Gravitational shortcut

[johannesbender]

No discuss away i dont mind any other discussions , you guys know how we do it around here , if you want to write something go ahead.

[Sam Peppiatt]

jb,
In view of that, I'm willing to take another shot at it. It seems to me that it will take two sets of weights to get a wheel to work. One set to drive, or cause, the wheel to turn and another set for lifting and shifting, the weights that drive the wheel. I think it would be imposable for one set of weights to do every thing. Again, one set of weights to move out on the down side and back in on the up side to turn the wheel. The other set to do the shifting, lifting, resetting and or translating. What ever is required to control the first set of weights.

I have found that the best way for turning a wheel is with pendulums. It's because after they reset, they have translating motion which eliminates the night mare of trying to move weights out and down along a radius. However, I could never find a good way to constantly reset them. I don't think any one else has either. A much better way, is to keep the resetting of the pendulums continuous, (translating), rather than repeatedly resetting them. After three years, I couldn't find a way to do that either.
That's where the ring & rollers come in. The cross bar of the rollers rotate around an imaginary point. A point that is fixed in space and, fixed very firmly by the heavy weight of the rollers. You might think so what who cares. This discovery is important because it provides a way to keep the pendulums translating continuously!

There is one more step to it.. Now with the pendulum rod is held horizontal, the bob or weight can slide from side to side with a minimal effort---------Sam

[Robinhood46]

Sam,
You definitely need to keep at it, irrespective of any support, or lack of, from other members.
It has already been said that pictures and images speak a thousand words.

A question that might help understand what you are hoping to do;
Are you talking about two different sets of crossbars? One set that causes the wheel to rotate, and another set that causes the resetting of the first set.
Or are there only one set of weights (all the sets are exactly the same), and they take it in turns of setting each other?
Edit Resetting each other.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Robinhood,
Always good to here from you. Right; one set to turn the wheel, another completely different set to support the first set, to aid them in there effort. What I was suggesting is; the weights do have to move out on the down side of the wheel but, you can't use a radius to do that. I think Bessler meant the same thing.

The weights still have to move out; it just means you have to find another way to do that. A possible way is to keep them translating continuously, which means they are lifting and resetting constantly, on a horizontal rod. Of coarse the bob or weight has to slide back and forth in some way.

The cross bar, connecting the rollers,(there is only one), is capable of doing that, which normally would be impossible, as far as I know. Thanks for your help; I'll keep it going------------Sam

[johannesbender]

jb,
In view of that, I'm willing to take another shot at it. It seems to me that it will take two sets of weights to get a wheel to work. One set to drive, or cause, the wheel to turn and another set for lifting and shifting, the weights that drive the wheel. I think it would be imposable for one set of weights to do every thing. Again, one set of weights to move out on the down side and back in on the up side to turn the wheel. The other set to do the shifting, lifting, resetting and or translating. What ever is required to control the first set of weights.

I have found that the best way for turning a wheel is with pendulums. It's because after they reset, they have translating motion which eliminates the night mare of trying to move weights out and down along a radius. However, I could never find a good way to constantly reset them. I don't think any one else has either. A much better way, is to keep the resetting of the pendulums continuous, (translating), rather than repeatedly resetting them. After three years, I couldn't find a way to do that either.
That's where the ring & rollers come in. The cross bar of the rollers rotate around an imaginary point. A point that is fixed in space and, fixed very firmly by the heavy weight of the rollers. You might think so what who cares. This discovery is important because it provides a way to keep the pendulums translating continuously!

There is one more step to it.. Now with the pendulum rod is held horizontal, the bob or weight can slide from side to side with a minimal effort---------Sam

Understandable logic , i thought similar at one time , that i need something else to move weights about instead of the torque weights themselfs and that is mostly how many people come to the conclusion that perhaps its not weights via gravity but some other form of force/energy that moves the weights about .

The short answer is , weights driving other things because they lose height , eventually needs to reset and have torque , this is what none of us can solve , i found if i solve torque then there is no reset and if i solve a reset there is no torque.

Btw a falling weight that drives something else does not need torque , losing height can be used directly , torque is just the torture we also deal with .

[Sam Peppiatt]

You're right jb, it's a difficult problem to resolve-----------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

To reiterate.
jb, I know you will never believe it, (nor does ay one else), the rollers don't lose height. They have solved the problem of lifting / resetting the weights. What's more they do it continuously. It's almost like the idea of such a possibility, is forbidden for some strange reason----------Sam

[johannesbender]

I have chosen my next approach , the only way i know that "placing multiple on the same axle" would increase the total torque/overweight-overbalance in a logical manner which adheres to physics and common sense.

[Tarsier79]

the rollers don't lose height. They have solved the problem of lifting / resetting the weights.

Yes they do. When the rollers do work, the result is the roller rolls backwards, creating an equal back torque. Additionally, if you have a theoretical immovable weight, it is the wheel that forces the actuator under the roller. That means that the OB created has to have a gain in rotation over the weight actuation, just like every other OB design.

I am afraid it doesn't solve any of the problems IRL.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Tarsier,
First off I don't think the rollers lose height. They are always balanced. If they lost height wouldn't they become out of balance? How can they lose height, if they are always balanced?

The rest I'm not sure of-------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

One other thing, the rollers can't roll backwards because of the one way bearing. The rest I'm not sure of. I guess you are right, if it's unmovable then the wheel couldn't turn it--------------Sam

FWEIW, the rollers / cross-bar replaces MT-13. Maybe that will help.

[Tarsier79]

The one way bearing won't stop the roller from moving backwards. The roller, when it moves backwards, it lifts slightly, so takes energy. This small amount of vertical movement is what I meant by the rollers losing height... Sorry, didn't explain myself very well.

[Sam Peppiatt]

You're right-------------Sam

[johannesbender]

I have chosen my next approach , the only way i know that "placing multiple on the same axle" would increase the total torque/overweight-overbalance in a logical manner which adheres to physics and common sense.

Let me explain more about this here since i already blabbered it out , my goal is to have a balanced wheel with weights arranged around the same radius , but since i dont want to shift mass about different radiuses because there is no energy to shift a mass back and forth ,my thought process was that i implement a previous design of mine where i showed a lever that would lift a heavy mass higher than another mass on the other end would drop such that it results in a GPE gain :
https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... f=1&t=8777
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hC0kcwfy5NM
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/HZ7voZBOYQQ
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/dzC2-mJ2_y4
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/wcne6KPFHKk
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/nDFw79qCbRA

Now instead of trying to lift and drop masses on the lever to create a GPE gain ,i thought i would try to reduce the total torque per weight for 180 degrees of rotation ,and then stop reducing the total torque effect for the other 180 degrees of rotation , the 180 degrees of reduced torque effect i thought could be oriented horizontal vertical or somewhere in between like the image as an example.

This should allow the wheel to have torque in any position , and keep the weights on the same radius (if i manage to achieve it) , my thoughts thus far has been focused around cam controlled torque and spring counter force for 180 degrees.

[johannesbender]

A video for visual reference (not mine) https://youtu.be/YNI-U5IiLeI?list=PLpQf ... xiUpfXJ8ff