Crazy as can be wheel concept

[Fletcher]

Raj .. there used to be someone else who didn't trust (or understand ?) wm2d sim results. That was jim_mich, bless him. Even tho he had wm2d way back and was a competent user he gave up using it. He instead used his old visual basic programing skills and basically built a spread sheet dynamic analysis for each degree of rotation etc. This allowed him to build better animations of designs like Murilo's Avalanche Drive which were hard to model in WM.

If you are interested in how he set that spreadsheet program up then search his name and perhaps the words 'visual basic'. You may find out how he set up his spreadsheet for both static and dynamic situations and save yourself some time.

Myself, I prefer to trust my own program and simply look for a tendency to accelerate thru sectors as a sign of asymmetric torque. 10,000 engineers and programmers had a hand in developing and beta testing WM and I don't think I can do better they they did fwiw.

ETA : Just for fun .. run Wubbly's YT video at 1.5x speed (settings). You will see both the System CoM wobble about a bit and can clearly see the swinging weights which contribute to that System CoM visual, but shouldn't contribute to Net Torque whilst swinging.

[Wubbly]

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

That's what the simulation clearly showed. When the motor is turned off, the motor is disengaged and the wheel is free to rotate and coast. If the swinging weights provided net torque on one side of the wheel, the angular velocity graph would increase or at least remain constant. By testing the wheel at various angular velocities and shutting off the motor, you can see if the swinging results in motion that perpetuates itself. The simulation clearly proves what you are looking for. But maybe that's not what you are looking for.
Keep building Raj.
Keep learning to the end.

[raj]

For God sake, just show me a picture of your sim, where the wheel stops.

EVER so grateful to you, Wubbly.

Thank you.

Raj

[Fletcher]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvzBV-4 ... e=youtu.be

Start at 2.00 minutes. Stop at 2.07.

Look at the angular velocity graph for that period and also watch the wheel on screen.

[raj]

Wubbly and Fletcher, thank you for the time and effort to help me.

Just give me a picture where I can see the wheel is balance in keel/stop position.

I hope this is not a too big request I am making.

Too bad for me. I cannot follow the simulation.

In case you have not noticed. the weights are moving in circular orbit.

This video, I first watched in 1977 in my first Maths lecture at Open University UK.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA_UO86MjLY

Raj

[raj]

Look at my pendulums wheel concept picture again and compare it with Wubby's two pictures of his simultion of my concept,taken from youtube, first picture of a frame the start of the simulation, and the second piicture taken of frame at 46 seconds later from video of 3mins duration.

MY concept drawing shows wheel system ready to rotate clockwise, being preloaded by design. FOR testing motion of the wheel, that's where we start. No need of any engine to start. IF there is sufficient torque, the wheel will turn, if not, it will stop. The is completed.

IN Wubbly's simulation, for almost 46 seconds, out of 3 mins running time of simulation, the weights on counter-clockwise ascending side of wheel, are in wrong place, forcing in balance state. THEREFORE, an engine externl force was used to start the wheel turning.

THERE is jargon in computer science ; gigo; garbage in garbage out!!!

Raj

[ME]

Nice animation Marchello.

Thanks, so is yours.

Just give me a picture where I can see the wheel is balance in keel/stop position.

Raj, you just provided it.

Here's the list of center-points you can check:

Code: Select all

+0.00	+2.01
+2.98	+0.67
+3.94	-2.01
+2.10	-5.33
+0.13	-5.96
-0.25	-5.96
-3.61	-3.82
-3.52	+0.08
------------------ [average]
+0.22	-2.54

Assuming your drawing skills are accurate, your 'overbalance' of the Center of Mass is just 0.22 grid units.
It's not really much to go on.

As Wubbly's nicely done simulation clearly shows this type of mechanism makes the Center of Mass wobble from side to side at the center.
Like a pendulum it's sometimes in underbalance, and sometimes in overbalance.
When those red weights are horizontally aligned, then it clearly shows that the mechanisms 180° apart are balanced.
More weights does not make the CoM be more overbalance, just more centered per smaller sector the wheel rotates.

Now it's for you to figure out if that assessment is correct.

[raj]

By design the weights MUST be hanging somewhere on the rim of the large wheel or on the peg inside.

Look again at Wubbly’s sim. From start to 46 second running time, the wheel and the weights are in balanced state.

Presumably during that time, data were being added for the start of run, including engine activated, external force added to help wheel to accelerate.

Just after run is pressed, two weights on the counter-clockwise drop with a bang counter-clockwise side, most like negating the external energy provided to accelerate the wheel.

A PMM, Gravity Wheel, a self-rotating will can only provide a net minimal torque if at all.
Remember Bessler wheel was rotating at a puny 26 rpm.

