A good lead ?

[thx4]

It's an old idea we had with RH46, but then we moved on to something else.
A few days ago, I came back to this idea, and here's the first study.
The weight ratio of the wheel and the cleats is not right.
Next episode, slightly increase the weight of the weights on the cleats. and see.

https://youtu.be/xLnirnG-F_g

[Robinhood46]

The problem isn't the weight ratio, although the weight ratio is an important factor.
The problem is that without the additional mechanism that forces the weights to take the desired position, before they have the desire to take it naturally, we have the exact same problem that Georg Kunstler had with his octagon in a wheel.
In the video you cause the wheel to rotate, and then the rotating wheel causes the weights to shift from one position to the other. We need the weights shifting from one place to the other to cause the wheel to rotate.
This can only be achieved if we can find a way of pausing the descending weight momentarily (cheap enough energetically), in a way that allows the wheel and the other weight to advance enough to establish the other position. It must happen before 6 and the nearer to 3 the better.
The COG is perpendicular to the two weights, so the pause of the weight at three must be the weight that causes the COG to shift from 6 to 12.

[thx4]

Now I understand why we dropped the idea.
It's got nothing to do with Georges, and the wheel is useless in our example, it's just a support, but a support that weighs 1.2kg, so it's very heavy, for poor little weights...
The wheel eats up all the transmitted energy.

[Robinhood46]

I don't think we dropped the idea. I think we went off on tangents and didn't come back around to it, until you did recently. We have always been good at going off on tangents. The video you share isn't really "our idea" it's yours.

My version of this idea has the additional mechanism that causes the arms to move as described in my previous post. It is very clear that without a mechanism that pauses one of the weights on the descending side, nothing can be achieved. We need the COG to shift from below the central line to above it, not from left to right.
The COG moving from right to left could give us the desired effect, but it must leave the right from a lower height than it arrives on the left (anticlockwise rotation), if not there is no gain, which is what can be observed in your video. The COG shifts from 3 to 9 but doesn't gain any height. You also have an imbalance in the wheel which is sufficient to give an incorrect observation of the effect. When the video ends, with one weight near the bottom and the other around 11, the COG of the two arms should be between these two weights, on the side of the shortest angle, putting the COG at 8 ish. It is very clear to see that COG of the two arms and the wheel is not at 8.

I still think it is worth giving it some more thought. I think this may be due to my bias, because the tangent we went off on, is what brought me round to the thread "In for a penny in for a pound", which has the same effect of shifting the COG 180° with very little effort and equally little gain.

[thx4]

I've increased the weights to remove the wheel, so you can see the change better.
I don't have the right springs or the right fasteners right away, but that'll come. I hope you can see the potential.

https://youtu.be/aqxQMNbDGuk

[Robinhood46]

I hope you can see the potential.

I'm not seeing any more potential than this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0KaJZ_epdE&t=57s
Before we can start playing with the weights and ratios, i think we need to focus on finding a mechanism that functions to hold the arms with the weights in the position they don't want to be naturally. I played with the weights in the simulation and never managed to achieve anything worth writing home about.

The only chance we have of finding a solution, if it is possible to find it here, in my opinion, is to find the balance between forcing the arms to shift when they don't want to and shifting them enough for them to want to turn another 180°.
I say 180° but they want to turn more than 180° because the COG is above the axle once they have reached the new position. ie, if the weight at 3 pauses momentarily while the wheel, or the arm, advance to the new orientation, the COG finds itself at 1 ish, which implies it wants to rotate to 11 ish, minus resistance. At the moment the COG is at 6, instead of using the available force to raise the COG to 11, we need to cause the change at 3.
I have tried with Algodoo to have two Ts, one upside down on the other, to use the extremities of the horizontal part of the T to lock them in place once the one at 3 has been held back, but Algodoo doesn't like that idea.

We can't see the true advantages of this mechanism until we have a mechanism that can hold the arms in the correct position while 9 goes to 12 and 3 goes to 6. Pass this point, both weights will be happy to stay in this orientation naturally. Which is exactly why they do what we can see in your videos.

[Tarsier79]

Hi RH. I like the steps you take in problem solving. Perhaps you will come over to the dark side of PM and energy conservation one day...

