Gravitational shortcut
Moderator: scott
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:29 pm
- Location: not important
Gravitational shortcut
I looked further in to the method i thought might be a possible answer for the impossible lifting issues that comes with most failed designs , the previous design example implemented the same principle but combined with the RB , however it was an extreme case of geometry when finally drawn up such that even the weights had to be designed to bridge the gaps it had , so skipping onwards...
Many designs showcases this line of thinking : the creator of such design usually shows that the mass must go to the outside on the down going side and then return to the inside on the up going side .
There are usually two kinds of general designs to be found with this type of concept , one type attempt to move the weights in somewhere on the way up past 6 and attempts to move the mass out somewhere from 12 again .
The other typical version of this same type of designs , attempt to move the weight in somewhere on the way up past 6 but attempts to move the weight out again to the side instead of up near 12.
The typical reasoning with these designs is that the weights on the outer positions being further from the axle should have more force (leverage) than the weights on the upgoing side which is nearer to the axle , which is the principle of the lever and it is fully reasonably and logical to say the leverage would let the inner weights rotate upwards around on the wheel and the outer weights rotate downwards on the wheel , however this is just rotation , and moving the weights in to those positions is where this concepts fails .
Both examples fail usually for one reason , the typical energy required to lift/shift the weights in to the lifted positions is more than what can be done with what is available , and these designs also typically does not revolve much when the weights cannot move to their required positions in time , because if the weights are not moved in to the inner positions they create counter force against the other outer weights ,and if they aren't moved in to the outer positions they cant provide a larger force against the inner weights.
We all know how that story goes , and no one has ever demonstrated a working concept that overcomes those problems .
My thought process was still that gravitating (falling) in to position was the only free way (via gravity) to move a mass in and out to a smaller and larger radius because anything that attempts to lift a mass against gravity (while lifting can be done) would result in a tradeoff with an energy loss , and that it is an impossibility to lift as high or higher as the dropping mass proven through the laws and nature and which is displayed by many many failed designs .
Imo any mass that goes past 6 which has not returned to its former inner position is already a loss , because once a mass passed 6 while still in an outer position , it becomes a situation that the mass needs to be lifted in to the inner radius (which will be a loss of energy) to stop it from being a counter force .
The only way to get the mass in to positions i thought , was via gravity with no addition energy losses like that of levers etc , to fall in to position and not lift , however note that any mass on the outside (larger radius or further distance from the center) past 6 is a lift requirement , in fact anything going past 6 is going against gravity (as is usually referred to the upgoing side) , and anything past 6 going upwards also becomes a counter force , so i thought the only way was to get the mass in to position before it becomes a counter force and at the same time i had to find a way to do it without expending energy of another mass like the typical levers and such .
This is what i eventually first came up with , a very simple concept to achieve it all :
The concept was at A is the inner radius and out at b is the outer radius ,once around past 12 gravitate from A to B , stay at B for a while to apply torque , once the next weight gravitates from A to B too then gravitate from B to C before reaching 6 , stay at C until around 12 .
Whether this concept was applied with free moving masses in slots or with guided mechanisms or whatever was not my concern , so at that time i came to this first drawing :
In this drawing the concept was applied with the example figure above placed around on a disk , where at the weights would gravitate from A to B1 to reach the outer radius R2, stay there till around B2 , then gravitate from B2 to C1 to reach the inner radius R1 , stay at C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 until around D until they come around near A again.
Now clearly the lift of weights like the other failed designs are solved , however this simple design drawn up with no regard to torque or anything specifically except for looking at how to apply the concept , comes a new problem , while some of the inner weights balance out , there are more weights on the inner radius that add up together in force/torque against the outer weights in force/torque , and that is because the amount of weights on the outside is not enough in numbers and not far enough to counter those inner weights which aren't counter balanced.
Having moved on further to attempt to create a design that would have enough torque/force for the weight on the outside and have less weights on the inside that does not counter balance against others , ant still adheres to the concept of gravitating in to positions , i did this one where the green weights were counter balanced and the 2 blue inner weights were to be overcome by the outer blue weight's torque and still enough torque to rotate the wheel :
But this also comes with different problems , the blue outer weight has to fall from the inner positions to the outer positions via the indicated gray geometry but very quick , and it would have an extremely limited time to apply torque before it must return gravitate to the inner position again , and as such , if the weight is not out after 12 already in this design the torque is going to be to the left instead of the right , and if the weight goes in before a next weight goes to its outwards position then the torque is also going to be to the left .
Even though i managed to come up with a principle that solves the need for lifting the weights to the positions , they are also failures for other reasons , plus need i mention CF would never work for a design like this even though the concept was promising , so i formulated a new goal which includes these lessons and move on.
