Crazy as can be wheel concept

[Tarsier79]

Nice work Raj. Builds like this can teach you a lot, even if you feel they are lacking. They can show problems with concept. For me, the building process often seems to unlock an understanding of the mechanism, even before it is finished.

I do not see this being a runner, but that doesn't mean you won't get anything out of it. Good luck.

[Wubbly]

WHAT to make of this is anyone guess.

Here's WM2D's guess ...

[raj]

Dear Wubbly,

I just don't know what to say.

I am under shock seeing your gif presenttion.

THANKS a lot for your kindness.

Raj

[Robinhood46]

Raj,
I wasn't much of a fan of simulations, for two reasons. Firstly, i couldn't get the bloody things to do what i wanted and secondly, building real models is much more fun and gives a better understanding of what is actually happening.
I have recently changed my opinion, they are very helpfull at allowing us to visualise the whole thing, as opposed to just individuel details (sections of arcs) independantly. Which is a very good, time, and money saver.
The problem is, i live in a world, where drilling a few holes, cutting a few bolts and adding a few weights and levers with springs, is a no brainer and it only takes a few minutes. Others live in a world, where browser, bandwidth, ping, malware, bits, bytes, trogan, encryption, and many other words, actually have a meaning.

The swinging weights pass two other weights, this means that a front back (left right) of the weights will not be possible. The wheel would need to be 3 mechanisms deep, which would be unbalanced, given the eight weights. The unbalance in this direction would not be problem with regard rotation. Because of the 8 weights the progression of the crossing weights may well give you a problem which needs a 4 deep wheel, unless you incorperate some lateral movement of the swing (maybe doable). As with 3 deep it is not a problem.
The swinging weights, each in turn, returning freely as a pendulem, would only be possible at very low rpm. The velocity of each weight will increase the distance it travels before swinging back, with increasing rotational speed. The time needed for the weight to swing back and change direction would be far to great given the rotation of the wheel and the length of the string. The wheel will then be obliged to radically force the swinging weight to change trajectory, which is not a good thing.
Maybe this could be overcome by a spring fixed to the ground (fixed structure) which could be adjusted, manually for a start and automatically if successfull.
Bessler did say that weights are not swinging from the center axis, this doesn't mean PM isn't possible by using this method. This means he didn't use it or he wasn't telling the truth. I believe he was telling the truth myself. This didn't stop me trying very hard to do so. I failed.
There is very little difference between your wheel and mine, the only difference i can see, if i remember correctly, is the pendulem effect of the swinging weight. I can't see how this can give the desired result i couldn't find. As with Georg's octagon, i do hope you manage to succeed where i have failed.
Keep at it, someone is going to get there one day.
RH

[raj]

Hello RH,

I got a wheel concept.
I made drawings of how this concept would look and help others to visualise.
I wrote lengthy description to evaluate my thoughts and others to understand.
I made/built several physical model to find fault in my concept.
I am quite happy so far, as I still see promising sign.
I am thankful to Wubbly to have done a much welcomed simulation.
I would much happier if I new what data have been used in Wubbly’s simulation using WM2D. I.E friction, air resistance and any external energy/power used.

In the meantime, I am continuing my search

Raj

[Fletcher]

I would much happier if I new what data have been used in Wubbly’s simulation using WM2D. I.E friction, air resistance and any external energy/power used.

Wubbly can provide the detail you seek raj.

If it was a standard sim setup then it is quite usual to initially set it up with no frictions, including air frictions. This gives the best result possible. If that looks promising the next step is to add some sort of work load like frictions. I usually just add air frictions as a quick and dirty approximation for all frictions. And I try it out at various amounts until it dampens down quickly and then back it off again.

It looks like the sim is turned by a constant speed motor at the center axle at a set speed. So that you can see the pendulums in action etc.

You could ask Wubbly to provide an animated sim of the motor turned off if you want to see how much torque it has and its tendency to self rotate.

[ME]

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 532#134532

[Wubbly]

Nice animation Marchello.

Raj,

The previous version had a radius of 8 meters. This version shrinks everything by 8 and has a radius of 1 meter.

It is powered by a motor with a velocity slider to adjust the speed, and an ON/OFF switch.

Air resistance set to zero.

Elasticity is set to zero (no bounce) and affects the Rope constraint.