Pausing the falling weight means that the momentum of the wheel is lifting the up-going weight, lifting the COM, which would want to fall with rotation. And ideally we want the COM to move 6 to 12, then roll around back to 6... Standard OB stuff. The energy required to lift the right weight into position is equal to what we get out of rotation, minus friction and energy expended in speeding up the lifting weight. This is the 0 sum game (at best) most people play. Any extra mechanism added that has a chance of working has to "add energy" to the system.

What I do like about your designs, trying to advance or retard weights around the wheel is that is looks like an attempt to change the reference point, which is specific circumstances is one theoretical way to get around the energy budget...not that I have ever seen any workaround actually work.

Simply put, this mechanism doesn't give us "it". Solid "not worth pursuing" from me.

Rant over... Good luck.

[Robinhood46]

What I do like about your designs, trying to advance or retard weights around the wheel is that is looks like an attempt to change the reference point, which is specific circumstances is one theoretical way to get around the energy budget...not that I have ever seen any workaround actually work.

I think it is the only way to find a workaround, and i haven't found one that works either. But rest assured, if i find one, I'll let you know.

The only chance that this could work, would be down to the momentum of the wheel with the weights being sufficient to advance the wheel and the rising weight enough, bearing in mind it loses the positive force gravity is supplying via the downward weight. Which is why we need to count only on momentum.
I can't get Algodoo to lock and release the arms as desired to even give it a go, so it will need to be tried in the real world.

[Robinhood46]

Don't forget the weight at 3 isn't lifted, it just slows down so the wheel, or the arm, can catch up with it.

[Tarsier79]

The only chance that this could work, would be down to the momentum of the wheel with the weights being sufficient to advance the wheel and the rising weight enough, ...

It won't. Even if we could capture the energy required to slow the weight and reintroduce it to the wheel.

Don't forget the weight at 3 isn't lifted, it just slows down so the wheel, or the arm, can catch up with it.

So the 3:00 is no longer contributing to rotation, while gravity acts to slow the 9:00 weight down, while you sapp energy to accelerate it against gravity.

[thx4]

Any extra mechanism added that has a chance of working has to "add energy" to the system.

Merci pour ce rappel à la loi 😇. Sherif...
Laisser faire ceux qui ne savent rien, et laissez les tranquilles, ça vous évitera de vous transformer en Trou Du Cul toxique qui n'amène rien.
Personnellement je ne voulais rien montrer avant la fin de cette étude.


Ce modèle de réflexion n'est qu'a son début et n'est pas nouveau pour certains d'entre vous.

Ce modèle doit pendant un certain temps se transformer en disque d'inertie complétement équilibré (non visible pour l'instant), c'est ce qui doit permettre de passer de l'impossible à plus. Là vous n'avez que le concept.
Je ne pense pas remontrer quelque chose de sitôt.

Thanks for the reminder 😇. Sheriff...
Leave it to those who know nothing, and leave them alone, it will save you from turning into a toxic Asshole who brings nothing.
Personally, I didn't want to show anything until the end of this study.


This model of thinking is in its infancy, and not new to some of you.

Over a period of time, this model must be transformed into a completely balanced inertia disk (not visible at the moment), which should enable us to move from the impossible to the plus. Here you've only got the concept.
I don't think I'll be showing anything again any time soon.

[Robinhood46]

The only chance that this could work, would be down to the momentum of the wheel with the weights being sufficient to advance the wheel and the rising weight enough, ...

It won't. Even if we could capture the energy required to slow the weight and reintroduce it to the wheel.

Don't forget the weight at 3 isn't lifted, it just slows down so the wheel, or the arm, can catch up with it.

So the 3:00 is no longer contributing to rotation, while gravity acts to slow the 9:00 weight down, while you sapp energy to accelerate it against gravity.

I think we agree on most aspects of what's going on Tarsier, because you repeat the points i have made as to what is going on. The only difference of opinion i can see, is that you are convinced 100% that it will fail, which is highly probable, and I'm only 99% sure it will fail, and i think it's worth flogging it a bit more to actually have a working mechanism, to see what we've got.

