Calloway Gravity Engine

[JUBAT]

I think that maybe it worked with a self-righting principle. It kept a higher density of weight above the hub and then it would flip over. Makes more sense than trying to shift weights side to side. Shifting weights side to side has the problem of trying to lift them once they've fallen where as if you make a density flip flop, this can be accomplished by bringing 2 weights together up top and spreading 2 weights apart down below. Let it rotate 180 degrees, then flip the density again. Technically gravity powered, but not reliant on overbalance as much as it is the higher density wanting to sink and leave the less dense weight on top.

I think this could be part of the functioning design because on its own, I don't see it having much power.

[agor95]

Hi JUBAT

When you spread or bring the weights together. Do you notice they are moving up slightly.
The good news is they are moving around a circle. So C.F. is not a problem.

Then you have to think why are they spreading apart at the bottom upward?
Also the same question for the coming together at the top upwards?

Could weights be used to pull or push them as required, but is that work being done?

What about the two weights rotating around the radial arms?

So looking at the wheel's side view the weights are at the same place.
One in-front of the other then rotating to become far apart?

Note.

Of cause you would have to bolt the frame to the ceiling and floor due to the gyroscopic effects.

P.S. Moving the weights around their common Center of Mass without changing it's location. Does that change the wheel's CoM?

Regards

[Calloway]

I'll see if I can explain better what I'm trying to achieve. These roberoval locks creep up on me all the time. The photos shown are pretty much locked. I only uploaded them to show all how the build was made. Before I attached the weights hanging from the pulleys (which where placed there to keep the arms in time with the rotation of the wheel) I had a great free falling wheel wih the arms placed in the positions shown.
Simple pivot. However somehow it seems I had made a parallelgram of sorts which stalled the wheel with the weights hanging. The dreaded lock.
I needed to get those weights off of the wheel but yet come up with a way to keep them in time with the rotation of the wheel. I have ordered a same diameter pulley which will install on the main shaft of the wheel. It is freewheeling. This pulley has to be weighted or connected to earth to keep from turning. But the wheel shaft is still allowed to spin thru the pulley. The belts will be installed on this pulley and connected to their proper arms with the correct timing. The pulley weight now has nothing to do with the wheel disk hoping to keep a simple pivot. The belts now walk around the center pulley keeping the arms in time.
That's the plan. We will see how this all works out in time. Hope this helps to clarify.

Cheers

[johannesbender]

Calloway ,To be Honest i don't see a difference between the build shown in the photos , and the geared RB , you can replace the gears function in the geared RB with pulleys the outcome is the same , the center gear would be the center pulley on the axle Calloway speaks of which btw also needs to be grounded/stationary/non rotational.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Calloway,
I think you should use chain and sprockets to keep every thing in time, the belts will slip. I tried some thing like this. I think what happened; the center pully,( false ground), would tend to swing back wards enough to exactly counter balance the forward torque of the weights. Some how it imparted a back torque to the wheel. But I've built so much stuff, can't really be sure.

You just have to try it to see-------------------------Sam

[agor95]

Hello Calloway

I will look forward to your insight the build.

I find one building small models and if justify commit to the next version.
That in turn will cost more in time and money.

The last thing I want to do is spend both for many days without first doing a proof of concept.

So the belts may or may not slip. Just mark the belt & pulley so you can see any slippage after the test run.

P.S. I see your idea to have an anchor down pendulum within the wheel.

Regards

[Calloway]

Hello Johnsbender, You may be correct. I just don't know until I try it. However gears are not being used.

Cheers

[Calloway]

Hi Sam, Hope you are well. Yes I've considered the chain system. But I need to prove the concept first. You know as well that one can spend a fortune on this stuff will all the experimenting that gets tried. I gonna see how it acts and go from there. Keep it simple.

Cheers

[Calloway]

Hello agor95, Keep it simple or go broke... If I see positive results then I will throw money at it !

Cheers

[JUBAT]

Calloway...i might suggest something. If you don't get rotation. Try locking the pulleys and see if the wheel will rotate a quarter turn. That would prove that a lock unlock mechanism would create rotation. I'm chilling at work this morning having a think about your mechanism. I've always been interested in nested robervals and trigger mechanisms but often write them off as unworkable. Maybe your idea will change all that with 4 points of transition...down up down up...like a figure 8 on its side.

[Calloway]

Hello Jubat, Will try your idea for sure if it doesn't rotate. Something else I've thought about is the wheel should rotate with just one arm out with timing so that it remains out. Let the other arm act as a pendulum. I've played with one way bearings on arms and have seen this action. Anyhow we will see eventually.

Cheers

[Calloway]

Hello all, Short answer is no. This method cannot work. One cannot ask the over balanced wheel to pickup the weighted arm that caused the over balance.

Jubat, I have one way bearings on the arms to keep them out. The wheel will fall very quickly for 1/4 of a turn. I got rid of the lock. But how to pick them up for another 1/4 of a turn is the question....

Cheers

[agor95]

Hi Calloway

It's one of those paradox moments were B. states that swinging is part of the movement.

Yet he present ways to create one way rotation.

Can one use swinging without a forward and backward motion?

What should be looked for is a way to allow a swing to place the pendulum out.
Then prevent it from coming back. From that you get a 1/4 turn.
Then the wheel rotates and you prevent it from rotating back.

Most if not all find that leads to a smaller and smaller feed back loop.

I presented a way to cause an increasing feed back loop in the past.
That could be used as a foundation for improvement.

I look forwards to your path forward.

Regards

[WaltzCee]

Hi Calloway

It's one of those paradox moments were B. states that swinging is part of the movement.

Yet he present ways to create one way rotation.

. .. .. .

Can you cite (present) one way Bessler presented?

Pwasent a swingle wan, pweeze.

[JUBAT]

I might be out in left field, but we all try to create movement by moving a pair of weights...one up or out and another one in. But since weights acted in pairs, could it be that 2 weights were moved up and 2 weights below moved up....much like holding your hands up for a touchdown in football. 2 weights up and 2 weights below would create one "seen" weight for every pair as far as the wheel is concerned. Keep in mind how the flip flop works on a Jacobs ladder. This way if you need to rotate a weight into position, you always rotate another one the opposite direction so that you cancel any countertorque. If you can rotate 4 weights up in each quarter, the wheel becomes top heavy. Wait for it to move then repeat. One must think in these terms if they want to cancel out counter rotation. If you can make 4 or 8 weights all rotate up to create a top heavy wheel, then you would have it made. This moving one weight out and one in is a failed approach in my opinion. Let's try thinking about it differently.