Wheel vs. spoke...

[iacob alex]

...is like a cake face to a piece of it.If we know a part of the pancake,we know the fully realized.A gravity engine,in a wheel concept(many alike spokes),is defined by a single spoke.So,if we are interested how can we build a gravity power collector as a wheel,the first question is regarding to a single spoke.Nothing more than an arm and "something".The only and the last question, is about this "something".Now ,we can join this little issue:a switching mass at the end of a supporting arm.The last step-problem:how is self switching this mass? At this time,we can talk,imagine or what you need,about the one only "knotty point" of a possible gravity engine("wheel" as you like to dream up):the self motion of the working mass face to gravity and inertia...But,be carefully:the more we dream,the less we believe.A dream must be tempered with reality.Garage people knows more about it.All the Bests!/Alex

[jim_mich]

Yes, if you can get one unit/spoke to work then a whole wheel full of spokes/units will work. Yes, the "knotty point" is getting the 'self motion' to work. Yes, ideas must work in the real world, not just in our dreams.

Now Alex, please do us all a favor and add a space after each period and each comma! It will make your posts easier to read. It will help me and others to understand you.

[spinner361]

I agree with the idea of one spoke, although I have not tried it yet. I have learned that if two spokes do not work, adding more spokes in an attempt to overcome the problem will make it work even less.

[iacob alex]

....can make us think about an easy-going settig side by side.

Any design that takes into account a wheel (many spokes) or a lever (two spokes only) concept,is equivalent,with a fall in gravity that follows a circular,or curvilinear trajectory...on a peculiar inclined plane.

The most appreciable,well-defined quality of the gravity fall (this "unseen flow") is his nonlinear development with the time factor : "g" is a constant,steady acceleration ,so we can get on this inclined plane,an ever increasing velocity (kinetic energy )...if...we let it fall rather more time.

In this situation,the lever concept seems to have a certain advantage...

In the same time,the wheel vs. lever option can be the first "knotty point" (see up message...) ,that we meet on this topic.

All the Bests! / Alex

[John Lindsay]

Thus spoke Zarathustra

[iacob alex]

Hi!

Somebody(Jim),up there said :"...if you can get one unit/spoke to work,then a whole wheel full of spokes/units will work."

Another person(Spinner 361),up there said:"...if two spokes do not work,adding more spokes in an attempt to overcome the problem will make it work even less."

A third person(that's me) says that,it seems we have a common way of thinking...

But...here we have a problem:why not the first people's step,when they try to imagine,design or test a self gravity powered system, is a wheel ,but not a spoke?!

Sometimes ,really,more is less ...working.

All the Bests! / Alex

[DrWhat]

Bessler says that with one cross-arm it barely turns. That means that the primary mechanism works with one pair of (perhaps opposing) spokes. Find the one mechanism and you have it. Then add more to increase the motion.

[AB Hammer]

Damian

I agree with that very much. But didn't Bessler say there where other ways at well?

[iacob alex]

Hi !
Ten years ago , I posted a starting point that requires a choice between two equal alternatives :..."why not the first people's step , when they try to imagine, design or test a self powered gravity system is a wheel , but not a (single variable) spoke (of a lever)!?
The possible dilemma is :
-to maximize a single spoke as a many spokes arrangement (wheel)
-to minimize a wheel as a single variable arm (lever)
So many "wheel" proposals...waiting the "minimal leverage" test!?
Al_ex

[iacob alex]

.....or an easy test with : https://youtu.be/Rgp6gcSaF2Y
.....but with two opposite (variable ...) spokes,only...or eventually with a single variable spoke/arm , as you can see a suggestion , at :
www.geocities.ws/iacob_alex/Some_Drafts/text028.JPG
Al_ex

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Al_ex,
I will tell you my opinion:
if it is so simple, why haven't you build it ?
Reason, because it is not working.
The shifting and lifting of your movable weight M2 needs energy.
This energy is an additional energy which you add to your system so that the lever can rotate.
So, you act, gravity react. The shifting of the weight is not for free !!
It is an energy consuming action.
So the concept does not work.

I have build such experimental devices, a long long time ago.
I have learned my lessons, the experimental way.

[iacob alex]

Hi Georg !
Your opinion...my opinion...it's a long way of words...the shortest path is an easy test face to the reality.
If the facts don't fit an opinion/concept ...what must we change?!
Al_ex

[Fcdriver]

How were gears built for wind mills back in 1712? A double H pattern,, not spokes.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Fcdriver,
Thanks for that insight, we are at an octagon again.
Makes it easier for my construction.