Current work

[Fletcher]

jbs .. here is screen grab I just created.

I placed a block on the page in WM. Then measured time creating an Output. Opened the Time Output and added in below 2 System Kinetic Energy fields. Both are called Sys KE but the formula's are slightly different. In one just KE() , in the other Kinetic() . It accepts both ways. Important to use Brackets (I find them from my top numeric pad).

FWIW you can sum your Outputs by creating a summing field.

Just look at the Output Reference and add them - formula is ..

Output[1].y1+Output[1].y2+Output[1].y3 etc etc

...................

Georg ..

I still don't know what to say to you. You have the still pics of the parts. Have you placed the walker in the frame and used your phone to video it to see it rocking back and forth ? Or does it do as you believe it will ?

[johannesbender]

@Fletcher , thank you for the assistance , i think i remember entering it exactly like that (like a function call "foo()" ) perhaps i overlooked something , or a gremlin crept in.

i will attempt to do it again , well it does not seem complicated at all , thanks for the advice simply summing the variable's values up .

[Wubbly]

... the KE() thing is not accepted as a formula when i enter it.

In version 9 of WM2D, both KINETIC(), and KE() work.

[johannesbender]

i have a question though about GPE.

because i have been thinking it over ,why is it suppose to be more on the bottom , if my design is suppose to use it on the top.

why is amount of mass raised below axle vs amount of mass dropped above axle ,GPE , considered a problem , when

the mass amount used on top to raise is more than the mass amount on the bottom , if

the bottom mass is raised higher than the top mass dropped ?

since the point of raising is to lift the com above the axle .

this is exactly why more GPE is an advantage on the top .

in my current understanding there is no need to have less GPE loss for falling than GPE gain for raising.

[Fletcher]

i have a question though about GPE because i have been thinking it over , why is it suppose to be more on the bottom , if my design is suppose to use it on the top.

why is amount of mass raised below axle vs amount of mass dropped above axle , GPE , considered a problem , when the mass amount used on top to raise is more than the mass amount on the bottom , if the bottom mass is raised higher than the top mass dropped ?

since the point of raising is to lift the com above the axle. this is exactly why more GPE is an advantage on the top.

in my current understanding there is no need to have less GPE loss for falling than GPE gain for raising.

Your System CoM will be wherever it is, above, on, below, beside the Center of Rotation / axle. It is simply where the System mass is distributed as a single point mass. And where it is is dependent on your design. The aim in an OOB wheel is to get the CoM to fall and raise again to at least it starting position in a revolution. This is the Closed Path conundrum and Conservative Gravity Force in a nut shell. Hopefully not only can you re-raise the CoM but get it to gain KE as it passes its starting position, which it doesn't have when the sim is first run.

"in my current understanding there is no need to have less (I think you mean more) GPE loss for falling than GPE gain for raising."

Crack that and you have cracked the Law of Levers and thrown it away.

Think of a pendulum that is horizontal. Let it swing down and up under gravity. It never gets higher than it started from (GPE). There are no frictional losses to consider so its a perfect thought experiment. Now alter the pendulum by whatever means you can think of, make it a complex pendulum if you want. Put it in the start position. Measure the sum of the individual GPE's of ALL the parts. Turn on View System CoM. Run the sim and see what happens when it swings across and stops its climb. GPE is same as at start. Now consider frictional losses. It doesn't make it back to starting GPE. GPE is converted to KE + dissipated energy.

Change the leverage method to something else mechanical. Add a spring etc. Always the GPE lost is converted into KE gained which is then restored as GPE again. When system losses are considered the KE gained (of ALL the parts) and the GPE restoration is less than the original GPE given. So you must always lose more GPE than can be gained with leverage !

Unless you figured a mechanical way to break Archimedes Law of Levers which is MA x SR. Best of luck.

[Jon J Hutton]

This is an extremely long story, but I changed my design. I still kept the theory, but while thinking of what made me think it would work was a principal. When I changed the build there was no need to reset or have anything (gear) on the axle. In short... if possible, The design calls for 3 mechanisms that are along the periphery..... I could make more than 3 but I thought it would be smoother with 3. I built one in my shop as a proof of concept....

I tested and tested and tested and rotated and flipped it every possible way I could think of and will do more testing tomorrow. I was somewhat let down in the amount of OOB it showed then I saw my scale was set on KG. I changed it to ounces and it was exactly the way I thought It would be. All the physics programs I used said it would not work but common sense told me the opposite.

I wish I could say more at this point. It is a pure out of balance principle that always makes the disk out of balance on one side by several ounces no matter how many times it is rotated,no noise, no loud banging, or thuds. The tests showed about 12 ounces OOB. It is completely made of wood and uses 2 weights. The test disk was about 22 inches.

