e., Newton, etc.) uses/used it and it scales so nicely.
However, since this design is capable of working (has the potential), I am going to try to do this build using 100% metric measurements. This would also include calculating the torque in n-m's.
This would allow(possibly) to understand how efficient the conversion of gravity to mechanical energy is and how much entropy the weights would suffer while trying to conserve their angular momentum.
Of course, I don't know calculus so that could be a problem.
BTW, I'd leave understanding how it is to the science professionals who went to school to know how to do things like that.
It's just that while enjoying my hobby, if all works out, then I would be giving them some good information to work with :-)
re: Basic Pm Idea
@All,
I'm going to see what I can do about demonstrating rotation in relation to over balance and how the line works.
Using 1 lb. weights, 20% over balance woulc be a little over 3 oz.'s @ 12 inches if the weights are @ 10 inches from center.
I would need to get some 1/4 in. bearings so it would be an accurate representation of how well momentum might be conserved.
I'm going to see what I can do about demonstrating rotation in relation to over balance and how the line works.
Using 1 lb. weights, 20% over balance woulc be a little over 3 oz.'s @ 12 inches if the weights are @ 10 inches from center.
I would need to get some 1/4 in. bearings so it would be an accurate representation of how well momentum might be conserved.
re: Basic Pm Idea
@All,
One thing I had realized a long time ago is that if a radius is increased from 10 to 15 inches, then the force of the weight increases by 50%. I know, being mr. obvious.
And since it's path would increase by 50% as well, then the potential for work stays relatively the same. What would be missed though is that the acceleration of the weight would allow it's velocity to also increase by 50% which would be extra potential.
This would be considering that the force generated by over balance as torque. And this is something that would initially give a larger diameter counter weighted lever an improved chance of working.
What I have also realized is that by changing the design of the structure, even with an increased span it is possible for weight to be shed.
And with what I am going to try, drag because of air friction should be of little concern.
Once I have the frame built, I will post a picture of it. at the same time, I may do a few basic tests before finishing the build.
And I figure while I'm at it, I'll post some basic math. It will help to demonstrate application to a specific design and it's potential to do work.
With a 10 inch radius, we have 10 * 3.14 or 31.4 inches of circumference for each period of rotation for a weight on the over balanced side.
If we consider a 20% over balance for 20 degrees of rotation, then with a 1 lb. weight we have an equivalent force of 3 oz.'s at 12 inches or .22 ft. lbs. of torque.
At 15 a radius of 15 inches, it would be 3 oz.'s at 15 in. or about .25 ft. lbs. of torque. Or about 4 oz.s at 12 in. As you can see, a small detail can increase torque by 1/3.
And since the 2-1 lb. weights are counter balanced, how much force does it take to rotate them what distance ? Not sure if anyone has the answer to this question. And that is where a basic test where 2 weights are in a balanced position, a weight could be set on an extended part of the lever (extended on both sides to maintain balance) and then pulled off after about the afore mentioned 20 degrees of rotation.
And it would be that basic test which would show whether or not if any more work on an idea like this would be a waste of time.
And since it is such an easy thing to do, either tomorrow or Wednesday I'll be able to post a video showing how much work 4 ounces can do.
One thing I had realized a long time ago is that if a radius is increased from 10 to 15 inches, then the force of the weight increases by 50%. I know, being mr. obvious.
And since it's path would increase by 50% as well, then the potential for work stays relatively the same. What would be missed though is that the acceleration of the weight would allow it's velocity to also increase by 50% which would be extra potential.
This would be considering that the force generated by over balance as torque. And this is something that would initially give a larger diameter counter weighted lever an improved chance of working.
What I have also realized is that by changing the design of the structure, even with an increased span it is possible for weight to be shed.
And with what I am going to try, drag because of air friction should be of little concern.
Once I have the frame built, I will post a picture of it. at the same time, I may do a few basic tests before finishing the build.