If there is any chance of excess energy being found, it will be coming from, what you refer to as, the change in reference point, and not the additional mechanism. Obviously the change isn't 180°, 180°, 180°, etc, because we need to consider half the difference between the two different angles.
The COG will be moving 177° in the direction of rotation, if the weight at 3 is delayed while the wheel rotates 6°.

I'm not too sure of what THX4 is up to exactly, because we don't always agree on every single aspect of our different attempts, even if we do generally agree on lots of other aspects of our mutual quest. Our different views are generally because we give different values to different details, which means our individual directions change although we still agree on the overall concept. It might even be that we agree on the same concepts for different reasons. It is extremely helpful to be able to have verbal discussions with fellow seekers, even if we don't always see eye to eye.

Communication is extremely difficult, as has already been said, it is far easier to understand the complex things going on in the imaginary wheel going around in our own head, than it is to understand what's going around in the imaginary wheel going around in someone else's head. Not being able to understand and not being understood, is a bit frustrating sometimes.

Edit; The COG will be moving 177° in the direction of rotation, if the weight at 3 is delayed while the wheel rotates 12° not 6°, because the distance the wheel moves without the weight needs to be twice the difference between the two angles of the arms.

[Fletcher]

Keep at it guys ( as you are doing ) until you are satisfied you have explored all the possibilities and ways forward available with this concept - that is the process of learning, and hopefully finding a path to a workaround to the common problems ..

The point of doing science is to do experiments ( real or sim ) - then we are less reliant on "belief" and more grounded on "facts" ..

fwiw - B. made many experiments and thought of many potential workarounds over a 10 year period ( see MT ) where at the same time he honed his skills and learned from his experiences - and each attempt stubbornly stood crushingly still - then one day, imo, he did something completely different than he'd ever done before to sustain his asymmetric torque required for his runners - he still used basic mechanical principles and "implements" but they were put to work in a hitherto untried and un-thought-of fashion i.e. he found the elusive workaround combination that gave the net positive torque imbalance required ..

Since he did it so can we .. the train we are all on will arrive at the station, and I want to be around to see it happen ..

[Fletcher]

Thought I might as well add ..

Tarsier79 is not wrong, as far as his energy budget analysis goes ..

Using known Mechanical Advantage techniques ( i.e. implements / tools n.b. which are conservative and only force multipliers and redirectors ) then there is never enough energy from either the shifting of mass sideways to create torque about an axle, or lifting mass vertically to raise the COM/COG, to fully restore the GPE, let alone, PLUS SOME, to accelerate a wheel ..

These MA mechanical techniques never result in asymmetric torque conditions ( i.e. or a net positive torque to the wheel ) to restore GPE and give it residual momentum / RKE that sees the wheel "gain" .. IOW's the positive and negative torques generated by displacement of mass this way are equal and balanced ( zero sum game ) ..

That's why he rightly says that a constantly replenishing energy source must be added to the system for a wheel to convert it to Work and accelerate etc, to balance the energy budget ..

IMO, the Workaround to that no small problem, is to have a combination of mechanics that is arranged to give a wheel a net positive torque in any position it is stopped at ( i.e. for the one-way wheels ) - and once released from its restraint can accelerate and always have a net positive torque until reaching its operating RPM where the torques are balanced - therefore with an arrangement such as this there is no requirement for any traditional replenishing energy source / input top-up ..

That does not mean that no energy top-up is required, it means that the energy budget is "balanced" from a non-traditional energy source which is in-situ to the wheel and its internal mechanical arrangement - some view this as gravity being energy when science sees it as a force - when all said and done it doesn't matter what we call it - the wheel is arranged so that it simply must revolve ..

Keep looking for that mechanical Workaround, it was found once and can be found again ..

[thx4]

Hi everyone,
If you rely on this model, there is no chance that it will work we agree.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0KaJZ_epdE&t=57s

That's not what I'm saying at all.
To cut a long story short, at the moment when the module becomes unbalanced (12:01), the stored kinetic energy will be used to position the assembly in EQUilibrium, transforming the module into a fully balanced inertia disk.
The assembly should travel a ¼ turn + 2 degrees free of charge, before finding itself out of balance again.
Just a little patience.