kinetic energy hypothesis

[preoccupied]

I never quite understood how you found balance or rotation because you use unusual methods. Are you referring to your 6 3 line? I mean I'm not sure what you're telling me but I would like to know because I think you have some good inspiration.

[AB Hammer]

preoccupied

It is a balance in effect. Meaning from the left of center to the right of center. This causes the center of the total weight to end up at the 6:00 mark. Like ballast stones if you like look at it in an old ship. It keeps the majority of weight low and the lighter side high. To get a running wheel you will have to have majority of the weight high above the 3:00 to 9:00 o'clock marks as high as possible. The other way is to keep the weight on the deciding side greater than the ascending side never allowing weight to reach the outer 8:00 mark but transferred to 2:00 to 3:00 mark in action.

Here is a test that might help you understand. On a blank wheel. Place 2 equal weights opposite of each other at the same distances from center. Now spin the wheel. Even if perfectly equal? You will have a heck of a time to ever stop at the 6:00 to 12:00 noon marks. They tend to sit a 11:00 and 5:00. If it is not perfect, the side of the wheel that has the most of the weight will always show on the lower side, but the weights will be equal distances from the center line of 6:00 to 12:00 marks. I also use a slight bent rod test to do the same.

This balance understanding, has to be well ingrained to even have a chance of a running wheel.

[Fletcher]

Actually Alan a perfectly balanced system of two opposite weights at the same radius will have no perference for where it stops - it will stop in any position when the pivot friction forces & energy loss is greater than the running down RKE of the wheel - then static friction is greater than dynamic friction.

If it has a small amount of torque to rotate to the 5 & 11 position (because of slight imbalance i.e. not perfectly balanced), then is stops there, it is because of bearing frictional forces again, otherwise it would rotate to the 6 to 12 line, IINM.

[AB Hammer]

HI Fletcher

I was going by experience of a physical test that I have done. I used a rod, welded in a T with all thread so I could fit it into the bearings (cleaned of grease and lightly oiled). With weights on both ends and balanced Then you could set it in any position and it would stay there. Then when I spun it, it would end sitting one side or the other of up and down 12:00 to 6:00 o'clock like 11:00 to 5:00 or 7:00 to 1:00 o'clock (in the general locations of the time placements). There may be an unseen variable that causes this in my test but it was enough to understand what to expect. Now I think about it again. Knowing that a pendulum is always strongest at the 6:00 position and lf spun is weakest at the 12:00 position due to gravity downward pull could have something to do with the observed placements. Noting also that gravity are equal at the 9:00 to 3:00 positions when stagnant.

Alan

[preoccupied]

I think the wheel would be driven by the two weights slamming together. I think it would slow down because of the weight that slams down on the right (the wheel in the picture is turning counter clockwise). I modified two of my frame images to show that in the slow speed the weights slam and are part of the torque on the right right away almost and in a complimentary arrangement the right side falls close to the axle. In the fast representation images the weight falls on the right far from the axle and just overpowers anything the two weights would be able to give and the two weights slam late which takes from their time as torque on the falling side going counter clockwise. Anybody following what I am saying? AB_Hammer does this contribute to your analysis?

EDIT actually i meant to draw the slow movement as slamming sooner on the turn.