Part Three is the Charm

[agor95]

Hi Robinhood46

OK I hear you.

[Fletcher]

@Fletcher , I can relate , i have been someone that read tons of books since my early days before i had access to internet , and it is in books where i have learned about this silly pursuit , i started developing ideas at a young age , i cant remember my first idea , but i remember coding up my very first sim in c++ back then , it was a circular newton cradle with hammers shaped and sized arranged around an axle , a particular amount of them such that the top one at 12's handle was very close to being vertical and would tip over by its own overbalance and strike the next up hammer in the circular newton cradle.

Of course it worked fine on my program , because back then i did not know to code up energy losses and such :/ , luckily i have learned enough to know how silly the idea was back then.

@ T79 - cheers for the drawing suggestion -

@ jb .. *smile* I still remember as a 12 year old finding Leonardo Da Vinci's PM drawings in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and it raising my interest then .. it came back to me when my first 2 garage builds were almost exactly the same D shapes .. know naff all about computers and coding etc unfortunately ..

What has always occurred to me is the juxtaposition of it all .. I find out about B. and his wheels thru JC's Nexus article and I have a gut feeling B. was genuine (I tell myself this needs further investigation by me) - this gives me the interest and impetus to take a serious look at the mechanics and physics a few years later - but while trying to negotiate and learn the fine detail of mechanics and Newtonian Physics (and Conservation Laws) that would apply I also try to decode and decipher B's. clues, his head, and his works ..

Often I think a backyard tinker who never heard of and never got distracted by the B. story, if dedicated, would get to the mechanical solution far straighter and quicker lol .. just keep turning over rocks - the trick is not to turn them right side up again and look under the same ones again when you've been around in a circle .. for starters go no further than the vprojects V axle vid you posted to show the fallacy of permanent OOB without further intervention .. but then he would not get the benefit of the community opportunities and resources ..

Best to you ..

[johannesbender]

Often I think a backyard tinker who never heard of and never got distracted by the B. story, if dedicated, would get to the mechanical solution far straighter and quicker lol .. just keep turning over rocks - the trick is not to turn them right side up again and look under the same ones again when you've been around in a circle .. for starters go no further than the vprojects V axle vid you posted to show the fallacy of permanent OOB without further intervention .. but then he would not get the benefit of the community opportunities and resources ..

Agreed the backyard tinkerer might have a slight advantage because he would not need to expend years of extra brain resources to try and discover something in besslers work , but on the flip side he might be missing out.

Its a good thing that the maze keeps getting smaller , however it is also a bad thing because when you know there arent much left to explore and you know what is left to explore , you start wondering if whats left would be doable ,some people would revert back to the beginning .

I haven't taken a new turn yet , still marching on.

I have a veproject1 thingamabob :)
https://youtu.be/cRvgnEU1DLY
viewtopic.php?p=115707#p115707

[Fletcher]

@ T79 - cheers for the drawing suggestion -

Hi again .. following up on your drawing Tarsier .. I made 4 variations to cover the field so to speak .. animations of the sims and sim files included in attachments for those interested in having a play ..

No turny spinny -- unless a torque or motor is turned on ..

The questions many will be thinking is why won't the use of Off-Set Split Axles (vertical or horizontal etc) work to create a torque when there is clear imbalance (of mass distribution) indicated in the sims ? ..

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



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



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



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



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

[Fletcher]

And to round out further the theme of Off-Set Split Axles here are some RB's I made .. note that I actually built a mock-up of the Off-Set Chain addition a few years ago (additional to my Ramelli geared design with Off-Set Chain addition of another thread) to see if point loading had any effect - Answer .. NO !

No turny spinny .. N.B. I'd still like to sim the vproject1 V split axles (cranked in the same plane) wheel - the real-world build 20 years ago had no torque either IIRC .. sims attached ..

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



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



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

[Tarsier79]

The questions many will be thinking is why won't the use of Off-Set Split Axles (vertical or horizontal etc) work to create a torque when there is clear imbalance (of mass distribution) indicated in the sims ? ..

I don't think many people thought it would spin anyway. I won't jump on my pedestal today to tell them why...

[agor95]

The questions many will be thinking is why won't the use of Off-Set Split Axles (vertical or horizontal etc) work to create a torque when there is clear imbalance (of mass distribution) indicated in the sims ? ..

I don't think many people thought it would spin anyway. I won't jump on my pedestal today to tell them why...

There may be people new to the site that would benefit from knowing the why.

There is one thing feeling you know why something moves like it does.
It's another too know the mechanism that is believed too cause that movement.

Regards

[daxwc]

Thanks Fletcher great SIM and analysis. I do have a question though. Are you getting better a recognising RB torque lock up in designs before you SIM build? Or is it something you see after? It is something I really struggle with.

