[ Ferocious Rate ]

[JUBAT]

I whole heartedly agree with your statements.

The radial outward force is around 96.7 Newtons and the downward force is 39.24 Newtons.
So the masses are pulled out more than pull down.

Ah clever discovery! Do you think it's cf-powered somehow or the travelling of the weight to the rim what causes the wheel to spin?

[agor95]

Do you think it's cf-powered somehow or the travelling of the weight to the rim what causes the wheel to spin?

Well I like to keep things simple. They get complex really quickly all on their own.

A mass travelling will always fly out of a circular world.

It's all about getting it back!

[JUBAT]

Maybe we let the weights fly out via cf and via a rope and pulley, we have it yank a movable hub in the opposite direction so that immediately after the CF-driven weight flies out, then it falls....something to think about at least.

[agor95]

Maybe we let the weights fly out via cf and via a rope and pulley, we have it yank a movable hub in the opposite direction so that immediately after the CF-driven weight flies out, then it falls....something to think about at least.

You know the mass flies out via it's inertia. Then you are thinking the mass is stopped by a rope yanking on the hub.
Then the mass, drops becoming a pendulum.

I am not seeing a 'Ferocious Rate' of rotation here?

[JUBAT]

Oh well it was worth a thought. :)

[agor95]

A ferocious rate is a little subjective.

For an objective definition I will suggest;

A rotation rate were the mass at the rim accelerates down faster than
the acceleration due to gravity.

That of cause happens in the first quarter down from the top.

[Tarsier79]

Why can't it happen in any other quadrant? Why does the weight have to be at the circumference? Why does the weight need to conform to your or my idea of its "ideal" path? Are you just talking about a simple OB that is driven by a prime mover or something else?

I think you are limiting yourself by oversimplifying, generalising and stereotyping what "should" happen.

[agor95]

I think you are limiting yourself by oversimplifying, generalising and stereotyping what "should" happen.

You have some good questions that deserve some equally considered answers.

It appears your statement is correct this thread has not caught up with the thread that illustrates.

These answers are illustrated on the 'AP Wheel within Wheel' thread.

Why does the weights need to conform to your or my idea of it's "ideal" path?

I am happy for the masses too follow their own path. In this case the 'centre of mass' of each paddle.
The design does not have any weights added to start with. That can be done in later versions.

The path is one where least work is being done. For any work too move the masses to my or your path will loose energy.
Entropy is inevitable only a flywheel in a vacuum can reduce the losses.

The rule most suited for finding the path is either build a physical model or a mathematical model see below were K.E. - P.E. = 0

https://profoundphysics.com/lagrangian- ... t=cmp-true

I thrust the readers are happy with the path followed by the masses conform to the observable LAWs of nature??

Note. weight is an effect of a mass decelerating. I included weights as added mass as respect to the question.

Why does the weight have to be at the circumference?

The masses are allowed too follow their own path.
That path can be within the range that varies between the circumference and the hub.

In the illustration;

The maximum distance of the C.O.Mass of the right paddle is 144 mm from the hub and 24 mm from the radial arm.
The minimum distance of the C.O.M. of the top paddle is 119 mm to hub & 28 mm arm distance.

The max or min operating positions of the paddles need to be found empirically though modelling physically or mathematically.

To answer your question simply.

The C.O.M. can be placed in a variety of locations in other versions of this design. This is a testing rig too search out those versions.

Why can't it happen in any other quadrant?

As you will read below the mass is positioned and interacting differently on each quadrant.

Going clockwise;

Quadrant 1

The rotation rate needs to be less than a pinning rate.
The paddle is angled so it is biased to fall anti-clockwise.
Where this happens can be found by experiment.
When this happens the paddle's mass exerts less weight on the connected arm.

[There is more dynamic effects but for brevity I will cut short here]

Quadrant 2

The paddle has rotated anti-clockwise due to the arm moving faster than the free fall speed of the paddle's C.O.Mass in Q1.
This reduces this arms Moment of Inertia as it accelerates vertically down in Q1.

The paddle can only rotate anti-clockwise and the mass is decelerating vertically with gravity adding weight against that rotation lock.
The faster the rotation rate the more weight the mass exerts.

Quadrant 3

The arm has stopped decelerating and is starting to accelerate vertically. Gravity will also start too act on the paddle to rotate it anti-clockwise. This combination swings the paddle forwards.
It also reduces the distance from the C.O.Mass from the hub due to the paddles axis of rotation.

The paddle will experience gravity and acceleration pulling it back in a clockwise rotation.
However the clockwise rotation lock holds it in place.

Quadrant 4

The paddle is pinned from the Q3 quadrant as it decelerates in the vertical direction.
The C.O.Mass is accelerating in the horizontal with the rotation lock in place.

There is a transition near the top where the paddle starts to decelerate horizontally and this combines with gravity to assist Quadrant 1.

To answer your question simply.

Quadrant 1 is the rotation rate limiter for too fast a mass doe not fall but is pinned to the rim.

Each quadrant are doing different tasks

Where Q3 & Q4 generate counter torque at all rate of rotation.

And Quadrant 2 is the only one that decelerates with addition from gravity at all rates of rotation.


Are you just talking about a simple OB that is driven by a prime mover or something else?

I am talking about something else which is a mix of the two.
A dynamic interactions using the inertia of the masses following their natural paths.

This is beyond hanging masses causing OB or finding a prime mover add-on.
The prime mover is the way the masses swing. In My Humble Guess.