Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[Robinhood46]

Tarsier, you're right, it was Hutton, and i apologise for getting your name wrong Jon, if you read this.
I was under the impression that everything was going on at the rim behind the cardboard. Therefore the video that i shared with my suggestion of how he was achieving it, was the same but different. I did show a weight losing height, but that was all there was to it, maybe he had two parts to his, one losing height that caused something else to happen that caused the excess gain, hence your observation that it needed resetting, once the weight losing height reached the end of it's tether.
We know there isn't anything to gain, in either what he had going on behind the cardboard, or my suggestion, for the same reason, the loss of height, which needs resetting and the energy available to do the resetting is insufficient.
You have a better chance of understanding the difference between the two, because you have seen them both. My thoughts are that both would work fine all the time the loss in height stays above the centre, work fine as in, there will be a gain in velocity with zero net gain, due to the loss of height. In my version it is clear that if the weight could continue it's swinging past the centre it would gain height, i don't know for Jon's. The fact that my suggestion, and probably Jon's, could not have the weights magically climb back up from the centre, is the reason they both fail to achieve any net gain.
What i am interested in is how exactly does the loss in height cause the gain, due to the loss in height?
In the case of my suggestion, the gain in velocity is not caused by the weight doing something while losing height. The loss in height is the result of the reduction in distance from the centre and not the cause of any excess weight. The loss in height does not cause a positive acceleration, it causes the reduction of the negative acceleration, which results in the progressive acceleration of the wheel. It doesn't increase the effect of gravity on the downside, it only decreases the effect of gravity on the upside.
Are you suggesting that Jon's mechanism causes an increase in the positive acceleration, because of the loss in height?

[Tarsier79]

Hi RH.

I can not show you Jons Mechanism. I feel that showing you weight position isn't a problem.

Below I have attached a mockup of the cardboard cover start and finish position, with exaggerated COM weight position. Ultimately, if you find any mechanism that will move the weight from the start point to the end point, you will get the same result.

The weight position is not unlike your last suggested movement. Both require a "magic" lift to complete the cycle.

[Robinhood46]

Thanks for the clarification Tarsier,
My thoughts are that the observed gain in momentum, which is the result of the reduction in distance from the centre on the upside, might, be where we can find a raindrop of energy gain, and if we accumulate all the raindrops we will after many turns, have a little net gain.
I have already tried, and so has someone else who i can't remember who, to achieve a gain by swivelling a rod with a weight each end, when the centre of the rod is at 3 clock with the rod vertically orientated. The intention being to increase the top weight's distance from the axle and reduce the bottom weight's distance from the axle. Hoping to have both weights at maximum distance at 3 o'clock with maximum effect of gravity applied to the wheel, by both weights, and the opposite on the upside, where the rods would be swivelled back to put them in their initial orientation for the next turn. They failed miserably as usual.
If we don't try to achieve a net gain each and every cycle, by swivelling the rods back and forth every rotation, we may be able to find some excess energy. If it takes 10 rotations to swivel the weight from initial position to finished position, each increment will have very little cost and very little gain.
Basically, the children who are swinging the clubs, that are too heavy for them to lift, can only swing them from broken column to broken column, because they only shift them a fraction each time, and it needs many rotations before the club finds one end at the foot of the column, where it then tips over to the next column. The tipping over to the next column being the difference i think important, because the state of the club will be in it's initial place but the wheel will have rotated more than one whole revolution.

[agor95]

Hi Robinhood46

I have given your image of the 10 red discs and double weights bars so thought.

It looks like the first 4 discs are not rotating and the centre of mass of the bars are being lifted.
The bar also rotating slightly and from 5 to 6 the bars have there CoM above the horizontal.

In effect the lower mass is being lifted vertically and this affects the bar by an increase its rotation
in the first 7 discs.

This needs an energy input to the system.

The last 4 show a 45 degree bar rotating carrying the disc around at the top mass drops to the bottom.

So the energy input into the system is now in the disc's rotation.

Are you using the energy in the disc rotation to lift up the bar in the first 7 discs?

Regards

[Robinhood46]

High Agor,
This is just the heavy weights, the lighter weights that cause the shifting of these weights are not shown.
The goal is to try and exploit the optimisation of each of the two weights on each bar. The bottom weight moves vertically toward the centre at 6 o'clock, and the top weight moves toward the rim at 2 ish o'clock.
I haven't been able to succeed in finding a gain, with all the different methods i have tried to move weights around the wheel/frame. Here i am showing the exact same principal as a previous attempt, with the difference of braking the movement of the weights up into small steps, as opposed to do it all in one go. By shifting the weights progressively from one section of the wheel to the next, i am reducing the effort needed to cause each shift. My hope is to gain a pathetically small amount of energy that will be accumulated with the multiplication of rotations between each cycle of the weights change of position. Basically nothing is gained during each rotation, other than the tiny fraction of the difference between the rotation of the wheel around the central axle and the weights rotation around the central axle.
As always, things evolve while we are working on them. I now think the rods are more likely to be swivelled, than lifted. My message to Tarsier explains this.
I'm trying to get a simulation to put a video up, but i keep changing things and the going is slow.

