Mayday! Mayday!!!

[raj]

NO COMMENT.

Refer back to previous page.

Raj

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Raj,

the top drawing did not work when I built it, this was one of the string designs I was working on when you first joined.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 7193#67193


The second drawing has a distance differential problem that will lock up, this is fixed on my multi hamster and multi runs thread in community buss by using the runs.

Edit, post link.

It seem the only thing going around in a full circle is us ;-)

[raj]

Hello Trevor L.W,
Thanks.

It's so fun and stimulating, all this! Isn't it?

Raj

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Raj,

I have to agree, it can only be good for the mind, there must still be millions of combinations to try so never give up.

[raj]

My two last drawings above were meant as net torque proof for however slight motion of wheel from its position in drawing. That was an answer to the point raised by A. B. Hammer,

Raj

[raj]

PROOF???

1. Net bi-directionsl torque.
2. No locking.

Q.E.D

No further comment.

Raj

[raj]

Many views!

No comment!

raj

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Raj,

looking at your design, IMO there is too much lifting of weight than there is falling weight, but there is nothing to lift the weight with. I have seen this in many of my own designs and know it does not work, look at 4 and 6.

[raj]

See my last drawing of previous page, and my explanation to A B Hammer:
Proof of Bi-directional net TORQUES for possible rotation of wheels, only by swinging motion of 8 weights.

See my last drawing on this page and my intended explanation without comments to Trevor L W:
Proof of NO LOCKING of weights motions.

Raj

[raj]

I am just wondering if my presentation is faulty for any proper understanding by others.

Raj

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Raj,

Looking at your drawings above, 1 is zero torque, 8,3,7, and 4 are negative torque, 5 is only just positive torque, but in truth you are trying to lift weights with static weights, there is more pull down on both sides with little or no pull up (lock up). I have built many similar designs.

[raj]

Hello Trevor L W.

You are partly right.

Here is how I see it:

Zero torque =1 (we agree here)

Negative torque

8 (we agree). Note that the pulling string attached to it is slack. From 8 to 1 position, weight 8 stay on a hooked/fixed rigid arm, at 0.2 unit length from axle of inner wheel.

7 (we agree).Note that the pulling string attached to it is slack. From 7 to 8 position, weight 7 stay on hooked/fixed rigid arm, at at 0.4 unit length from axle of inner wheel.

6 (you have not mentioned 6). Note that the string attached to it is slightly slack. From 6 to 7 position, weight 6 stay on hooked/fixed rigid arm at 0.5 units length from axle of inner wheel.

5 ( you mentioned 5 as positive, I disagree). Note that 5 has only just been pulled up to a near-vertical position close to axle on inner wheel, at 0.2 units length from axle of inner wheel.

Total counter-clockwise torque= 0.2 unit +0.4 unit+0.5 unit+0.2=1.3*mg

POSITIVE torque:

2 (you did not mentioned). Note that 2 is hanging vertically downwards from rim of inner wheel at 1.1 units length from axle of inner wheel.

3. (you mentioned it as negative. I disagree). Note 3 is moving downwards on the descending side of wheels, on flexible string/arm marking arc/orbit on the descending side, forcing wheels to rotate towards the descending side at 2.8 units perpendicular distance from axle of inner wheel to the line of action and on rigid arm marking arc/orbit on the ascending side, forcing wheels to rotate towards the ascending side at 1.0 units perpendicular distance from axle of drumwheel to the line of action, making 1.8 units positive distance on the descending side

4 (you mentioned it as negative. I disagree). Note 4 is moving upwards on flexible string/arm marking arc/orbit on descending side, forcing wheels to rotate towards the descending side at 2.4 units perpendicular distance from axle of inner wheel to line of action and on rigid arm marking arc/orbit on ascending side, forcing wheels to rotate towards the ascending side at 1.0 units distance from axle of drumwheel to line of action, maling 1.4 units positive distance on the descending side.

Total Clockwise torque= 1.1 Units+1.8 Units+1.4 Units=4.3 units*mg=4.3mg.

NET Torque by the 8 weights= 4.3mg-1.3mg=3mg

This is massive net net torque towards the descending. The wheels will rotate towards the descending side.

Alternative Torque Calculation is more than welcomed!!!

Raj

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Raj,

Yes I was wrong about 3, I only took a quick look.

I think it is time for you to model it then you can measure the torque forces.

Edit, remove and change Edits, I still think that you have no force to lift the weights with and supporting the inner wheel at the bottom center is not going to help.

[raj]

Hello Trevor L W,

I really thank you for your contribution here. And I am happy to answer your point of view.

Please look again at the drawing you mentioned above.

The second part of the drawing below, will give you a good picture of how this gravity wheel concept should work.

Note there are three wheels involved in this design.
1. the drumwheel.
2. a larger inner wheel rolling on the rim of drumwheel at its own speed.
3. a smaller inner wheel with its axle geared 1:1 with the axle of drumwheel.

Weights are connected by rigid arms on SMALLER inner wheel which rotate at the same speed as the drumwheel.

Therefore motion of weights should be smooth.
No locking.

Raj

[AB Hammer]

I agree with Trevor L W

It looks like time to build it. Nothing else will matter until then. Here is a link for drive belts with teeth that might help with your build.

https://www.google.com/search?q=drive+b ... CAcQ_AUoAg

Alan