Part Three is the Charm

[Leafy]

Asymmetric bulges can be artificially made with lakes with such symmetries.

Now how do we apply this to gravity wheel.

[Leafy]

As you can see in this wheel, the weight at 9:00 is closer to earth and experienced greater gravity than the weight at 3:00.

In theory this wheel should turn if not for friction.

[Leafy]

Anyway, the idea is to have different Gravity strength on each side. The Gravity difference of a few inches is there but too weak to turn the wheel. We need x10G (ten times gravity strength) on the left and leave x1G on the right. The wheel sure will turn.

Where to get 10G you ask? Inertia acceleration/centrifugal force/bouncing spring or rubber bands are all category of G-force.

But don’t we need Gravity potential(GPE) to create that G force? Yes and No. you can shoot a mass attached to a rubber band downward and create great G-force, and it bounced back up. You lost no GPE but have great G-force. Use that to turn the wheel.

But if you shoot it downward, it creates an opposite force as counter torque? Yes, but gravity assist on the way down and resist on the way up, so you get a net force.

So if we shoot 10G down, it comes 11G down and 9G up? Yep

What’s the point man? Why not do a normal drop instead of shootings? Time factor bro, time factor.

Are you sure? No. Are you hi? …maybe

[mryy]

After reviewing my last design I am not sure if the inward leaning 2:00 lever will be able to swing out after being struck by the red weight projectile. The tip spring under tension may not be adequate to effect the movement. Furthermore the lever presses against the side/ledge of the casing and is vicinal to the wheel's inner space. The colliding weight is likely to bounce back out.

If so, the design will need to be modified to address this. Ideally the 2:00 lever should be in a (near) vertical position before impact by the flying weight. In this position the lever is at the point of tipping over and is well within the casing. The weight is then trapped inside upon hitting its retreated target.

Inspired by MT9 (and others) I attached connecting green cords to all the levers. The 2:00 lever will be pulled to (near) verticality by the 3:00 one. I kept the tip spring to facilitate the uprighting of the lever and to mitigate the 6:00 back-torquing (the spring absorbs some impact energy during the lever upswing). Diagram not drawn to accuracy.

Animation of an MT9 version:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9xnO6wnuKA


P.S. The Toys Page shows Jacob's ladder toy labeled B, which corresponds to the levers of my design. This toy uses ribbons to connect and hold the blocks together. I think the ribbons hint at the presence of cords in B. wheels.

[Sam Peppiatt]

mryy, Thanks for the drawing. You cracked it wide open------------------------Sam

[mryy]

mryy, Thanks for the drawing. You cracked it wide open------------------------Sam

My pleasure Sam. Best of luck.

[mryy]

Here's an updated illustration of the last design. The curved side of the casing has a pair of slots where the cords pass through.

[mryy]

Another update of the last design. This time I removed the hook catch arm of the master lever. This reduces its mass (a good thing) and simplifies the lever's construction. I redesigned the casing and added a raised hatch/roof on one side near the fulcrum. It catches the landing red weight like the former catch arm. The hatch also serves as a platform/ledge for the legs of the tip spring to press against. Although not clearly shown the master lever along with the slave has a shallow "V" profile when viewed from the front. This steers the red weight to roll down the center line.

You like?

[Fletcher]

If you ever want to test the theory mryy you could build a 'mouse trap' launcher and anchor it to the ground. Hand cock it and adjust until a red ball hits the required height and angle etc. Then on a simple and separate 'carrier wheel' hand place a red ball and let it rotate down to 6 o'cl to ground zero level (where it would re-enter the launcher unit).

Last step .. make a light weight cog and gearing system (adjustable ratios) between your carrier wheel and the launcher, so that the red ball riding downwards on the carrier unit can wind the launcher system until it cocks and catches ready for launch.

See how high on the carrier wheel you actually have to place the red ball to cock the system.

I know you think the yellow weights have a positive influence but at least this will give you some base line data to work with.

[Tarsier79]

I know Mryy is single minded and entrenched in his design. I hope he gets to actually testing and building.