Many designs showcases this line of thinking : the creator of such design usually shows that the mass must go to the outside on the down going side and then return to the inside on the up going side .
There are usually two kinds of general designs to be found with this type of concept , one type attempt to move the weights in somewhere on the way up past 6 and attempts to move the mass out somewhere from 12 again .
The other typical version of this same type of designs , attempt to move the weight in somewhere on the way up past 6 but attempts to move the weight out again to the side instead of up near 12.
The typical reasoning with these designs is that the weights on the outer positions being further from the axle should have more force (leverage) than the weights on the upgoing side which is nearer to the axle , which is the principle of the lever and it is fully reasonably and logical to say the leverage would let the inner weights rotate upwards around on the wheel and the outer weights rotate downwards on the wheel , however this is just rotation , and moving the weights in to those positions is where this concepts fails .
Both examples fail usually for one reason , the typical energy required to lift/shift the weights in to the lifted positions is more than what can be done with what is available , and these designs also typically does not revolve much when the weights cannot move to their required positions in time , because if the weights are not moved in to the inner positions they create counter force against the other outer weights ,and if they aren't moved in to the outer positions they cant provide a larger force against the inner weights.
We all know how that story goes , and no one has ever demonstrated a working concept that overcomes those problems .
My thought process was still that gravitating (falling) in to position was the only free way (via gravity) to move a mass in and out to a smaller and larger radius because anything that attempts to lift a mass against gravity (while lifting can be done) would result in a tradeoff with an energy loss , and that it is an impossibility to lift as high or higher as the dropping mass proven through the laws and nature and which is displayed by many many failed designs .
Imo any mass that goes past 6 which has not returned to its former inner position is already a loss , because once a mass passed 6 while still in an outer position , it becomes a situation that the mass needs to be lifted in to the inner radius (which will be a loss of energy) to stop it from being a counter force .
The only way to get the mass in to positions i thought , was via gravity with no addition energy losses like that of levers etc , to fall in to position and not lift , however note that any mass on the outside (larger radius or further distance from the center) past 6 is a lift requirement , in fact anything going past 6 is going against gravity (as is usually referred to the upgoing side) , and anything past 6 going upwards also becomes a counter force , so i thought the only way was to get the mass in to position before it becomes a counter force and at the same time i had to find a way to do it without expending energy of another mass like the typical levers and such .
This is what i eventually first came up with , a very simple concept to achieve it all :
The concept was at A is the inner radius and out at b is the outer radius ,once around past 12 gravitate from A to B , stay at B for a while to apply torque , once the next weight gravitates from A to B too then gravitate from B to C before reaching 6 , stay at C until around 12 .
Whether this concept was applied with free moving masses in slots or with guided mechanisms or whatever was not my concern , so at that time i came to this first drawing :
In this drawing the concept was applied with the example figure above placed around on a disk , where at the weights would gravitate from A to B1 to reach the outer radius R2, stay there till around B2 , then gravitate from B2 to C1 to reach the inner radius R1 , stay at C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 until around D until they come around near A again.
Now clearly the lift of weights like the other failed designs are solved , however this simple design drawn up with no regard to torque or anything specifically except for looking at how to apply the concept , comes a new problem , while some of the inner weights balance out , there are more weights on the inner radius that add up together in force/torque against the outer weights in force/torque , and that is because the amount of weights on the outside is not enough in numbers and not far enough to counter those inner weights which aren't counter balanced.
Having moved on further to attempt to create a design that would have enough torque/force for the weight on the outside and have less weights on the inside that does not counter balance against others , ant still adheres to the concept of gravitating in to positions , i did this one where the green weights were counter balanced and the 2 blue inner weights were to be overcome by the outer blue weight's torque and still enough torque to rotate the wheel :
But this also comes with different problems , the blue outer weight has to fall from the inner positions to the outer positions via the indicated gray geometry but very quick , and it would have an extremely limited time to apply torque before it must return gravitate to the inner position again , and as such , if the weight is not out after 12 already in this design the torque is going to be to the left instead of the right , and if the weight goes in before a next weight goes to its outwards position then the torque is also going to be to the left .
Even though i managed to come up with a principle that solves the need for lifting the weights to the positions , they are also failures for other reasons , plus need i mention CF would never work for a design like this even though the concept was promising , so i formulated a new goal which includes these lessons and move on.
Last edited by johannesbender on Mon Feb 19, 2024 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Its all relative.
Re: Gravitational shortcut
Hello johannesbender
Acceleration due to gravity is the most visible method available.
But viewing the world where a mass falls or is moved and then creates counter torque. This is the result from this view.
There are alternative views that are not so restrictive and yet compatible.