And I figure while I'm at it, I'll post some basic math. It will help to demonstrate application to a specific design and it's potential to do work.
With a 10 inch radius, we have 10 * 3.14 or 31.4 inches of circumference for each period of rotation for a weight on the over balanced side.
If we consider a 20% over balance for 20 degrees of rotation, then with a 1 lb. weight we have an equivalent force of 3 oz.'s at 12 inches or .22 ft. lbs. of torque.
At 15 a radius of 15 inches, it would be 3 oz.'s at 15 in. or about .25 ft. lbs. of torque. Or about 4 oz.s at 12 in. As you can see, a small detail can increase torque by 1/3.
And since the 2-1 lb. weights are counter balanced, how much force does it take to rotate them what distance ? Not sure if anyone has the answer to this question. And that is where a basic test where 2 weights are in a balanced position, a weight could be set on an extended part of the lever (extended on both sides to maintain balance) and then pulled off after about the afore mentioned 20 degrees of rotation.
And it would be that basic test which would show whether or not if any more work on an idea like this would be a waste of time.
And since it is such an easy thing to do, either tomorrow or Wednesday I'll be able to post a video showing how much work 4 ounces can do.
Re: re: Basic Pm Idea
Tarsier,Tarsier79 wrote:Gday Smith.
The advantage of sharing, is that you get people to comment on your design.
Here is my version of string wrapping around hubs to OB on a wheel:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 9801#89801
I highly recommend continuing to build your device. It won't rotate though. It will however provide periods of positive and negative torque, and it can teach you a valuable lesson.
What I proved to myself with my build, is that weight position horizontally means nothing. Potential energy is weight x height. As you lose height, you transfer some of that energy to your wheel, until no more height can be lost. In an OB gravity wheel, the weights have to eventually be lifted back to their starting position, which is the cause of the headache.
Have fun.
I got a much better look at what you were trying to do with the motor. I think the one problem with using gravity is that with a .2 second burst of acceleration, the vertical drop would be about 35 cm"s. As you can tell, it would lag behind the electric motor.
Since i am at the local university and feeling smarter than I am, one thing I have wondered since you made me aware of your work is if anyone tried having field coils inside and outside of the armature's windings.
It stands to reason that the armature would have the same magnetic field on both sides. If so, then by having an interior set of field coils, then the armatures field might be able to be compressed and directed to allow it to operate more efficiently.
I'm not an electrician so please don't quote me on it.
As to how you tried using leverage, as Chris wanted to know how the line would work, I can see about doing that as well as explaining how this idea is slightly different than yours.
I think once you understand it, you might be saying, damn, I was that close to it. Something like that often happens in life and is one reason why i don't mind pacing myself.
This idea is something that i had actually given up on until I got involved in the conservation of momentum thread. And that is one of the reasons I like it. It will give an example of what it is to attempt to conserve momentum and do so in what I consider a "bound" system. This simply means that it's bound to follow certain principles and work within certain guidelines.
That and as I've mentioned before, if it shows potential, then some who are shy about building something might find it worth trying if for no other reason than to get an idea of what a build on a limited scale involves and how over balance, acceleration and then work performed can be varied by making a few small changes in the design.
I think this would help anyone who is interested in understanding application of some of the basic principles in physics and some what how Newton's Laws of Motion work.
Jim
re: Basic Pm Idea
Tarsier,
Do you still have what's pictured below ?
If so, could you make a video showing us how it's supposed to work ?
Needless to say I was walking home and had to head to the public library to post this.
I haven't seen anything quite like what you built but I think it is something that would be worth discussing. One reason why is that I had a thought that you might think about trying.
And without being able to see what it is that you're trying to do, it might be a bit hard to explain it to you, but I'll try any way.
It might be possible to time the rotation of your discs/pulleys to maintain an over balance to one side. This is because the weights would hang from a belt that is looped around the pulleys.
This might end up being something like a rotary slide. And as with what I'm working on, weights can not go over balanced unless gravity is doing the work. This means no lifting of any weight using the potential of the system in motion.