IMO, it is not better than any other design in MT, and less efficient than a lot of them. To boot it is overly complicated, which is probably why he hasn't tested so far.

Years ago I built something like MT26, but with the addition of a spring. I guarantee that although less than perfect, it is more efficient than "??the one¢¢" or any derivative of it.

[mryy]

If you ever want to test the theory mryy you could build a 'mouse trap' launcher and anchor it to the ground. Hand cock it and adjust until a red ball hits the required height and angle etc. Then on a simple and separate 'carrier wheel' hand place a red ball and let it rotate down to 6 o'cl to ground zero level (where it would re-enter the launcher unit).

Last step .. make a light weight cog and gearing system (adjustable ratios) between your carrier wheel and the launcher, so that the red ball riding downwards on the carrier unit can wind the launcher system until it cocks and catches ready for launch.

See how high on the carrier wheel you actually have to place the red ball to cock the system.

I know you think the yellow weights have a positive influence but at least this will give you some base line data to work with.

Thanks for the suggestions. I saw some videos of homemade mousetrap (and rattrap) catapult launchers a while ago. One shot a small ball over 25 feet it appears.

I think B. alluded to or hinted at the use of projectiles in his wheels:

"I worked also with sulphur and with gunpowder, and constructed air-guns which shot far and accurately, becoming a very good shot myself." AP 257 Collins

'"The shotgun shoots. The bow twangs." AP Poem Collins [The word "twang" suggests a part under tension and the storing and releasing of potential energy.]

[mryy]

I know Mryy is single minded and entrenched in his design. I hope he gets to actually testing and building.

IMO, it is not better than any other design in MT, and less efficient than a lot of them. To boot it is overly complicated, which is probably why he hasn't tested so far.

Years ago I built something like MT26, but with the addition of a spring. I guarantee that although less than perfect, it is more efficient than "??the one¢¢" or any derivative of it.

My, aren't you salty? I am sensing frustration ... The ??theOne$$ is evolving and refining (on paper) until it's ready for testing. It isn't complicated but to each his own.

Ofc, MT26 doesn't work. It's a "tethered" wheel design. Adding springs won't change a thing and probably augments the problem. I am surprised you even bothered considering your expertise. Nothing to see here.

B. on MT26:

"No. 26. This is somewhat different from the previous model, but it can be described simply: A are levers which are interrupted at B and equipped with weight-wheels at C. The weight-wheels run in a channel E and are attached to the cords D. As the diagram shows, one side is heavier than the other. Behind this problem one looks for an augmented problem." Collins


P.S. 1$ = 100¢ ... lots of ¢ !!!

[Tarsier79]

We all start our learning somewhere.

I am a bit unhappy I dismantled that build, or didn't even take a video. It worked mostly like the sim I posted at the time, the large weight climbing upwards around 1:30. Twas a beautiful sight......

Tethered or not, just making something "untethered" doesn't make it work. You still have to deal with the fundamental forces. To quote Bessler, your "fat lazy horses" are lazing about on the wrong side of your wheel. The effort they put in to plow the field barely scratched the surface. The cat played with the juicy mice, but didn't kill them so they got away.

The important thing isn't where we start. It is how we evolve our thinking, and where that leads us. I am not perfect.

I look forward to seeing you test your design. Building in real life is a good learning experience. Learning what to build to test a specific idea is also a bit of a feat. If you understand what you see, you have a successful test.

[johannesbender]

I think the design is deceptive to the inexperienced mind , imagine removing the additional "flying" weights on the right and you should find the common ob wheel with not enough torque to reset , now imagine just having the "flying" weights and you should find that you also cannot reset the weights back to the top , add both together as one and you should find that neither of the 2 adds anything to the other , 2 negatives added makes it worse not better , thats my oppinion on it as it stands , but good luck further forward to mryy.

[Leafy]

now imagine just having the "flying" weights and you should find that you also cannot reset the weights back to the top

I’m not a fan of complexity because it means extra parts to greased, but simplicity can hinder our imagination. You already know my stance on shooting mass.