Swinging In The Gain

[Gill Simo]

Here is an animation of the following device

Two rods (Orange/Brown) able to swing about the two ends of a beam (Black) that holds them centrally on an axle.
The rods have a pin at both ends, one pointing towards you, as you look, one pointing away.
On the same central axle are two discs, one (Dark Green) is closest to you as you look...in front of the beam/rods. The other (Light Green) is behind the beam/rods.
Each disc has two slots into which fits/runs the four pins.
Both rods have one pin in one disc & its other in the second disc.

There is NO overbalance/imbalance anywhere/anytime in terms of gravity.
Shown here as vertical/horizontal, it makes no difference. The whole can balance itself at any position around the axle.

However, in motion....over a 180 degree turn of the beam/rods, one disc travels through 240 degree whilst the other travels through 120 degree. Over the next 180 degree's this is reversed...thus, over a 360 degree turn of the beam/rods the two discs also cover 360.

This results, over a 180 degree turn of the central axle, in one disc slowing in relation to the turn of that axle whilst the other accelerates in relation. This is then reversed over the next 180 so that, relative to each other, one disc, starting 60 degree behind the other, accelerates past it until it is 60 degree in front of the other. The other then performs likewise.

The rods are the weights.....being connected firmly to the central axle and always at balance around it, then they are invisible to the central axle of the discs when the wheel is stationary.

In motion however the central axle experiences a most strange rim around it. Over 180 degree this rim, defined by the four pins of two rims, is apparently growing ever smaller as it accelerates away from the axle in terms of turn (one disc), whilst at the same time growing bigger & slowing (other disc). Then the reverse over the next 180.

At the two points where the two discs align (where all slots are inline) one is at max velocity in its turn & appears to be a rim at its smallest... the other at minimum velocity/largest. Only at two momentary points in this swinging of the discs back & forth (where the two discs are fully displaced by 60 degree) do the two rims have equal speed...& only at these two `switch points` is the central axle satisfied that it has around it, one rim turning at the correct speed, for its apparent distance...a normal rim, a rim keeping up with the turn of its axle.

The circle made by the black beam is the rim the axle sees at this switch point....the outer circle around the whole is the max rim experienced....the circle at the centre of the Vesica the smallest.

Please consider.....Where is the Prime Mover, for the weights are balanced around the main axle at all times?

This I think results from our lack of understanding, preventing us from being able to imagine anything (other than a constant O/B) ever being able to move anything. Where is the O/B/Prime Mover is inevitably your question therefore.

Take a regular, stationary balanced wheel.....give it a push....it will accelerate around, reach peek rev's & slow to a stop. That's a normal wheel, as we've always known it. Conditions apply throughout this simple action...the relationship between axle/rim/weights in any normal wheel is firmly defined & accepted.

Give the above the same input of energy however & that relationship is non existent throughout....bar the switch points.

Indeed.... is it really a wheel therefore?

And who can say that this wheel, with no normal rim, wouldn't, upon a push, accelerate up to peek rev's & stay there, under such a unique axle/rim/weight relationship ?

[Gill Simo]

Oh do come on then!
Shower me, why don't you, with that `knowledge` that you all pay such devotion to.
If it's that dismissible then please, do me the small favour of dismissing it will ya?

[jim_mich]

Show you?

The light-green bars speed-up then slow-down
The dark-green bars slow-down then speed-up.
The light-orange and dark-orange bars run steady.
The wheel is always balanced.
There are no unbalanced forces.
Decelerating bars balance the accelerating bars.
There is no means for causing any wheel rotation.

It's a complex interesting arrangement.
But it's not a runner.
That is because there is no imbalance of gravity.
And there is no imbalance of inertial forces.

Case dismissed.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Gill,

I do not see anything in it, apart from a high friction flywheel, as for a motion wheel I do not see any self generative motion.

Most Conservation of Angular Motion experiments fail, because they are too high in friction, there was one though that was low in friction, a coat hanger, fishing line, and battery weights experiment, but needed a energy input to do the experiment, which was then lost to centrifugal forces, so I think your design would suffer the same fate only more so.

Thank you for showing your design though, and hope my input was useful.

Keep up the good work.

[AB Hammer]

Interesting thought line Gill

It looks similar effect to the geared weights that stay in the forward position but they didn't do so well. I am wondering if this one can do better.

[Gill Simo]

Thank you A.B/Trevor/Jim....input much appreciated.

Jim...I fully agree with all points raised. The axle will see the sum of two speeds/two distances etc and halve the result...it will thus see the black beam as its distance/diameter & the rods attached moving at the correct speed, at all times.

But is it perhaps the case that despite believing that there is no possible/physical way in which to gravitationally O/B an axle, permanently, around it, you have taken on the belief that it must be an imbalance in motion...around it? If so then, with respect, you're half in one camp, half in the other.....you are considering a mismatch in motion above/below & left/right of the axle....same as any chaser of a gravity imbalance.

We've seen many here, screaming at you to explain how....and in this matter I must join them, for I believe that there is no possible/physical way in which to achieve any permanent imbalance around an axle, motion or gravity...alone.

I must repeat what I've stated before...that for me, your `thought` that it might be a motion rather than a gravity thing remains the one & only inventive step towards our goal ever to have appeared here at B/W.com thus far.....but that might only be half the story, you may need to come `around` to considering `along`.

Here we have a motion taking place along the axle but novel as it might be it doesn't go around....so, case dismissed you say.

But it does go around...& that around is bound/connected to the along. There are two actions each dependent on the other here.

Imagine a diablo shaped ballon on an axle.......

You compress one end's diameter & the other end expands. You let go & it returns to balance. (one action)
You twist one end against the other. You let go & it returns to balance. (Two)

Now you come up with some means whereby twisting the ends effects the compression/expansion & visa versa....you somehow connect the two.

The above is a mechanism that connects the two actions thus but there is a paradox....for here, twisting/unbalancing the ends fully will balance the diameters of the ends & untwisting/balancing will fully unbalance the diameters of the ends.

There is therefore a perfect imbalance between the balance points of these two competing interactions that cannot be resolved....perhaps?

Perhaps the trick here is that the balance to be considered is the balance between the balance/imbalance along the axle & the balance/imbalance around the axle?

Perhaps we have here, motion wheel along the axle, gravity wheel around?

Footnote: I imagine it likely that weight will also be required at some point around each disc.....each one being the same value as a rod, placed 180 degree apart (discs un-twisted), their distance apart being equal to the black beam. It just kinda makes sense that the weight available to the squeeze should equal the weight available to the twist in this contest between the two?

[Gill Simo]

A further animation with one weight added to each disc.
Shown clockwise....although I really should have placed them around the circle formed by the black beam to comply with the footnote above.
The pattern does not flip when going anti c/w...it remains as shown, which I wasn't expecting, suggesting unidirectional....clockwise kinda looks more interesting/promising...but who would know?
In order to flip the pattern, to make anti c/w more interesting/promising you simply move each weight 180 degree around.
To make it bi-directional I'm guessing a second device added with weights in those positions possibly?
I'm now wondering what might appear 60/90/120 degree's around etc?

Footnote...this animation & the previous two don't appear to run correctly on my pc...but they do if you click on them.

[AB Hammer]

Gill

From your animation the round weights seem to be accelerating between the 9 to 12 ( clock reference) on the ascending side. This is a very difficult location for an acceleration.


Alan