Part Three is the Charm

[WaltzCee]

First let me say thank you for sharing your design, YY. I can't ever recall any design using ballistics as you suggest.

Last century I sim'ed something that had one of the masses moving at about 5000 mph in about 4 seconds.

Another SIM I describe here:

. . .

<edit> opps, that's the shot where I took it to 100K.

I then took it to 1 million iterations a seg. Holy cow. You'd never believe me when I told
you what I saw. </edit>

This simulation was a variable density wheel. Nothing novel. I can't find the discussion,
however I know others have talked about the matter on this board long before I attempted it

Missing image


I called it the batshit crazy wheel. I was going to build it but I feared for my life.

The line coming up to .06 seconds looks flat but it wasn't. When the velocity spiked to
70,000,000 degrees per second, that flattened the line out. I think I messed up on the
math. 70,000K/360 = 194,444 rev per second, then multiplied by 60 =

11,666,667 rpm

This g-force calculator:
http://www.endmemo.com/bio/grpm.php
with r=1.905cm
and rpm = 11,666,667
computes a g-force of
2,898,829,260.4252

You can understand why I was fearing for my life.

Connecting masses on opposite sides of the wheel help negate c.f.
Little moldy bread crumb for some food for thought.

If I could re- upload the image I would. Although I'm not the genius mathematician some profess to be, wm2d does a pretty good job.

I don't think this wheel is an answer, yet parts of it are remarkable. For instance, given the g-force that anything in that wheel would move. Yet if I could repost the gif you would see the tracking of the CoM shows it was still moving.

Finally, I reserve the right to be wrong with my arithmetic. I'm no professional cipher

[WaltzCee]

Bessler wheel,
Now, I'm beginning to see, why it's taken 300 years to figure out how to make a wheel-------------------------------------------sam

Why is that, Shammy?

[Sam Peppiatt]

Waltcy,
Well, between the lord, the devil, celestial mechanics, magic and, flying squirrels, it doesn't leave much time for rudimentary stuff, like designing self propelled wheels---------------------Sam

[ovyyus]

I imagined an ordinary conservative OOB wheel that did not self-accelerate and gain momentum. Then I added a black-box Prime Mover internally (the black-box can't be seen thru, it's just there and contains some mechanical implements from the TP, in unknown order and arrangement). These would be Bill's "system requirements for momentum transfer" or the 'levers and weights' favoured by Mr Tim (and myself as it turns out).

Does your mechanism attempt to decrease earth angular momentum in order to increase wheel angular momentum? If so then specific orientation between earth and wheel would be a system requirement? I bet MrTim's mechanism only works in a certain orientation :)

[mryy]

First let me say thank you for sharing your design, YY. I can't ever recall any design using ballistics as you suggest.

Last century I sim'ed something that had one of the masses moving at about 5000 mph in about 4 seconds.

Another SIM I describe here:

....

If I could re- upload the image I would. Although I'm not the genius mathematician some profess to be, wm2d does a pretty good job.

I don't think this wheel is an answer, yet parts of it are remarkable. For instance, given the g-force that anything in that wheel would move. Yet if I could repost the gif you would see the tracking of the CoM shows it was still moving.

Finally, I reserve the right to be wrong with my arithmetic. I'm no professional cipher

5000 mph. That's over 7333 ft/sec. Batchit crazy alright. Anything is possible in a sim I guess.

I am thinking the flying red weights in my design are moving no more more than 100 ft/sec if even. The faster the better obviously.

Here's a diy spring gun using 8 mm ball bearings as projectiles. Action starts at 5:24. He claims it maintains power up to 5 m (~16 ft). Not bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP1GPqaJryE

[eccentrically1]

So the problem is two-fold : Come up with some sort of plausible theory for the supply of 'energy' to cause the wheels to start from a small push start (bi-directionals) to full rpm in 1 or 2 turns. for ECC1 .. this is an increase in velocity. Traditionalists say it must get its input energy to turn into mechanical energy output from somewhere. I'd say that is correct, and why I put forward an alternative theory that I think is plausible, the "momentum exchange - quasi-energy theory". I've written enough about it to make a fish's eyes water.

It’s an increase in rpm.

[Fletcher]

Damn .. I thought an increase in rpm was an increase in Angular Velocity lol.

[Fletcher]

I imagined an ordinary conservative OOB wheel that did not self-accelerate and gain momentum. Then I added a black-box Prime Mover internally (the black-box can't be seen thru, it's just there and contains some mechanical implements from the TP, in unknown order and arrangement). These would be Bill's "system requirements for momentum transfer" or the 'levers and weights' favoured by Mr Tim (and myself as it turns out).

Does your mechanism attempt to decrease earth angular momentum in order to increase wheel angular momentum?

If so then specific orientation between earth and wheel would be a system requirement?

I bet MrTim's mechanism only works in a certain orientation :)

Actually, my theoretical mechanism was designed (yet to be proven) only with the thought in mind to increase wheel angular momentum. And the thought that the earth could probably take care of itself, if it noticed at all (probably below the radar). Fleas and elephants, mole hills and mountains metaphors come to mind.

