Symmetrically Balanced Systems – are they able to develop useable torque ?

[Fletcher]

Steve .. the weights shape wouldn't have physically changed. He talks about pairs & 'pairs of pairs' so this gives some indication that the weight pairs were "arranged". Most likely this arrangement was not fixed/static but able to change shape while under movement. This changed the path the weights took & probably the CoG for the mech & ultimayely the wheel.

The wheel rotated/tumbled over & over, because it was put into an OOB situation. Something about the changing shape of the arrangement allowed a lifting force to be generated that caused the onsett of the OOB, again & again. JMO's.

I just think emphasis on forced restraining of the path [by physical parameters such as guides etc] may be limiting the thinking & there may be other alternative meanings worth considering.

[jim_mich]

Enclosed, co-ordinated, prevented....this is path control to me. The FORM is the path...the asymmetry...the eccentric within a concentric.

When groups of weights are used (pairs of pairs) then it is the groups CoG path that matters. It is the dropping CoG that powers a wheel. After dropping the weights must move in such a manner that the groups CoG path gets shifted upward and to the other side of the wheel. And again they latch onto the wheel and ride it down powering the wheel a second time. Then they must move back up to the top so they can begin all over again. The optimum path has the CoG circling the wheel twice each time the wheel rotates once.

Think of it this way. The CoG rides the wheel down for about 1/4 turn. Then the weights are released and move back to the top of the wheel during about 1/4 turn powered by CF. Again the CoG rides the wheel down about 1/4 turn. And again the weights are released and move back to the start location at the top of the wheel during about 1/4 turn.

In the attached animated picture each drive unit's CoG is shown as a green circle. The whole wheel's CoG is the star in the middle.

[wheelrite]

The problems with physical ways of modifying paths/orbits is they are killers! methods I can think of (not much then...) involve too much friction/weight/etc.
Is the air friction on a pendulum the least 'sapping' way of pulling something off course, is it a way at all?
I can half imagine in my minds eyes mechs that tumble or wobble repeatedly as they rotate in a wheel, as if each mech cant get to were it 'needs to be' (one against another? pushed off by its connected partner?) or blocked by something, is it possible it 'sees' its place for a second external to the wheel?
Or the mechs desired point of rest has moved on in the wheel rotation and is not there anymore?
my head hurts.....must get WM2 thingy...radial thinking is tough.
Regards
Jon

[Wheeler]

is it possible it 'sees' its place for a second external to the wheel?

I think you have a good point, but the weight must act in a manner as if it was not attached to the wheel during this detachment period.

If the weight is in any way part of an assembly that lets it move outside the wheel, it will slow the wheel.

This process is known to act as a brake for spinning disks like in weed cutting device or quick acting brake system used in similar designs.

The outward release must follow the law of objects that are moving in a straight line.

If attached by any restraint, the outward motion caused by the cf will act as a brake by the curved resistance. As a object moves away (while attached) it is making the disk larger and the outside of the attached weight is slowing down.

To solve the return, is a major problem for me.

[/quote]

[bluesgtr44]

OK, from what I am reading...I am a little bit off the beaten path, so to speak.

Lifting has to take place. One approach to this is to provide a mechanism that will do (lift) this and not eat away all the gain from an OOB existing condition...as Jim has illustrated.

Another approach would be to enhance the OOB effect and allow the lifting to take place normally. Instead of a mechanism that will lift, we would be looking for a mechanism that would further displace the OOB. To do this, instead of up and down it would be in and out....what got me to thinking of this is Besslers mention of the storks bill working better horizontally than vertically....pair of pairs....one goes further out while the other goes further in.

Fletch mentioned the 3 types of OOB. His first example was about keeping the weight below the axle. This type of set up would work well for the in/out approach as the weights would not need to rise above the 3 and 9 o'clock positions. If they are working in pairs....one of them would be on the ascending side and the other on the descending side. Some sort of connectedness would effect them both and as one moved in, the other moves out....with energy exerted on just one point (no, I have no idea where this point would be).

Just another way of looking at things.....


Steve

P.S. I can post a drawing if anyone is interested or confused.....

[bluesgtr44]

I cannot find the drawing....typical...


Steve

[WaltzCee]

Summary of Bucket Wheels : Observations & Conclusions about OOB Wheels

A Class One OOB wheel shifts weights around the wheel with the use of levers, springs etc. It also incorporates methods of shifting weights radially around the circumference in preference to in or out movement.

Class One wheels start in a naturally balanced position [symmetrical weight division left & right of the vertical line down thru the axle] & by shifting a weight closer to the axle or further from it, it is intended to create an OOB condition which will cause keeling [torque production], forcing the wheel to rotate to find its balanced position & hopefully back to an unbalanced position again. This is the most common type of wheel design.

Class One wheels 'trade width for height' & in the process of repositioning weights & resultant keeling, the wheels CoG is lowered & moved sideways. While this causes initial rotation it is not self sustaining because of normal & well known system energy losses.

N.B. The CoG always finds its lowest position or position of least potential which is the natural order of things.

Class Two OOB wheels attempt to have weights repositioned within the wheel without the CoG being lowered in the process. The Bucket & Float mech is an example of a Class Two Wheel.

Weights are also repositioned but the special counter weight mech has a compensatory effect so that the CoG always remains at the same level. It does not drop & does not reach its position of least potential [it's already there & stays there]. The water bucket acts like a vertical spring & is not affected by back torque usually associated with 'hard' repositioning systems. The internal self contained mech is no better in reality than a free standing separate cam wheel or journal & could be replaced by one.

While this looks to be an improvement on Class One wheels, normal system losses stop it from self sustaining also, so, even a CoG that does not drop as it cycles is still of no practical advantage or importance.

Class Three OOB wheels, in order to self sustain, must lift the CoG to above the axle, at least temporarily for part of the cycle. This must come about from the dynamics of motion to temporarily make the wheel top heavy so that in its new unbalanced state it wants to keel. As it moves to find its keel position its CoG is again lifted above the axle, unbalancing the wheel in a continuous alternating fashion.

Many would describe this action as "Boot Strapping" i.e. the ability to lift oneself by hauling on your own boot laces. While that may be true for static conditions it may not hold true for all dynamic conditions.

Well, well, well, Mr. Fletcher. Aren't you something. It took me awhile to find it, however I
was sure my idea wasn't novel. Sometimes you just hate being right. We're not famous
anymore Bill. The insanely rich part is out the window also.

[Fletcher]

lol .. sentiment appreciated Walt but the truth is that the idea has been around for a lot longer than when I put it to paper in that post.

I was attempting to classify the lay of the land at that time as I saw it, and project forward some other approaches that I had conceived and built including those.

Before that time on the board IIRC, for the benefit of us gravity wheel seekers, the moving of 2 or more weights around at a constant radius to change the system CoM and Torque characteristics was mentioned more than once by Bill in particular. And I guess that's not surprising in the context of trying to gainfully employ B's. special A's in MT and the pantograph metaphor of the Toy's Page.