[Robinhood46]

Here is an image of the different steps.
The first row is the progression of the swivelling weights, which occurs at the same place each revolution.
The second row, which starts with the last one in the first row and ends with the first one in the first row, with the difference in rotation between the wheel and the crossbar, show the progression during a single rotation.

[agor95]

Hello Robinhood46

I can only admire your persistence.

It is a motivator to us all.

Regards

[Robinhood46]

If at first you don't succeed, try try again.
“ The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results” – Albert Einstein
We need to find a reasonable balance between the two.

Bessler did say that one crossbar "does work, but it's a load of crap" (paraphrasing again).
Here you can see my plan, which will probably not go even remotely as i would like.
Sorry about the colours, they are far easier to see in Algodoo, than the image on here, which is often the case.
So the theory is that the weight of everything on the right is identical to the weight of the counter weight, on the left. Nothing wants to go anywhere because it is balanced. Once put in motion, the progressive swivelling of the weighted bar on the right, causes a very small gain by progressively shifting the weights at the optimal moment, which slightly increases the effect of gravity on the bar between 2.30 and 3.30 (o'clock). Once the swivelling bar reaches the extreme, it then shifts over and starts a new cycle, with the opposite weight taking it's turn to do the magic.

[agor95]

Definition of Insanity

What about 'You are sane but every one around are are not'.

Another is 'The lack of ability too know the difference between reality and fantasy'.

Regards

[Tarsier79]

RH, I don't know what you are hoping to achieve with this new build.

In the progressive steps, they appear to be rotating around the wheel, then you show them balanced by a counter weight.

Where is your COM of the system? If we disregard the small shifting weight, it looks like it is at the axle. If that were the case, shifting it around would be pointless?

[Robinhood46]

Tarsier,
I can't find the draft i started earlier, so i will start again.
I am hoping to achieve next to nothing.
I am beginning to think, the reason Karl wasn't that interested in Bessler's wheel, was because it really was a useless machine, that struggled to pull the skin off a rice pudding, and this wasn't because early 18th century rice puddings had ridiculously stubborn skins.
I have already shared my view that PM will not be achieved using a 360° reasoning, something that a witness of the Buzzsaw also said. Most of my recent attempts do not use 360° cycles, but many of the interactions within the wheels do. That is to say that each and every rotation, whole actions take place. It is the interaction between the whole action (the movement from one location to another), and the wheel/frame that causes the two systems to rotate at different rates, one at 360 and the other at 330 (for example).

I'm thinking that being too greedy is where the problem lies. Maybe we are trying to create enough energy every rotation, to overcome all the resistance and supply the energy for the movement that gives us the advantage. Whereas what we need to do, is break it all down and only hope to achieve a fraction of the movement needed each and every rotation.

I'm not saying that this build is the answer, but the breaking up of the movement into fractions may be necessary to get a runner. This is why I'm thinking that the power of a runner would be very limited. Not to say it wouldn't be useable or that it wouldn't be an amazing achievement, just that Karl would have realised that the power output in "HP" of the machine, was using Hamsters as the unit of measure, and not Horses.

So what i am going for, is to cause a pretty well balanced crossbar, to shift heavy weights a fraction nearer to, and a fraction further from the axle, at the appropriate time for both, during rotation. That is to say that between 2.30 and 3.30, the arm is a fraction heavier than everywhere else.
It's early days, we'll see how it goes.

[Robinhood46]

I didn't answer your question.
The COM is, effectively at the central axle.
The crossbar will be rotating in the opposite direction of rotation of the wheel, but only with regard its relation to the wheel. They both rotate in the same direction, but the crossbar rotates slower, because it steps back a section every "x" rotations.
The "club" with a heavy weight each end, will be swung from one column on the wheel to the next, once it has reached the limit of travel, ie one weight at the rim.
The interaction between the heavy weights and the wheel, will be each weight taking it's turn to push the wheel around.

[Robinhood46]

Things are not going anywhere near as well as i would have liked them to, which is hardly a surprise.
I have often shared my frustration due to the lack of the third dimension in the sim world. Sometimes there is a way of getting over it, with collision layers or using different methods.
The only way to advance my theory any further, is to abandon the sim world and go back to the good old, trusted, slower, more expensive, real world builds. Unless someone has an idea of achieving the same effect in the sim world.
The MT24 style arm, has the small arm with the two heavy weights attached to but able to swivel. The opening of the MT24 arm, causes the weighted arm to swivel, which will give the effect that the red arm will hover, as the top weight is applying force to the wheel, and the bottom weight is rising in relation to the wheel. Then they swap places again the next turn.

[Tarsier79]

It is difficult to see exactly what you are trying to achieve in the 3rd dimension. If a weight is flopping in the 3rd dimension, you can simulate it with two half weights geared together Like Besslers "Demonstration of balance", as the COM moves in a straight line as the 3rd dimension one would looking from the side.

I won't repeat my view on the 3rd dimensions usefulness or lack of...

[Robinhood46]

It is difficult to see exactly what you are trying to achieve in the 3rd dimension.

The drawing on the right, which represents a cross section (not accurately) of the wheel cut vertically from 1 to 5 o'clock and rotated 90°, shows the desired climbing of the weighted arm, every rotation when it is at this location.
The MT24 arm re closes just after 6, without affecting the heavy weights, and then again at 3 ish, the weighted arm climbs another rung of the ladder, when the MT24 arm falls (opens).