I didn't think earth orientation to wheel would be a problem - the earth rotates giving us the days and nights, and has constant changes in orbital direction as it goes around the sun. Besides, it is in a constant wobbling whilst rotating cycle on its axis as it waxes and wanes thru the seasons i.e. constant movement in all directions which might be serendipitous to this theory and mech, therefore not a system requirement in my estimation.

I guess this .. probably MrTim's and mine both need to stand vertical so that gravity can optimally play its part. Facing Mecca could be optional but not compulsory.

[eccentrically1]

Damn .. I thought an increase in rpm was an increase in Angular Velocity lol.

Yes, that’s right. But we’re left with the same one-fold problem. What noncontact force between earth and wheel is increasing the rpm of the wheel and decreasing the rpm of the earth?

[mryy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7G17ZzS9ktM

The video shows a mousetrap torsion spring in action and time measured. One viewer calculated the velocity to be about 30 m/s (~98 ft/s). Pretty fast. Could a spring variant up the rate? The spring is operating a very light hammer (the wired 'U" shape). If the same spring was operating a heavier lever the velocity would slow a bit I think. Thus it is conducive for a lever design to be as light as possible. Here's an 8000 year old mousetrap design using twisted twines for torsion (Warning: not suitable for rodent fanciers) :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3rrdMKhUoI

[Fletcher]

>> Here's a diy spring gun using 8 mm ball bearings as projectiles. Action starts at 5:24. He claims it maintains power up to 5 m (~16 ft). Not bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP1GPqaJryE

Hi mryy .. after watching the vid of the home made spring gun I had some thoughts about how something like it might give you some real-world data about forces and energy required to cycle the gun, or something like it in your wheel (this could be a hypothetical thought experiment).

Imagine the bloke anchoring the gun vertically for a bench test. He hand cocks it and tips the release mech. It shoots the ball bearing (bb) straight upwards. He measures the vertical height gain over a number of tests and averages them. Then he climbs a step ladder and drops the same bb from the average height previously gained. Miraculously it falls straight downwards gaining KE and enters the barrel without so much as touching the sides, and contacts the spring mech depressing it (doing Work).

I'm gonna guess it compresses the spring mech and sometimes cocks it and sometimes not. So he climbs another rung on the ladder and repeats the drop test runs. This time the bb always cocks the spring.

Then he climbs down and goes to work with pencil and paper. He calculates how much GPE the bb gained when the gun is shot. He also calculates how much GPE is lost by the bb (gain in KE - not counting frictional losses of air drag and contact losses of sound and heat) from his ladder drop test. They appear to be fairly similar.

He designs a 4 : 1 ratio pivoted lever beneath the gun. He attaches a string to the end of the short side and runs it downwards and around a small anchored pulley and back up to the cocking mech so that when the string is pulled sufficiently hard it cocks the mech. At the other end of the lever at 4 times the distance from pivot he attaches a mass. He adjusts the mass (amount) until it can rotate the lever downwards and cock the spring gun. He notes the mass of the bb and the mass of the 'cocking' mass which gives him another ratio (disregarding lever mass).

Then he leans the gun over and repeats the experiments at various degrees of lean. This time he runs the bb down a half pipe into the gun barrel etc. He takes some notes and makes some calculations. This is to approximate the red flying weight being shot upwards from about 6.0 o'cl to land around 1.0 or 2.0 o'cl. He doesn't consider for the moment the dynamic situation where he'd actually have to 'advance' the shot (aim higher) to arrive at 2.0 ocl as the wheel turns etc. This gives him how much force is required to cock the gun when the gun is leaned over [gravity force acts vertically and the resultant vertical vector is the one he is interested in (see forces in a ball running down a straight incline - vector analysis)].

Then he starts to imagine his spring gun and cocking lever arrangement in his wheel and begines to ask himself some questions. When and where does the cocking mass (yellow mass) actually cock the mech. OK - got that. Now he can draw it up and plot the positions of the yellow masses as they revolve with the wheel in various positions and calculate their torque contribution. He does the same for the red flying masses. Then he can calculate and plot the system COG/COM and its position thru various incremental degrees of rotation to see where it moves to etc. And find out if its possible for the positive-torque generated to overcome back-torque and cock the gun etc.

--------------

All I'm doing here with this thought experiment is start to lay out the possible steps I might go to to get valid data and information to progress the idea in the real-world or sim-world.

Best -f

[MrTim]

I guess this .. probably MrTim's and mine both need to stand vertical so that gravity can optimally play its part.

Yes, though at some point I may revive trying to find a near-horizontal wheel... ;-)

[mryy]

>> Here's a diy spring gun using 8 mm ball bearings as projectiles. Action starts at 5:24. He claims it maintains power up to 5 m (~16 ft). Not bad.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sP1GPqaJryE

Hi mryy .. after watching the vid of the home made spring gun I had some thoughts about how something like it might give you some real-world data about forces and energy required to cycle the gun, or something like it in your wheel (this could be a hypothetical thought experiment).

