The Wheel is solved in a New Norwegian Patent

[Fletcher]

Hmm you need to have the double pendulums free to rotate on the ascending side, you have a lever on them.

Hmm - not so .. the green rod is deactivated once the pends pass 6 o'cl and they are free to swing together as one pendulum etc on the ascending side n.b. the rods are there as a proxy lock and one-way bearing combo - they lock again when going over tdc ( 12 o'cl x-axis ) ..

I built the lock formula in the 'rod time on' field to lock to the rim when the pends x-position was negative on the x-axis - but didn't bother with this sim adding another condition to act as a one-way bearing on the ascending side when the x-position was positive as the small amount of swinging imo does not hinder the COM positioning for a one-shot sim look-see ..

So when on descending side locked to rim - when on ascending side unlocked and free to rotate CW relative to the wheel ..

** Worth noting imo that when an object hangs freely from a pivot its weight is "felt" for turning moments purposes at the pivot position - when it is locked in any manner its weight is "felt" exactly where the bobs are ( as tho they are pinned in that position * assuming all mass is in the bobs ) - I think this is what perhaps is confusing for some trying to manually calculate or visualize system COM/COG as it rotates ..

[sparkshade]

Hmm you need to have the double pendulums free to rotate on the ascending side, you have a lever on them.

Hmm - not so .. the green rod is deactivated once the pends pass 6 o'cl and they are free to swing together as one pendulum etc on the ascending side n.b. the rods are there as a proxy lock and one-way bearing combo - they lock again when going over tdc ( 12 o'cl x-axis ) ..

I built the lock formula in the 'rod time on' field to lock to the rim when the pends x-position was negative on the x-axis - but didn't bother with this sim adding another condition to act as a one-way bearing on the ascending side when the x-position was positive as the small amount of swinging imo does not hinder the COM positioning for a one-shot sim look-see ..

Ok I see!

** Worth noting imo that when an object hangs freely from a pivot its weight is "felt" for turning moments purposes at the pivot position - when it is locked in any manner its weight is "felt" exactly where the bobs are ( as tho they are pinned in that position * assuming all mass is in the bobs ) - I think this is what perhaps is confusing for some trying to manually calculate or visualize system COM/COG as it rotates ..

Yes of course. I also believe Frog forgot to compute the upper left descending quadrant (locked dual pendulum) as counter-torque.

[Tarsier79]

...woops, missed some posts.....

[Frog]

Frog,
I disagree with you but; you have to believe in, what you are doing no one else will---------------------Sam

It’s your choice, and I respect it.
And I didn’t foresee that this forum wouldn’t understand it - I thought that everyone would understand it since they all have built their own version of a gravity wheel and seen that it doesn’t work.
A gravity wheel wouldn’t work - because gravity is a medium for energy.
So you got to use kinetic energy to give gravity something to work with, kinetic energy has a value and this value is set.
It’s like saying, as an allegory: “one kilo dry wood”, then one kilo = kinetic energy, and dry wood = gravity.
whatever you do to it it will always be one kilo wood that holds a potential heating energy, a maximum value.
A good wood stove can get closer to that potential then a bad stove, but if you can change the potential you can change the output.

[Frog]

Mornin Frog .. there's no way to sugar coat it and I don't want to bang on more than necessary ..

Basically here's what we have all found both in sim-world and real-world builds of this type ..

I've started the sim/animation in the most favourable position for positive torque ( see the system COM/COG black and white icon beneath the axle to left hand side ) - the system COM travel downwards and across to the right hand side of the axle where it dwells too long ..

The sim can not travel 120 degrees of rotation to reset the configuration and build rpm as you hoped, regardless of whether the dual pends are better able to give an impetus to the axle as you described earlier ..

>> I suggest you are going to have to provide some 'proof' of what you are proposing is a runner configuration before any of us can progress it any further with you .. words ain't gonna turn into a prince unfortunately ..

best -f

...................



...................

Very nice sim!
The wheel isn’t overbalanced, you got to store the kinetic energy in the flywheel.
Thank you for sharing this.
You can use this sim to show the movement of the two positions - one with the equilibrium position at the top, and another with the opposite.
Thank you again.