I'll test more tomorrow and then tear it apart to make it more sturdy out of metal and make a video and then finish the project. It is so so so so (I could fill the page up with so's) simple. More later.

JJH

[Fletcher]

Kool :7)

[Art]

Yes -Double Kool ! : )

How are you measuring the effect of the OOB in the tests Jon ?

[Jon J Hutton]

I used a digital 5kg scale with different settings of grams, kg, and ounces. The small wheel that is one of three i placed small pegs on the rim as posts to measure on the scale. One peg rested on the scale the other peg 180deg. opposite i placed on a wooden stand, i moved the wheel to each of the pegs on the rim to measure the left side the did the same with the right side. It always showed oob.... by about 12 ounces..... todays test i will use 2 scales, but the idea is so simple it really does not need extensive testing. Early in the morning (2:00) i thought of a different way to do the same design..... that adds sturdiness.

[Jon J Hutton]

Definately oob. Discovered by accident a way to move it more oob.

Very nervous and puzzled what to do next. It can be made several different ways but there is a big key step that makes this work. It.s only about 8 ounces oob, but it could be made much larger. The one disk us only 20 9/16 dia. and the weight is 1 pound 3.85 ounces the other weight is pure counter torque.

I think i will push past nerves and make all three disks on a more sturdy wheel.

Suggestions??

JJH

[Fletcher]

Yep .. don't cannibalize your current test rig.

Leave it entirely alone and start again making a more robust model using the same principle in the simplest form you can think of that will work.

Best of luck !

[Jon J Hutton]

Thanks for your reply Fletcher. I know how boring this sounds..
... "One more person who says they have....." but, first time in fourteen years to come up with an actual oob wheel...well, a disk. I was going to scavenge only because the idea was so simple, no way to forget how to make this again. I'm going to make it this time with the new torque canceling mech differently. I will say there is no way to protect this once out. It could be copied to easily. I really think a patent is a waste of time and money.

[Fletcher]

Thanks for your reply Fletcher. I know how boring this sounds..... "One more person who says they have....."

but, first time in fourteen years to come up with an actual oob wheel...well, a disk. I was going to scavenge only because the idea was so simple, no way to forget how to make this again.

I'm going to make it this time with the new torque canceling mech differently. I will say there is no way to protect this once out. It could be copied to easily. I really think a patent is a waste of time and money.

Agreed. And nice to see you torque cancelling ;7)

IMO that was the guts of B's. PM Law i.e. create balance of forces then add back imbalance.

Good luck !

[Wubbly]

The measuring of static conditions might not register the same as under dynamic conditions where the wheel is rotating and you have additional forces i.e. centrifugal force acting on the components, or Moment of Inertia changes affecting the acceleration/deceleration of the wheel.

[Art]

"Suggestions??"

What you are planning to do :- build a new sturdy larger version with whatever improvements you think you can make is definitely probably the best way to go .

A diameter of about one meter I find has been the easiest to work with and produces for me the most easily reproducable and dependable results .

Working at that scale I figure you are less likely to miss something that may not be apparent at "micro" levels due to all of the forces that you end up playing with in a rotating system .

In addition to what Wubbly points out above I would add Friction effects which only become apparent in torque situations under dynamic conditions.

While overbalance forces can become torque , it is not until they have become torque that you can determine whether you are getting a backtorque or not until the wheel has completed 360 degrees to a reset .

Static measurements of the overbalance which will produce the torque seem only to indicate the force involved but cannot say much about the backtorques due to friction ( and torque frictions unfortunately I have found seem to be natures way of ratifying Newton's third Law of Action /Reaction ) .

So my recomendation is : -

Mount one mechanism (or two if you can , to make it easier to balance the wheel) on a main "wheel structure or disk " .
Balance the structure as finely as possible , and then measure the number of times the wheel revolves clockwise and then anticlockwise when you drive it with a standard force.
If this measurement is substantially different then you know that you have (1) an asymetric torque producing system and (2) if you lock the mechanisms up and redo the measurement you will then know if it is actually producing excess torque or losing the torque to friction during rotation .

If the results of those tests are positive then my recomendation would be , (A) Break out the bubbly ! , (B) Tell the family you might be acting a bit strange from now on and (C) Concentrate on producing a commercial version that will produce about 200 Watts or thereabouts , and (D) find some investors with a bit of money , to organise manufacturing on a franchise basis worldwide .

I figure once you are at that stage then you should get some good legal advice on how best to protect the "intellectual property " , form a legal entity that you can distribute ownership through , and then be prepared to be a "Bill Gates " for the rest of your life and dedicate your time to philantropy (after you have taken over the world ! : ).

It sounds like a lot of work when you think about it quick , but don't ! , just enjoy the trip as relaxed as you can be .

Remember that working on a Bessler Wheel entitles you to be strange ! : )