Gravity Wheel

[agor95]

I had made in the beginning of my own developents

We are all on a journey to develop a better understanding.

Cheers

[dradford]

Hi Calloway, can you explain to me how the 9 o'clock weight can move the 3 o'clock weight when they are attached by a wire? (I presume you mean a flexible wire and not a rod). I don't understand how this is possible.
With regards to having too many rods - could you not have two pairs of weights on one side of the wheel, and two pairs of weights on the other side, and four pendulums on each side? (By 'side' I mean 'flat face' of the wheel.)

Edit: I re-read Calloway's first post, and looked at his photo again, and see that he is already doing what I suggested above! Doh!

[Calloway]

I would like to give a update on my GW for those that may be interested. I have finished installing the new slider weight pairs design on the same type rails. This allows me to change weights easily and to have dependable pendulum contact with the gloves. I began the wheel test without pendulums at the edge of the wheel to determine the weight of the slider pairs looking for good unbalance. I started with 1/2 oz weight in each slider of the pairs. I wasn't comfortable with the unbalance. It just wasn't enough unbalance. So I went with 1 oz weights in all the pairs. Now it is much better. I may have to compensate by adding more pendulum weight.Time will tell. Waiting on 1 inch V bearing pulleys to come in.These mount on the bolts that the pendulums will hang from. The pendulum cord will be tied to these pulleys. There will be no resistance of the pendulum swing on these bearing V pulleys. These V bearings will also allow me to adjust them from side to side on their mounting bolt to guide them straight into the glove. Cheers

[silent]

.

[Calloway]

Silent, Yes I'm getting anxious to see how these new additions perform myself. I'll keep working on it until something good happens I hope. Cheers

[agor95]

I re-read Calloway's first post, and looked at his photo again ... Doh!

I followed your lead and updated the 'Calloway GW' Demo it is at version v0.5.

Also the is a new 2d slim version to allow us too focused on the simulator calculations.

I expect a 2d simulator viewer that will be even more cut down to allow Mobile viewing.

Good work by all - lets keep the momentum.

Cheers

[silent]

.

[agor95]

Hi

If you do not see v0.5 version in the title then you may need to delete the
callgravwheel.html page from your internet browser history.

This used to update whenever I changes the file.

The steampunks.ddns.net index page can be found by dropping the callgravwheel.html end part.

You may need to do the delete history process to see the links below.

This new v0.5 version of the Calloway GW demo gives you the front and back view of the wheel.

Now how to create the dynamics. Also give viewer's a cheap simulator.

I have gone for a web application 'callgravwheel_sim.html.
This has a 2d cut down presentation layer.
So there should be more processing resources available for calculations.

This is the best way I can think of to give you all a standard simulator.

I have created model viewers in the past see the M. Turbine

However it asks for more resources than most mobiles can supply.

So in the future the 'callgravwheel_vwr.html [viewer] will present the result from a scenario generated by a simulator.

That is any simulator the members choose; so long as it supplies the data in the correct format.

P.S. Generally work-in-progress does not fully work.
There are a few W.I.P. in this forum.
However this one is open for all who want to learn.

Cheers

[silent]

.

[dradford]

Two quotes from John Collin's book 'Perpetual Motion' convince me that Calloway's design will work: from memory (as I haven't got the book with me at the moment), on page 110, somebody says that when they pushed the wheel gently, as soon as they let go it immediately stopped, but when they gave it a harder push, it started to speed up until it reached its maximum speed within two or three rotations. And on page 131 (I think) somebody else relates how, during a demonstration of his wheel, Bessler took out one of the weights and put it in a handkerchief and allowed them to hold it, but they weren't allowed to touch the end, and it was long and cylindrical.
That sounds to me like it was definitely a pendulum, and he didn't want them to feel the end because they would feel the 'eye' of the pendulum, which was where you tied the cord holding it. The first quote looks to me like Calloway's design, because unless you make the pendulums swing, and the wheel turn, with sufficient velocity, they won't have enough power to push the sliding weights.
I have been working on Algodoo briefly over the weekend, but haven't had enough time to learn it sufficiently well to produce a sim of Galloway's design.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi dradford,

the cylinders are pierced in the middle, so see my Interpretation of the built.

Springs are connected, the cylinders are turnable.

They will turn but not roll, a special function.

So it is far away from your pendulum swing idea.

This is a construction detail for the bi-directional Wheel.

[agor95]

I actually found your other sim and it hadn't occurred to me that 2 pendulums are actually doing the work of sliding the weight over.
silent

To be clear Calloway GW v.05 demo only has one pendulum contacting one slider weight.

Each pendulum contact lightly it's weight in an alternating way.

Just drag your mouse over the wheel with the right button pressed down [left to right].

This was missed by me until I read dradford post. Then I realized I was only looking a half the device [front and back].

The disk is tinted glass like.

P.S. I am working on the maths. It will be very strange maths to many.

Regards

[agor95]

Hi dradford,

the cylinders are pierced in the middle, so see my Interpretation of the built.

Springs are connected, the cylinders are turnable.

They will turn but not roll, a special function.

So it is far away from your pendulum swing idea.

This is a construction detail for the bi-directional Wheel.

Which thread have you setup so we can support you in your project?

That would allow members to have a clean flow of posts on each subject.

As you say above your post is nothing to do with the Calloway GW pendulums swing.

Cheers

[dradford]

Can a cord attached to a pendulum exert a force perpendicular to its (vertical) length when the pendulum experiences a horizontal (or even diagonal) force?
I don't think it can. See my attachment for a diagram. I think the whole of Calloway's design rests on this fact.

Actually, having thought about this again - can the cord at the point it is attached to the pivot, exert a vertical force (parallel to itself) when the pendulum hits the wall while travelling perpendicularly to the cord? I don't think it can - how can the pendulum, moving perpendicularly to the cord (in this case, horizontally), create a vertical force in the cord when it hits the wall?

My knowledge of all this is only based on what I regard as 'common sense', and could be completely wrong of course!

[dradford]

Without even doing any experiments, I'm sure that most of us know the experience of hitting something hard with a solid rod, such as a mattock, when trying to break up hard earth or rocks, and knowing that the impact force is, to some extent, transmitted up the handle and into your hand, so that your hand feels painful after a few strikes. Whereas if you have ever put a weight on a length of string (such as when playing conkers), you'll know that you have no fear whatsoever of the weight striking a solid object, because no force is transmitted up the string. You could have a 10kg lead weight on the end of a rope and smash it into a brick wall, and it wouldn't hurt the hand holding the end of the rope one bit.
Therein lies the big difference between rods and pendulums.