NEWS FLASH!! Fcdriver has a working wheel!!!!

[sleepy]

Fcdriver,
Congrats again on your design.I have read your subsequent posts and a couple of times you have mentioned that your wheel raises arms slower than they fall.Maybe I'm not understanding,but isn't that a problem? How can it ever perpetuate if one arm cannot move the next into position,due to the slower rise.I am so excited to understand your concept.Any insight would be great.Thanks in advance.

[Fcdriver]

Because there is more than just two arms, there is always one ready to fall as the power stroke ends, adding more arm mean you can have two to three in the power stroke if you have enough arms.

[ME]

Despite that answer, I still agree with Sleepy's worry:
If there are more things falling than there are rising then at some point there are not enough things up-there to make thing rise again.

[Fcdriver]

There is never more falling than rising, there is always more rising than falling

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Despite that answer, I still agree with Sleepy's worry:
If there are more things falling than there are rising then at some point there are not enough things up-there to make thing rise again.

There is a rotating reference, where levers can fall while they are rising on the ascending side of the wheel, as well as the descending side of the wheel, wherein there is more falling levers kinetic (Torque) energy generation, than the negative drop in height.

Its old hats to me, (its all on show) and I can prove it, but I have too many builds on my to build list to step backwards, when I think I have a more simple way to show a runner.

What I am working on now does, not need energy storage systems to collect the leverage torque (energy) and then channel it back to drive the wheel.

[ME]

There is never more falling than rising, there is always more rising than falling

uh, ok.. Hard to imagine without a schematic.

So I'm trying to get a clear picture:
The falling side is on a wheel, and the rising side could be a ramp (as I recall as you suggested earlier, before replacing it with a cam).

For 1 going up and 1 going down:
A simplistic first picture that could fit: is a half circle with radius R, and a ramp with Height 2*R, and Width 5.96*R.
Both have a path length of 2*pi*R.

But there are more going up, so that ramp Width should be longer.

Is this somewhat a correct starting point?

[Fcdriver]

The path for lift is 360 degrees, the path for the power stroke is out side of the path further from center, giving a different leverage point, which flollows with the turn of the wheel. For the forces on the wheel to be balanced the power stroke would be lifting 9 arms, but because the spread only lifting three is needed. 1 arm could easily lift 4, but when you get to 5 arms, part of the power stroke has two falling, because of over lapping, 6 arms makes for two arms falling, which to be balanced would require 18

[justsomeone]

Post a freaking diagram!

[ME]

What's a power stroke... (that's down I guess?) And there's another stroke (lifting?)
Sorry to say, but your information is too fragmented to make any sense.

Please read for yourself what I make of your last statement:
---
The lift is 360 degrees, with 9 lifting arms - So there's 40 degrees per arm.
But there is some spread, so you only need 3: so this is suddenly 120 degrees per arm. What happened to the other 6??
(So we add one or two arms), now we have 5 arms (that's 72 degrees per arm?)
Is that spread evenly?
Then 6.... and up-to 18 which either is or is-not preferred because of balance?? And I thought 9 was balanced.
---

What's the absolute simplest way for your wheel to just overcome friction?
Or a simple (non-patent-like)diagram would do.

oops..that calculus went a bit wrong I guess: pi-radius and width 2.442 (hardly noticeable) :-D

[Fcdriver]

The arms only go up and down just over 110 degrees arc, the degree turns of the wheel that lift are 360. The power stroke/down stroke, has enough power to lift 9 arms to be balanced, but I am only lifting three. Each arm does a up and down per turn of the wheel, but each are 90 degrees out of sync, this means there are four down strokes per one rotation of the wheel, but each only does one stroke. The lifting stroke only take 1.6 lbs of force on the wheel, the power stroke puts 15 lbs of imbalance, being capable of lifting 9. The 360 degrees of turn by the wheel lifts each arm the 110 degrees, because they they are each 90 degrees out of sync, another falls turning after each time one finishes. The idea to make a wheel turn is to create imbalance, not to create balance. One arm turns the wheel and it continues to turn, but it does not produce power. To have power 4 arms are needed. I have four arms, adding additional arms just creates more power, but each goes through one cycle per rotation

All details will be covered in my video

[ME]

ok, that a bit more insightful, thanks.

This base-picture comes to mind when to rig a weight up for some turns:
MT43:

and then surely add some...

With all those arms going around, and some with different speeds, I guess it would be hard to see how all is interconnected if one doesn't know where to look. So I hope you try to explain things first at school-kid-level and slowly expand towards to complicated parts.

When is your estimated movie premiere?

[Fcdriver]

I'm about finished the stage, then I have to move the wheel, make a few repairs, and paint it. Hopefully within the next week. Of course my wife wants everything mulched, fresh gravel, and a few do dam its done.

[Fletcher]

Fingers crossed you're the real deal Fcdriver !

You're starting to sound like you might be, especially when your wife wants it presented pretty lol.

[Grimer]

There is never more falling than rising, there is always more rising than falling

Third derivative giving out more energy falling than second derivative rising.
Mmm... That makes sense. Like a pulsed version of the Milko with the lack of restriction to rising of the Raymond Head version.

[Tarsier79]

That makes sense? You are full of it. What is causing a change in acceleration, as described by ME? An increase in acceleration costs energy. Acceleration costs energy. What is causing the change in force? Why does there need to be a change in force? How does a force change?