Might seem like a dumb question, who would go through all that time to build a SIM knowing failure is coming.

[johannesbender]

Its simple , the same reason applies , the change in KE equals the change in PE and vice versa the change in PE equals the change in KE ,but KE out is never more than the PE in ,in fact due to losses KE out is always less than PE in.

For example ,any descending mass converts its PE to KE , and the KE value when it has converted is never equal to or more than the PE it came from unless you have no losses , so when the KE has to convert back to PE for any ascending mass it cannot reach the original distance .

This applies to all failures .

The definition of over-unity from wiktionary is as follow :

over- +‎ unity (“the number "1"”), referring to the fact that an over-unity device should produce more kinetic energy than whatever potential it receives as input. Coined to avoid patent rules that prevent impossible technologies such as perpetual motion machines being patented.

The laws show that the KE out cannot be more than the PE in , and as far as the laws go for these mechanical devices there are no exceptions.
In the real world , the required KE needed is always more than the KE available , KE available will always be less than the initial PE given.

So unless the distance of travel back to the initial PE is reached without expending the full amount of available KE ,
Or the KE increased either by supplementary energy from another source or is created out of nothing , there can be no reset .

Due to these facts a mass can never reach its initial starting position again and therefore its reachable PE can never be more or the same as is required , it would decrease in energy from thereon onwards .

K.E. = 1/2 m v2
P.E. = mgh

The fundamental design properties to affect the outcome with , accordingly to the PE and KE equations are : mass , velocity , height distance , gravity(acceleration) , and all other properties that tie in to those.
If the outcome is not affected to overcome the problem then no problem is solved.

BTW , 5 or 55 is v or vv , which is v*v or v2 , v is known as Velocity so it could be Velocity squared , or perhaps vv as in vis viva (KE) , as we know if you double the speed the KE increases by four , just random observations that might be linked to Velocity and KE.

[daxwc]

My question wasn’t about every wheel design but a certain specific one. It was about recognising the RB lock up that looks like overbalance. Anybody can say every wheel won’t run because laws say it can’t run and of course they got all that history on their side. I would take those odds too.

If Einstein believed all laws of his time we wouldn’t have special relativity today.

[daxwc]

Don’t get me wrong it is not that I think the laws are all wrong. It might just be we need a very special case of factors.

It might be we can harvest earth’s rotation while being on it if certain conditions are met.

Or gravity is not conservative if an exact sequence is followed. For example in freefall from the same frame of reference the freefall is curved to an outside observer. But what if getting the freefall the shortest distance route makes a difference.

...this principle, in itself so simple, and yet at the same time so deeply hidden, of
everlasting motion, described in total detail and in mathematical simplicity,...

[Sam Peppiatt]

daxwc,
It's like all of the weight is applied to, or at the pin, not out on the far end of the arm as it appears, therefore it's all balanced. It is deceiving, at least to me----------------------Sam

[johannesbender]

My question wasn’t about every wheel design but a certain specific one. It was about recognising the RB lock up that looks like overbalance. Anybody can say every wheel won’t run because laws say it can’t run and of course they got all that history on their side. I would take those odds too.

If Einstein believed all laws of his time we wouldn’t have special relativity today.

no need to worry my answer was directed at Fletcher.

[UbWe]

And to round out further the theme of Off-Set Split Axles here are some RB's I made .. note that I actually built a mock-up of the Off-Set Chain addition a few years ago (additional to my Ramelli geared design with Off-Set Chain addition of another thread) to see if point loading had any effect - Answer .. NO !

No turny spinny .. N.B. I'd still like to sim the vproject1 V split axles (cranked in the same plane) wheel - the real-world build 20 years ago had no torque either IIRC .. sims attached ..

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



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



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

The radii needs to change otherwise it's just a symmetrical design. What I'm building uses 2 different axis of rotation so to speak.
The overbalanced side can be averaged. The overbalanced side generates more net torque than it takes to rotate the top weight.
I'll leave you guys alone because I know I am not welcome here unless Jubat, WC, etc. approves.
And now I have to wonder why you said I was the problem in this forum Fletcher. And if all of the heckling gets me to quit working
on my builds then you could say what if we rotated a weight upwards when it's nearing the top of the wheel. And then you'd have
what I am building. I have to think that the harassment I have to tolerate is so you guys can steal my work. I have an actual build in
progress. And for you to have an invention you'll need to do something other than rotating weights upward using tabs or gears.
And you can say I kept you from making the mistake of pursuing my invention while at the same time I showed you an example of
how to break up symmetry in a design.

[JUBAT]

> I know I am not welcome here unless Jubat, WC, etc. approves.

I've never said nor insinuated this James. I've encouraged your builds and said it's your behaviour in the groups that causes your problems. I've stated numerous times that you're free to build although I have expressed my opinion as protected by the 1st amendment that your builds won't work.