WORK THAT IS not being done

[Paul]

Hi, this is the 2D version of the unstable wheel :-)
Paul

edit
The attached sketch do not work neither whit more arms.

[jim_mich]

SeaWasp,

That is a patent application only, not an issued patent.

[SeaWasp]

Jim.. Ok so it doesn't carry any real credentials then? In other words, it hasn't been proven to work. It is only a concept? But I thought that PM's were not patentable if a "working" model did not exist?

[jim_mich]

Anyone can pay the fee and file an application. After about 18 months the application will be published like this one has. I haven't read the text yet. It might take a few hours to read carefully and understand it all. But just from the picture it looks different from the other one.

Most of the time the patent office DOES NOT decide if a patent works or not. If it is obvious (to them) that it won't work they may require a personal meeting with the inventor so he can prove that it works. A patent that DOES NOT WORK as stated is fraud and it is null and void. An issued patent does not mean that it works, only that to the examiner it seemd like it would work .

[ken_behrendt]

Jimmy...

Well, the Hurford device is certainly interesting, but I think it was presented on this Discussion Board before and dismissed as unworkable at that time.

Below I've attached the patent application diagram with the CG's indicated by colored dots. The blue dot represents the CG of the horizontal pair of roller weights and the red dot represents the CG of the vertical pair of roller weights. The composite CG of all four roller weights is shown by the purple dot.

This design will keep the CG of all four roller weights (purple dot) on the right side of the arm axle at all times during rotation. However, this does not mean that the device will provide OU/PM!

The problem occurs as the leftmost roller weights contact that curved wall which begins the process of lifting them as they their attain the horizontal orientation. As soon as contact occurs, there will be a counter torque in the CCW direction that will be applied to the arms and, I suspect, that this will completely cancel out any torque in the CW direction due to the CG of the roller weights being to the right side of the axle.

I think that this design is another one of those that is visually deceptive. Just based on the position of the CG, it looks like it must work. However, that opinion can change quickly when one considers the effects of the counter torques it generates when in operation.


ken

[james kelly]

Gentlemen; The conter torque that you are concerned about is actually centrepetal force, to pre vent centrefigal force from keeping the weights to the outer rim. the unit I am building at this time has eight 15 pound weights. what must occur is to keep the acceleration of the lift ramps proper. Just as I did when I ground cams for my race cars. Lift and timiming are important, but the rate of lift is also of great importance. then with another addition you can make the weight on the lift side zero. jim kelly

[jimmyjj]

Jim Kelly

i would love to see a picture of your design especially if you could include that other addition whereby you can make the weight on the lift side zero.

Why keep us in suspense get it öut there".:-)

Jimmyjj

[SeaWasp]

An interesting observation when I simulated this concept at speed, was that, as the weight comes down to make contact with the guide, it hits it quite hard and then seems to bounce away. In effect, pushing the opposite weight out. The weights only made contact at the one location on the guide. Bit like valve bouncing in an engine! Ha! This I am sure was because the gradient I had drawn was far too steep for the circulating weight! I immediately thought of the gymnast who takes a run off and then jumps onto a spring loaded board to gain height...Food for thought?... Nevertheless, the wheel just slowed down and finally keeled. Unless this design can make use of a secondary system to help the weights rise up, as James seems to have figured out by his posts, then it will eventually stop rotating.

[Fletcher]

We have seen this patent & design b4 (IIRC covered in Darrell Van D's long thread - see fraud forum). It is similar to Boruts wheel also.

If you think about it Darrell's wheel purportedly worked on the exact same principle of shifting rim weights closer to the axle on the ascending side via lifting ramps located at 6 o'cl & further from the axle at 12 o'cl.

The CoAM laws prevent these designs from working when friction (wheel bearing, moveable weight system, & ramp engagement) is taken into account but, hey, I'm willing to be surprised James :)

I'm guessing James you're going to tell us that the ramp incline anti torque which you equate to Centripetal force can be negated or partially offset by harnessing the Centrifugal force of the weights on the descending side which are at a greater radius from the axle & so a differential or gradient is formed.

[james kelly]

Gentlemen; In these posts ,I have told you and shown you exactly how my machine works.you even have a patent and drawings... I can do no more! jim kelly

[ken_behrendt]

I saw yet another variation on this design wherein the rollers were replaced with magnets. The curved wall was then covered with magnets so that when the arms rotated CW and their end magnets encountered the wall, there would be no physical contact between the two. That is, the design used magnetic repulsion to lift the arms and help them make the transition from a vertical to horizontal orientation.

However, even that design did not work because contact is contact whether its direct physical contact between a wall and a roller weight or between two repelling magnets.

Of course, IF one did have a way to negate the CCW torque in this design, then it would have to work! However, I can not see any way of doing that so long as the roller weights need contact with the wall in order to rise.


ken

[ovyyus]

James, it's a pity that you can "do no more", because that is exactly what's needed!

[james kelly]

BILL; WHY! there is no more to tell or more to say. It seems that this is just like a lot of other things. it seems that most of you are in agreement that it won't work. every detail is in this thread. not like Bessemer where more than half of it is missing.

[rlortie]

Jim,

I think you made a typo error above when you said half of Bessemer's story is missing. I find this a worthy point of humor. I do not think we are missing any of the hot air required in the Bessemer steel making process. LOL ...

Ralph

[ken_behrendt]

James, you say:

...every detail is in this thread

But, I think there are a lot of members here who are wondering just how you managed to overcome those counter torque forces that prevent these types of designs from running.

Can you give us some further hints as to how this is done?


ken