Gravitational shortcut

[SHADOW]

Test sous Algodoo aves jouets forgerons

Test under Algodoo with toy blacksmiths

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher, I did this test under Algodoo and the whole remained in balance, did you put the friction?

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 .

Hi Shadow .. (thx jb) .. my sims have the appearance of geared Roberval Balances (i.e. Ramelli Balances which predate Roberval's) - but it is just an illusion - there are no frictions but they would make no differences to performance at moderate levels ..

The inner and outer gear diameters are 0.2 meters and the mid radius gear diameters are 0.14 m - this gives gear ratio from axle to mid gear of 1 : 1.420 & from mid gear to outer of 1.420 : 1 - at these ratios the wheel could not turn because it could not lose any GPE i.e. there is no torque .. it is a true Ramelli Blance ! ..

In the left hand side wheel (LHS) I changed the outer gear ratio to 1.460 and in the RHS I changed it to 1.398 - now both wheels have the ability to lose GPE each revloution, and thus have torque, which we see as the CCW and CW rotations i.e. they are slowly losing GPE - this means they can turn for a very long time, however the weights will slowly lose height, hence the spiral path they take downwards over time - IOW's they are like a spring wound clock whereby the weights have to be pre-positioned by hand so they have PE to lose (the reset) ..

These sims also show that gravity is conservative - if I was to meter the kinetic energies of each wheel (add up its components KE's) their KE's would not exceed the GPE lost at any time ..

And if we were to have moderate/realistic frictions present then all that would happen is the the KE's acquired + frictional energies dissipated would equal the GPE lost as it spiraled down and lost its GPE ..IOW's their RPM's would be less ..

...........

[johannesbender]

Here is another example , B should technically be nearer than A to the center , but how much would depend on how long the Z guides are , and this would drop the center of mass below the axle too , however it cant return to its former radius on the same side and i don't really like that (well it can but not as designed with a single direction slot here).

ETO , i forgot to mention , if a mass is further along z it would not really want to fall back inwards at around 12 because that would be a lift too , the same for around 6 falling outward(rotating) along z would be a lift.

[daxwc]

Great drawing JB and interesting. Wish I had something constructive to add to your discussion.

Can I ask how exactly you think the Z plane helps in this situation? Sorry if you already addressed this and I missed it, I mean I thought you were trying to get away from a radius change?

[johannesbender]

There is nothing special about it because its also a radius change , it might fool somebody in to thinking its special going along the z in this manner ,its just another gravity example i am using , if we cant solve the common issues usually showing up for a radius change ,then radius changes is not going to happen.

Its an opposite situation sort of problem , ex. after 6 or 12 anything you did on the downgoing side becomes an inverted situation up is down and down is up and left is right and right is left , so anything you did to produce torque/force on the one side has to be undone by doing the opposite because of rotation , thats basicly what causes the need for a reset , everything you do has to be undone again , else the same thing you did to cause imbalance also becomes the thing that prevents imbalance .

I dont think there is any natural force that overpowers gravity for free , there is always a concept breaking loss ,i have seen many designs attempt gravity vs gravity for example weight against weight with mechanical advantage to try and solve resets but there is no weight vs weight outcome with a free advantage nor a force vs force .

[Roxaway59]

Hi johannesbender what if you did this with each crossbar?
Graham

[johannesbender]

Not sure how to answer because i am not sure what you mean exactly.

But , it seems like you mean , the bars pivot on one end , and the bars are out in the Z during the bottom left and top right on the opposite end of the pivoting end , then in on the Z when its on the top left and bottom right opposite end of the pivoting end.

Anyhow , if you follow the end of the bar as it pivots in and out like drawing an arc , you could notice that , if the pivot is on the bottom 6 and the top at 12 moving out along Z is a drop , and moving in along Z is a lift , and if the pivot is at 12 and the end at 6 needs to move out on Z theb it would be a lift ,whenever it needs to lift is when things are going to get hairy , falling/gravitating is the natural way.

[daxwc]

In my opinion JB If you are going to keep the weights the same radious out then the only way to make rotation is to fan one side out and suck the other in constantly and repeatedly. That is the problem tore down to its basics.

MT46 comments seems to refute this idea though.

[johannesbender]

Honestly the non radial type of concepts is an area i did not dive very deep in to , the latest i looked in to was :

version 1 :
A disc with around 12 levered weights like the top image equally spaced , but there is a stop halway in between each weight , and each weight is held in place by some latch , they are all in balance , then as any lever comes in to around 1 it gets released (lets say on the right side) , and if any released lever reaches 6 it gets caught again , this creates a torque , but the effect breaks after a certain amount on the right has released latches , it would seem going all the way to 6 for a reset wont work like that .

The second version does the same , but releases any weight at around 6:30 7-ish , and catches them at past 12 as they pivot over to reset , but the same result takes place , it would have torque to the right but as soon as a certain amount in total is released its going to produce a counter directional torque that stops it .

