Why doesn't this work?

[Beginners Mind]

My apology for starting a new thread on this. Undoubtedly this idea is not new to the members of this forum since many here have devoted a large part of your lives to studying gravity wheels. I searched the forum to the best of my ability without success before making this post. I would like help understanding the physics behind why this idea does not work.

Both slightly offset "wheels" appear to be continually out of balance. The counter torques from the cantilevered weights on each wheel appear to offset each other, which is easier to visualize with 4 arms instead of 3. Yet certainly this idea has been built by people without success and no doubt discussed here. Why doesn't it work?

P.S. I am most impressed with the professionalism, knowledge, experience, and courtesy of the members of this forum. It is a joy to follow your posts. I am humbled and awed by the dedication so many of you have to this quest. Should anyone create a self-runner, on behalf of humanity I sincerely hope you make the information freely available to all and not withhold it for individual profit.

[agor95]

Hello BMind

Your question is really good for we all see and strive to understand the dynamics
present in the devices passed and present.

I for one am trying to find the fundamental interpretation for the dynamics we find.

To clarify image you presented

1. The device has the arms fix in their position in relation to the main body as it rotates.
In this case the body rotates until they come to rest pointing down.
Classically this is caused by the centre of gravity becoming lower in the process.

2. The arms are geared to point horizontally as the main body is rotated.
In this case the centre of gravity lowers and at the same time increases due to the gearing.
Classically there is no drop in COG so there is no energy to cause any movement as is present in case 1.

I do find the above explanation a little incomplete.
That is why I am looking at questions like this from another interpretation.

Welcome

[scott]

Needs more aerodynamics

[Tarsier79]

Scott, will the Wiki be up soon?

BMind, there is a demonstration with gears in Besslers MT that balances for the same reason. The second axis makes an artifical horizontal support. With gravity, weight only powers rotation when it falls relative to the wheel with gravity. In this wheel the Center of Mass never moves.

[Leafy]

Work is continuously required to keep the weights in that position as they rotate. This work is exactly the same as the output of the machine.

[Fletcher]

Hi BMind ..

Here's a good site that explains things quite well.

https://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/roberval.htm

If I've interpreted your diagram correctly (horizontally (or whatever angle you choose) maintained lever-weights) we generally call them Roberval type wheels. Sometimes that orientation is maintained by using parallelogram structures, or offset axles, as two mechanical methods.

If they are geared examples they are sometimes called Ramelli type wheels which is a third method and quite common.

You could search the forum for Roberval .. or .. Ramelli to see the examples and discussions.

My general opinion is the same as others have mentioned. If the CoG does not have the ability to get lower then there is no torque.

Of course we would all love to see and discuss an exception - so best of luck !

[axel]

The shafts the weighted levers pivot on, are geared to the central shaft and push the whole thing clockwise, balancing it.
The weighted levers could be any length. 1 inch, one mile, anything.

[Fletcher]

Here's a mechanical Offset type, since Bmind mentions offset.

I have an animation of it in action but is too large to post now it seems. I remember that Me originally posted the animation but unfortunately we don't have an 'Albums' feature atm to find it for you.

[Beginners Mind]

Thank you all for taking the time to reply. The level of knowledge on this forum is exceptional. Fletcher's link to the article on the Roberval balance was particularly enlightening and very clearly explains the flaws in the concept you all noted. Much appreciated.

[agor95]

Hello All

You know I think we are to hard on ourselves. We are learning each device is an improvement in understanding and skills in production of the device in what ever the form virtual or physical.

For example this topic title could have been 'What could make this concept work?'
So what can we do and what advice we could follow too progress and move forward in improving the concept.

If you do then you should see some options; because we have given ourselves the right to change the design.

Regards

[Leafy]

In science we start with a working device or a theory. For gravity wheels, we neither have any, just a hunch.

I think somewhere out there people already have a working device, but they still can’t figure out what made it work.

[agor95]

I think somewhere out there people already have a working device, but they still can’t figure out what made it work.

There are examples of working wheels and devices. However the skilled builders are happy in their achievements.
It taked time effort and money too work on such a project.

They really are not equipped too fight the world to get people too believe there own eyes.
Nor the skills to produce a learned paper of the mathematical proof of their intellectual Property.

But that is all right for we have BesslerWheel.com too round the skills required.

Regards

[agor95]

Would there be a way forward if the weights were lowered down to say 55 degrees [in the original image].
Then clamp the device to a turntable so the vertical axis of rotation was through the main axle?

Can this give the device an option to improve?

All the Best

[Leafy]

Here is a design that will turn but it has to be wound up.

Weights are attached to torsion springs. One side of the wheel is always heavier as long as the springs stored energy.

The wheel will rotate until the springs energy are used up.

One can replace springs with strings and it would work the same.

[vlmmoa55]

Beginners Mind
hello


ce que vous gagnez d un coté en inertie descendante - frottements, vous le perdez de l autre cote en inertie montante + les frottements ( loi thermodynamique ) donc ça s annule


what you gain on one side in downward inertia - friction, you lose it on the other side in upward inertia + friction (thermodynamic law) so it cancels