Simply put, once a weight is below the level of the axle, it can move into an over balanced position. And just as I am trying. the weight can not drop lower than the opposing weight is lifted above the axle.
This means that with your idea, you might need to vary the timing /rotation of your discs. Can't say for sure without seeing it in action.
anyways, thought I'd let you know that your idea has potential.
Jim
Do you still have what's pictured below ?
If so, could you make a video showing us how it's supposed to work ?
Needless to say I was walking home and had to head to the public library to post this.
I haven't seen anything quite like what you built but I think it is something that would be worth discussing. One reason why is that I had a thought that you might think about trying.
And without being able to see what it is that you're trying to do, it might be a bit hard to explain it to you, but I'll try any way.
It might be possible to time the rotation of your discs/pulleys to maintain an over balance to one side. This is because the weights would hang from a belt that is looped around the pulleys.
This might end up being something like a rotary slide. And as with what I'm working on, weights can not go over balanced unless gravity is doing the work. This means no lifting of any weight using the potential of the system in motion.
Simply put, once a weight is below the level of the axle, it can move into an over balanced position. And just as I am trying. the weight can not drop lower than the opposing weight is lifted above the axle.
This means that with your idea, you might need to vary the timing /rotation of your discs. Can't say for sure without seeing it in action.
anyways, thought I'd let you know that your idea has potential.
Jim
- Attachments
-
re: Basic Pm Idea
The idea is explained on the original thread.
The centre hub is grounded. the strings extending from the centre hub should be replaced with chains. They are geared such that the weights would always move in an OB sequence, and never lose their position. The wieghts hve to be lifted at the same time to maintain their position.
See how much OB the weight on the right has compared to the one on the left? it means nothing!!! OB cannot ever drive a wheel.
The centre hub is grounded. the strings extending from the centre hub should be replaced with chains. They are geared such that the weights would always move in an OB sequence, and never lose their position. The wieghts hve to be lifted at the same time to maintain their position.
See how much OB the weight on the right has compared to the one on the left? it means nothing!!! OB cannot ever drive a wheel.
-
triplock
re: Basic Pm Idea
Tarsier wrote
'OB cannot ever drive a wheel.'
I have to disagree with that statement. Continuous rotation can be derived from OB arrangements, but not from the standard approach seen 1000's of times on here and elsewhere. The key is to make any mass alter its effective weight during different stages of rotation of the housing. You are, in a sense, switching gravity, in relation to a weight, off intermittently.
that is indeed possible.
Chris
'OB cannot ever drive a wheel.'
I have to disagree with that statement. Continuous rotation can be derived from OB arrangements, but not from the standard approach seen 1000's of times on here and elsewhere. The key is to make any mass alter its effective weight during different stages of rotation of the housing. You are, in a sense, switching gravity, in relation to a weight, off intermittently.
that is indeed possible.
Chris
re: Basic Pm Idea
That wouldnt be under the heading of OB Chris. Plus, I havent seen even a plausable theory of what you propose. I have considered that method before, but haven't come closeto a solution.
Your balanced spring/weight setup cannot work for any wheel that rotates a little, as that rotation affects the balance of the thing.
Your balanced spring/weight setup cannot work for any wheel that rotates a little, as that rotation affects the balance of the thing.
-
triplock
re: Basic Pm Idea
Tarsier,
Unfortunately, rather annoyingly, I cannot expand on matters further as that device, which incorporates that new principle, is subject to a fresh Patent Application.
It is though, far removed from any spring and mass set up previously talked about on here. I wish I could say more, but if I was to have a 2 min chat with you you'd face-palm.
Chris
Unfortunately, rather annoyingly, I cannot expand on matters further as that device, which incorporates that new principle, is subject to a fresh Patent Application.
It is though, far removed from any spring and mass set up previously talked about on here. I wish I could say more, but if I was to have a 2 min chat with you you'd face-palm.
Chris