I think such a concept like this i mentioned now which is releasing then dropping on to stops and catching has the same problems of a radial change approach , the weight that gets released had to be reset within a limited time such that not to much weights get released at once which would stop the torque , and that would be a required lift.

Further than this i have not thought of any other designs (apart from long ago RB types) , to be fair the answer might still be a radius change or something else, i was just annoyed at it .

Edits : making a bunch of faults texting on my mobile

[Robinhood46]

I consider the Buzzsaw to be a non radial type.
The difference from the centre between close to position and faraway position is very small, and i don't think that this is the determining factor for it to work, or not work whichever may be the case.
I would have thought the small amount of difference would have been considered when deciding which wheel does what, but only to the extent of enhancing performance or reducing hindrance, as apposed to it being a runner or not.

[daxwc]

JB: Further than this i have not thought of any other designs (apart from long ago RB types) , to be fair the answer might still be a radius change or something else, i was just annoyed at it .

I understand your frustration completely JB. How do you square the circle on these different statements??

At present, as far as
I'm concerned, anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful
doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the centre and
climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly.

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. There's a lot more to matters of
mechanics than I've revealed to date

It's no matter - I don't wish to go
into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused
to rise.

And as for the interior cog mechanism - that will hinder movement
rather than promote it.

All the wise
ones were looking for the same principle ( of "excess weight") that
I have described, and they sought it in things that were already
familiar to them.

What does unfamiliar excess weight / overbalance look like?

[Roxaway59]

Hi johannesbender, the design that you are showing has the Z component to it otherwise it would of course be the typical falling down weight on a pivot idea. So I was just showing that in order to interact with the Z part of it that maybe a wobble on the axle might do something for such a wheel design. I do intend experimenting with this idea when I can get round to it and here is a picture of the kind of idea I was thinking of which isn't so different from what you are showing.
Graham

[johannesbender]

Honestly the non radial type of concepts is an area i did not dive very deep in to , the latest i looked in to was :

version 1 :
A disc with around 12 levered weights like the top image equally spaced , but there is a stop halway in between each weight , and each weight is held in place by some latch , they are all in balance , then as any lever comes in to around 1 it gets released (lets say on the right side) , and if any released lever reaches 6 it gets caught again , this creates a torque , but the effect breaks after a certain amount on the right has released latches , it would seem going all the way to 6 for a reset wont work like that .

The second version does the same , but releases any weight at around 6:30 7-ish , and catches them at past 12 as they pivot over to reset , but the same result takes place , it would have torque to the right but as soon as a certain amount in total is released its going to produce a counter directional torque that stops it .

I think such a concept like this i mentioned now which is releasing then dropping on to stops and catching has the same problems of a radial change approach , the weight that gets released had to be reset within a limited time such that not to much weights get released at once which would stop the torque , and that would be a required lift.

Further than this i have not thought of any other designs (apart from long ago RB types) , to be fair the answer might still be a radius change or something else, i was just annoyed at it .

Edits : making a bunch of faults texting on my mobile

Although i know these were failed ideas , just to be clear and complete the above ↑ by adding the images.
Weighted levers are latched in balanced positions , released at around A , and re-latched/caught at B .

ETOA , i looked at every weight release , and every 2nd and 3rd...

[Fletcher]

JB: Further than this i have not thought of any other designs (apart from long ago RB types) , to be fair the answer might still be a radius change or something else, i was just annoyed at it .

I understand your frustration completely JB.

How do you square the circle on these different statements??

At present, as far as
I'm concerned, anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful
doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the centre and
climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly.

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. There's a lot more to matters of
mechanics than I've revealed to date

It's no matter - I don't wish to go
into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused
to rise.

And as for the interior cog mechanism - that will hinder movement
rather than promote it. [B. talking about Wagner's wheel with cog drive]

All the wise
ones were looking for the same principle ( of "excess weight") that
I have described, and they sought it in things that were already
familiar to them.

What does unfamiliar excess weight / overbalance look like?

In short dax .. I would say that B. found a simple and repeating overbalancing ( excess weight ) technique/method where weights are repeatably raised up to create torque and discharge it as wheel rotation i.e. a true self-moving overbalancing wheel - and that this artful arrangement was purely mechanically based .. but, it did not occur to him until he had thoroughly exhausted the usual suspects that all diehards try and are familiar with - eventually he ventured beyond those failed conservative leveraged lifting based designs to other mechanical based but non-conservative and conceptually new and virgin territory for overbalancing imo - thus he had more matters of mechanics ( unfamiliar ) yet to reveal about mechanical overbalance and excess weight manifestation thru application of his unique technique/method .. imo ..

[daxwc]

My point was the contradiction. One quote has the weight gravitating to center the other seems to suggest weights need to stay at the same radious.