Friction is set to zero, but no bodies contact each other.

Here's the extended youtube version that shows the motor being turned on and off at various angular velocities.

https://youtu.be/DvzBV-4TLuU

[raj]

I think there is no need to prove a corpse can move, by putting an engine in its backside.

the proof required is whether a corpse can move by itself.

Raj

[Fletcher]

I think there is no need to prove a corpse can move, by putting an engine in its backside.

the proof required is whether a corpse can move by itself.

Raj

Raj .. the sim and animation video on You Tube that Wubbly built expressly for you took him hours and hours of his time.

Thank you Wubbly ! Professionally done with beautiful music accompaniment. We all learn from them and appreciate your efforts at this forum.

[raj]

Heaven knows how much I appreciate Wubbly’s effort and kindness for his unsolicited help.
Specially for the choice of his music

But this is not what is needed.

I am showing a wheel concept that is supposed to rotate by itself, torque provided by swinging weights applying gravitational turning force, against friction etc.

The proof I am desperately seeking is whether the swinging weights are providing sufficient gravitational NET torque for wheel to rotate.

So the help that I really need is to calculate the torque by each weight through 360 degrees as the weights swing, to see if they provide sufficient torque for a complete revolution and reset their positions by themselves.

Using an engine can make a dead body move,won’t prove the assumption that it can move by itself.

Torque, turning force will turn anything. To find if some mass on an axle will turn, we have only to find asymmetric torque, regardless of shape of mass.

I am reasoning as a non-scientific but logical layman.

Raj

[WaltzCee]

Wubbly sure knows how to cook it up. He does a heck of a job.

I hit his green dot some time ago but for some reason he's stuck on 3.

[Fletcher]

You are quite correct raj.

If you watch Wubbly's video animation again you will see him switch ON and OFF the motor drive, many times, while changing the rotation speed. He tells you that is how he built the sim, so he could do that, and he does.

Have a look at the plot graph (bottom left) of the wheels rpm. Note that when the motor is OFF it slows down (the plot changes). It does not speed up when the motor is OFF which would indicate asymmetric torque capability i.e. an acceleration.

Or perhaps you see something else happening and reach different conclusions ?

It's a visual representation of the physics for the layman. That's why sims are popular. They take a lot of the effort out of the beforehand analysis that used to be required.

[raj]

I understand numbers, figures to compare plus and minus, numbers denoting negative torque and positive torque acting on a wheel,to make it easy to understand which direction the wheel will turn.

Throughout all my wheel designS, the only thing I am concern with is TORQUE.

I build physical models, as best as I as can, only to check torque/motion of my concepts.

My only problem with my wheel attempts, is that I cannot build my wheel models with enough precision.

I know turning force/torque on self-rotating/gravity wheel will be very minimal, and will need some clockwork precision to work. Several millimetres difference in measurement in building materials of a very small wheel, MAY ruin a reasonable concept.

I am slowly getting better in model building in my old age and hoping to get there, if I am still around.

Raj

PS. my interest here is for my mental fitness

[Fletcher]

Well if torque is all you are interested in I wonder if you are analyzing this design correctly ?

The sim is a Dynamic Analysis - of weights position from the CoR (Turning Moments - TM's) ; and their inertia once in rotation.

Wubbly included the System CoM icon (looks like a small black and white nuclear sign below the CoR). In this model the System CoM doesn't help much to show the Net Torque because it shows the CoM for ALL weights, all the time !

However, when a weight is in free transition, like after 12 o'cl, and again at 6 o'cl, i.e. able to swing and not yet constrained by a rope, then their masses have no effect on the Net Turning Moment and should not be included.

When you do a Turning Moment Analysis (as explained before by others) you redraw the pic an incremental distance on (perhaps a degree or two) and recalculate TM's. But you have to leave out the weights in swing transition until they are constrained by the rope and then have an effect on the wheel background.

That is a Static Analysis which doesn't factor the weights inertia's, unlike the sims Dynamic Analysis which includes both.

You can do on paper a Dynamic Analysis but then you have to calculate the individual TM's when in play, and also calculate their speed in a direction at any time and how this effects the wheel momentum.

I'd pre-sharpen a few pencils and buy some No Doze. You should be mentally well worked out and fit after the exercise. You won't need Sudoku's or Cross-words again. The good'ol days.