Torque on any wheel is never constant. Even the car you drive, when you drive uphill, or brake.
What is required in my opinion for a self-rotating wheel
to have a more than minimal torque to move however slowly uphill, and pick up speed again downhill every time

In my pendulums wheel concept the weights should always hang and apply gravitational force clockwise on the fully stretched blue strings or counter-clockwise on
the the fully stretched red strings.

The weights should never hang on slack strings. In Wubbly’s sim, there are several instances where weights are connected to slack strings, which means these weights were not providing torque as designed..

I thank Wubbly whole-heartedly, to have given me the opportunity to further understand my pendulums wheel concept.

Raj

[ME]

Look again at Wubbly’s sim. From start to 46 second running time, the wheel and the weights are in balanced state.

Look again at your own design-drawing. The wheel and the weights are in balanced state.

[Fletcher]

A PMM, Gravity Wheel, a self-rotating will can only provide a net minimal torque if at all. Remember Bessler wheel was rotating at a puny 26 rpm.

Torque on any wheel is never constant. Even the car you drive, when you drive uphill, or brake. What is required in my opinion for a self-rotating wheel to have a more than minimal torque to move however slowly uphill, and pick up speed again downhill every time.

In my pendulums wheel concept the weights should always hang and apply gravitational force clockwise on the fully stretched blue strings or counter-clockwise on the the fully stretched red strings.

The weights should never hang on slack strings. In Wubbly’s sim, there are several instances where weights are connected to slack strings, which means these weights were not providing torque as designed.

I thank Wubbly whole-heartedly, to have given me the opportunity to further understand my pendulums wheel concept.

Raj .. that's why the likes of me usually end up saying "build it". You have done that and you think it doesn't self-rotate because of inferior materials and workmanship. I disagree. It should still show a tendency to pull thru a sector imo, if it has true asymmetric torque i.e. more positive torque than negative torque.

I realize that your PMM attempt is not necessarily Bessler's, and you are not trying to actively duplicate B's. wheels. If they are, then they are !

However there are some vital differences probably worth comparing.

B's. one-way wheels started rotating from any position. They were up to working rpm in just two turns. That means a reasonably rapid acceleration (from asymmetric torque) for a large diameter wheel. The rpm was dictated by the dimensions and a thing called latency i.e. the time it takes for objects to move into position to create torque effects, which is also related to working dimensions.


About all Wubbly could do for you now is to turn on the background grid (like your grid/graph paper). Then you can grab screen frames from the video and manually calculate the TM's etc. And compare the Net Torque to the CoM shown in the sim. Actually you could grid them up yourself using whatever scale you want.

All The Best.

P.S. the sim motor toggle ( On / OFF ) has an X for ON. When ON / X it instantly rotates the wheel at a predefined angular velocity. When it's turned OFF (taking away the X) the motor is disengaged and the wheel can coast, as Wubbly said. Then you look at the graph plot at and after the time the motor was OFFed for 'trends' in the plot to draw conclusions.

It helps to watch the vid on full screen mode and perhaps at a slow delivery speed (stopping it when you want) so you can follow what Wubbly has done.

[raj]

These pictures show blatant mispositioning of weights in Wubbly's simulation.

Can you find which weights?

This mispositioning of weights happens every 45 degrees turn of wheel, which reduces the clockwise torque in the simulation

Rj

[ME]

Just give me a picture where I can see the wheel is balance in keel/stop position.

Raj, you just provided it.

Here's the list of center-points you can check:

Code: Select all

+0.00	+2.01
+2.98	+0.67
+3.94	-2.01
+2.10	-5.33
+0.13	-5.96
-0.25	-5.96
-3.61	-3.82
-3.52	+0.08
------------------ [average]
+0.22	-2.54

Assuming your drawing skills are accurate, your 'overbalance' of the Center of Mass is just 0.22 grid units.
It's not really much to go on.

Apply to:
Pendulums Wheel - LOOPING THE LOOP -drawing - 170720.jpg


Challenge:
Add 8 more weights to your drawing and see if the Center of Mass drifts closer towards 0.44 or closer to 0.11.

[raj]

I asked a question: ' can you find which weight' in relation to the position of weights in the pictures shown.

Center of mass is irrelevnt to my question and so is reference to 'looping the loop'

Sadly, my question has not been answered.

Raj

[Wubbly]

This is a picture of the weights in their "starting position" with the wheel locked. Maybe I should not have showed the 'build phase' of the simulation.

Opposing weights have the same color.

You are right Raj. In this static starting position there is a net unbalanced torque on the wheel and the wheel will start to rotate.

The strings with length "6" are green. The strings with length "8" are red.

Tell us which weight is in the wrong position?

[ME]

To make comparing easier I made an overlay.

(Wubbly, I removed the numbers too)