Imagine the bloke anchoring the gun vertically for a bench test. He hand cocks it and tips the release mech. It shoots the ball bearing (bb) straight upwards. He measures the vertical height gain over a number of tests and averages them. Then he climbs a step ladder and drops the same bb from the average height previously gained. Miraculously it falls straight downwards gaining KE and enters the barrel without so much as touching the sides, and contacts the spring mech depressing it (doing Work).

I'm gonna guess it compresses the spring mech and sometimes cocks it and sometimes not. So he climbs another rung on the ladder and repeats the drop test runs. This time the bb always cocks the spring.

Then he climbs down and goes to work with pencil and paper. He calculates how much GPE the bb gained when the gun is shot. He also calculates how much GPE is lost by the bb (gain in KE - not counting frictional losses of air drag and contact losses of sound and heat) from his ladder drop test. They appear to be fairly similar.

He designs a 4 : 1 ratio pivoted lever beneath the gun. He attaches a string to the end of the short side and runs it downwards and around a small anchored pulley and back up to the cocking mech so that when the string is pulled sufficiently hard it cocks the mech. At the other end of the lever at 4 times the distance from pivot he attaches a mass. He adjusts the mass (amount) until it can rotate the lever downwards and cock the spring gun. He notes the mass of the bb and the mass of the 'cocking' mass which gives him another ratio (disregarding lever mass).

Then he leans the gun over and repeats the experiments at various degrees of lean. This time he runs the bb down a half pipe into the gun barrel etc. He takes some notes and makes some calculations. This is to approximate the red flying weight being shot upwards from about 6.0 o'cl to land around 1.0 or 2.0 o'cl. He doesn't consider for the moment the dynamic situation where he'd actually have to 'advance' the shot (aim higher) to arrive at 2.0 ocl as the wheel turns etc. This gives him how much force is required to cock the gun when the gun is leaned over [gravity force acts vertically and the resultant vertical vector is the one he is interested in (see forces in a ball running down a straight incline - vector analysis)].

Then he starts to imagine his spring gun and cocking lever arrangement in his wheel and begines to ask himself some questions. When and where does the cocking mass (yellow mass) actually cock the mech. OK - got that. Now he can draw it up and plot the positions of the yellow masses as they revolve with the wheel in various positions and calculate their torque contribution. He does the same for the red flying masses. Then he can calculate and plot the system COG/COM and its position thru various incremental degrees of rotation to see where it moves to etc. And find out if its possible for the positive-torque generated to overcome back-torque and cock the gun etc.

--------------

All I'm doing here with this thought experiment is start to lay out the possible steps I might go to to get valid data and information to progress the idea in the real-world or sim-world.

Best -f

Thanks Fletcher. The experiments you suggested have to be adapted for the levers in my wheel. The lever needs to be constructed first and tested using different weights and spring constants at its fulcrum and tip. The red weight rolls down the launch arm prior to being fired. That factor has to be considered. The trajectory of the flying weight is predetermined to be a straight line until it strikes the 2:00 lever -- i.o.w no curved trajectory allowed. I think this may simplify calculations.

The 2:00 lever with its yellow loading weight must hold the right balance between the opposite forces acting on it, so that it is easily triggered when the flying weight strikes. Further, as this lever descends to the 2:00 position the loading weight begins rolling on an incline towards the end of the compartment. This could change force dynamics in favor of a swingout.

As for the back-torque, I can only think it occurs when the lever swings up near 6:00 and hits the top of the blue guide. See upload. The angle between the upswing force vector (pink arrow) and the radius (gray line) passing through the point of impact on the guide is small. Hopefully this results only in a small back-torque (small *component* force vector multiplied to low mass of the lever). There is a spring at the lever tip which helps absorb some of the impact energy.

Even though the concept is simple build-wise, the movement and coordination of the weights and levers are more complex.

[Fletcher]

Damn .. I thought an increase in rpm WAS an increase in Angular Velocity lol.

Yes, that’s right. But we’re left with the same one-fold problem. What non-contact force between earth and wheel is increasing the rpm of the wheel and decreasing the rpm of the earth?

Yep .. it's a doozy alright. Bit of a head scratcher it is.

FWIW I don't think B. would have been thinking in terms of Conservation Of Momentums and COE and working backwards to a Prime Mover mech etc.

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

[Sam Peppiatt]

mryy,
I still think your wheel is too complicated but, let's say I'm wrong. I think trying to catch the red weights would be a nightmare, it would be a miracle, if you could ever get that to work but, again let's say I'm wrong. Also, trying to shoot heavy weights straight up would be absolutely prohibitive but, let's say I'm wrong about that too.

However, there is one thing I'm not wrong about. If you back your wheel up about 15 degrees, you will see there 10 weights below the center line and only 7 above. This means that it will be bottom heavy, which means it wont turn. I'm sorry, tethered or not, it's a dead duck----------------Sam