Regards
Thank you for walking through a process of reasoning. This is close to my own, which I do not take ownership for, where others have followed the same path.johannesbender wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 12:37 pm Even though i managed to come up with a principle that solves the need for lifting the weights to the positions , they are also failures for other reasons , plus need i mention CF would never work for a design like this even though the concept was promising , so i formulated a new goal which includes these lessons and move on.
Acceleration due to gravity is the most visible method available.
But viewing the world where a mass falls or is moved and then creates counter torque. This is the result from this view.
There are alternative views that are not so restrictive and yet compatible.
Regards
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:29 pm
- Location: not important
Re: Gravitational shortcut
We can link many clues here to MT , the TP etc for ex. moving in and out like the hammer men and while gravitating left and right like the JL while balancing like a spinning top while moving up like the SB etc, however the point is rather to learn another valuable lesson , lifting/shifting in and out is not the only problem such design types have to overcome , they also need uncontested torque during rotation and CF at any fast speed such as 50 rpm would never work etc ....
The lesson i perhaps take away for now , stop attempting radius changes .
The lesson i perhaps take away for now , stop attempting radius changes .
Last edited by johannesbender on Mon Feb 19, 2024 1:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Its all relative.
Re: Gravitational shortcut
I don't know. Seems impossible to lift 70 lbs this way.JC's AP: Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can
arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the
centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few
years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the
truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn
through bitter experience.
What goes around, comes around.
Re: Gravitational shortcut
Hello johannesbender
Radius Change is a geometry pattern that does not exist in nature but is our mathematics. imo
Regards
In a way I agree; However the path the masses follow rarely follow a circular radios?johannesbender wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 1:20 pm The lesson i perhaps take away for now , stop attempting radius changes .
Radius Change is a geometry pattern that does not exist in nature but is our mathematics. imo
Regards
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
Re: Gravitational shortcut
Also a genuine thanks for your contributions today, and previously jb, to complex topics on this forum .. a very rational and well thought out and explained reasoning that identifies every main problem we ALL encounter with potential mechanical solutions to sustained imbalancing ..johannesbender wrote:
We can link many clues here to MT , the TP etc for ex. moving in and out like the hammer men and while gravitating left and right like the JL while balancing like a spinning top while moving up like the SB etc, however the point is rather to learn another valuable lesson , lifting/shifting in and out is not the only problem such design types have to overcome , they also need uncontested torque during rotation and CF at any fast speed such as 50 rpm would never work etc ....
The lesson i perhaps take away for now , stop attempting radius changes .
jb wrote - " The lesson i perhaps take away for now , stop attempting radius changes."
I would say, from my experience, that weights radius changing is a necessary step to everlasting imbalance conditions (self-moving wheel) as described by B. - I would go in another direction from radius and say that the objective of sustainable imbalance can not be achieved by using the conservative mechanical principles of Law/Lore of Levers and simple machines to change a weights radius imo .. this will only guarantee your patient is DOA ..
Re: Gravitational shortcut
My feeling on the matter if we are talking about altering the radius is the weight on the falling side does go further out but briefly as the one on the other side comes briefly in. In my imagination I tend to see this as a natural path as the weights are swung around the wheel but not in 2d. The movement of the weights must be effortless. If the path is a corkscrew path as I have mentioned is it possible that it used the same technique that Robinhood46 built but that the corkscrew flips it back out on the falling side partly with the aid of gravity? Or is that just wishful thinking?
Graham
Graham
Last edited by Roxaway59 on Mon Feb 19, 2024 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:29 pm
- Location: not important
Re: Gravitational shortcut
Well my time here in contribution is just a drop compared to others but i apreciate it , i pretty much agree with what you said Fletcher , except that i am off looking in to something else , it might be a brief detour and then perhaps i go back to the main road but something caught my attention and i have to have answers to my curiosity.
Well , any force over distance is going to have a loss , even a ball just falling is going to have heat and collision exchanges with air molecules over its falling distance , perhaps considered negligable if it doesnt fall far but its still going to be there , but if you can manage not having a show stopping amount of counter forces and get the weights where they need to be , then its doable .
For instance in this example the countet torque forces are the issue , because there are less weights in total than the total of figures they travel along , but if all of them were balanced out somehow ,while another extra was applying torque on the outside , then this pure uncountered torque effect could be increased by adding more layers etc etc....
Btw i think i uploaded the wrong last image , because it had less weights and less v shapes but anyway maby later .
Well , any force over distance is going to have a loss , even a ball just falling is going to have heat and collision exchanges with air molecules over its falling distance , perhaps considered negligable if it doesnt fall far but its still going to be there , but if you can manage not having a show stopping amount of counter forces and get the weights where they need to be , then its doable .
For instance in this example the countet torque forces are the issue , because there are less weights in total than the total of figures they travel along , but if all of them were balanced out somehow ,while another extra was applying torque on the outside , then this pure uncountered torque effect could be increased by adding more layers etc etc....
Btw i think i uploaded the wrong last image , because it had less weights and less v shapes but anyway maby later .
Last edited by johannesbender on Mon Feb 19, 2024 11:17 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Its all relative.
Re: Gravitational shortcut
I have been there. I imagine a lot of people have.My feeling on the matter if we are talking about altering the radius is the weight on the falling side does go further out but briefly as the one on the other side comes briefly in.
As far as radius change, whether you are changing radius, or changing circumferential position, you still need to lift weight to create a successful OB. (Even if it is a brief interaction)
-
- Devotee
- Posts: 1671
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 am
- Location: Lot, France
Re: Gravitational shortcut
I can't see exactly what you mean by "the corkscrew flips it back out". I have tried many different ways of flipping it back out and they've all failed.Roxaway59 wrote: ↑Mon Feb 19, 2024 7:57 pm My feeling on the matter if we are talking about altering the radius is the weight on the falling side does go further out but briefly as the one on the other side comes briefly in. In my imagination I tend to see this as a natural path as the weights are swung around the wheel but not in 2d. The movement of the weights must be effortless. If the path is a corkscrew path as I have mentioned is it possible that it used the same technique that Robinhood46 built but that the corkscrew flips it back out on the falling side partly with the aid of gravity? Or is that just wishful thinking?
Graham
I am keen to think that my latest build is in the right ballpark, but i haven't been able to get it to reset.
I think it is clear that any mechanism alone will fail, and that we need to find the correct combination.
If we look at Jon Hutton's wheel, even if we can't see it, we can assume, and Tarsier confirms, that there is a progressive loss of height. This is also creating a spiral path.
I can't be sure of what you are seeing in the spiral effect, or where you think an eventual gain might be found. The best i can come up with, is if the progressive stepping of the weights, causes the wheel to rotate many times, without the need for a reset. This would mean that each weight cycles every x number of turns, which means a slower raising mechanism is needed to feed the wheel. But this still doesn't tell us where the excess comes from.
Gravitational shortcut
Hi All
Well anyone looking at corkscrew or spiral paths will not hear any complaints from me.
You will have to find a novel path that does not collapse ino a 2 dimension projected plane.
Regards
Well anyone looking at corkscrew or spiral paths will not hear any complaints from me.
You will have to find a novel path that does not collapse ino a 2 dimension projected plane.
Regards
[MP] Mobiles that perpetuate - external energy allowed
Re: Gravitational shortcut
Just to clarify. I am not thinking about it in a logical way. Believe it or not I'm a great one for logic but I'm just pushing that aside and just letting imagery flow.
If I think about weights moving further out with a wheel that's turning fairly quick I can only imagine something fluid and effortless at work. That's why I end up thinking about the type of motion I mentioned.
I don't think it does any harm.
I did notice something the other day on the overbalancing front that has really caught my attention and trust me I am thinking very logically about this. I am about to check it out in WM2D and if it behaves as I hope I will be posting it later in detail.
Graham
If I think about weights moving further out with a wheel that's turning fairly quick I can only imagine something fluid and effortless at work. That's why I end up thinking about the type of motion I mentioned.
I don't think it does any harm.
I did notice something the other day on the overbalancing front that has really caught my attention and trust me I am thinking very logically about this. I am about to check it out in WM2D and if it behaves as I hope I will be posting it later in detail.
Graham
Re: Gravitational shortcut
fwiw - here are 2 identical sims that rotate in opposite directions - both spiral paths ..
There is no Motor, gravity driven only ..
..............
..............
There is no Motor, gravity driven only ..
..............
..............
- Attachments
-
- SpiralPath2.wm2d
- (40.3 KiB) Downloaded 53 times
Re: Gravitational shortcut
Bonjour Fletcher,
J’ai fait ce test sous Algodoo et l'ensemble est resté en équilibre, avez-vous mis les frottements?
Hi Fletcher,
I did this test under Algodoo and the whole remained in balance, did you put the friction?
J’ai fait ce test sous Algodoo et l'ensemble est resté en équilibre, avez-vous mis les frottements?
Hi Fletcher,
I did this test under Algodoo and the whole remained in balance, did you put the friction?
Last edited by SHADOW on Wed Feb 21, 2024 8:10 am, edited 1 time in total.
La propriété, c'est le vol!
P.J. PROUDHON
P.J. PROUDHON
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2421
- Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:29 pm
- Location: not important
Re: Gravitational shortcut
Fletchers perfect example , should still rotate in the face of friction imo , because the weights and gears should "unwind" via gravity , in fact i believe Fletcher could replace the weights with springs and it should still work but then its not via gravity (not that gravity is a requirement for us anyway) , its still not out of the question that an "unwinding" could have been used , as we well know though it all comes down to whether there is a reset .
Its all relative.