[Tarsier79]

And I didn’t foresee that this forum wouldn’t understand it - I thought that everyone would understand it since they all have built their own version of a gravity wheel and seen that it doesn’t work.
A gravity wheel wouldn’t work - because gravity is a medium for energy.
So you got to use kinetic energy to give gravity something to work with, kinetic energy has a value and this value is set.
It’s like saying, as an allegory: “one kilo dry wood”, then one kilo = kinetic energy, and dry wood = gravity.
whatever you do to it it will always be one kilo wood that holds a potential heating energy, a maximum value.
A good wood stove can get closer to that potential then a bad stove, but if you can change the potential you can change the output.

Your device is operating in a gravity medium. So potential energy is using gravity. Kinetic energy is completely due to the loss of Potential energy....IE, your KE = what your lost PE is. KE has the same limitations as PE. Just adding a flywheel to a non runner and saying it works due to kinetic energy is a little naive. Especially when there is equal negative and positive torque. This means that any kinetic energy will be slowly (or quickly) sapped. Perhaps you should consider the limitations of your understanding before you claim that everyone doesn't understand why your design shouldn't magically spring to life.

[Tarsier79]

Fletcher, that is a very nice sim. IMO it wasn't required, as your previous analogue of what is happening showed exactly the same.

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Grenouille,
Votre vision théorique est interessente, mais comment verouillez vous la roue des pendules sur la roue d'accumulation cinétique?

Hello Frog,
Your theoretical vision is interesting, but how do you tie the pendulum wheel to the kinetic accumulation wheel?

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, that is a very nice sim. IMO it wasn't required, as your previous analogue of what is happening showed exactly the same.

Yeah, I'm good at making non-runners, years of practice. I was digging around old geared dual pendulum files anyway.

I thought if the sim looked more like Frog's patent drawing then he might take the opportunity to work with it and tell us what to physically change to do what he believes his patent application design can do ?!

I'll be honest - I'm no closer to understanding what the big difference he advocates is ?!

[johannesbender]

@frog , it was a good attempt with nice and simple design elements , i get why you went towards the inside from 12 to 9 , and i get why you had them hang on the right side , and i get how you planned the spring to release its potential energy at 9 when the geared arms were in equilibrium , and i get that around 7/8 the geared arms is designed to open up and extend out to the left , and i get the latching mechanism should engage from 12 to 6 and disengage from 6 to 12 , all nicely designed and thought out (to try and avoid lifting) , but it does not make me a believer .

According to you we do not fully understand it , and I guess its up to you to show us what we aren't understanding .

[Frog]

Bonjour Grenouille,
Votre vision théorique est interessente, mais comment verouillez vous la roue des pendules sur la roue d'accumulation cinétique?

Hello Frog,
Your theoretical vision is interesting, but how do you tie the pendulum wheel to the kinetic accumulation wheel?

Hello and good morning!
The pendulum’s is mounted on the flywheel, so all kinetic energy is drained from and stored in the same wheel.
Thank you for your interest and input.

[Frog]

@frog , it was a good attempt with nice and simple design elements , i get why you went towards the inside from 12 to 9 , and i get why you had them hang on the right side , and i get how you planned the spring to release its potential energy at 9 when the geared arms were in equilibrium , and i get that around 7/8 the geared arms is designed to open up and extend out to the left , and i get the latching mechanism should engage from 12 to 6 and disengage from 6 to 12 , all nicely designed and thought out (to try and avoid lifting) , but it does not make me a believer .

According to you we do not fully understand it , and I guess its up to you to show us what we aren't understanding .

Hello and thank you for your input.
You got almost all understanding, that’s great.
The drawing is for the patent clerk to show how it works, only essential information is necessary.
On a working wheel the size is different, and also how the double pendulum hangs.
The springs function is to separate the pendulums, they have nothing to do with the transport of energy.
Try to look at it this way:
- you need more kinetic energy to turn the wheel 90 degrees if you locked a mechanism at the bottom then the top.
- a pendulum movement is equal (almost) - you use the pendulum movement to change between those two positions.
Ask more - if you can take the time.
Thank you again.

[thx4]

Tout ce que sais faire la grenouille c'est de vous faire travailler sur un concept qu'il est lui-même incapable d'énoncer simplement. Il suffit de voir le torchon qu'il nous a envoyé en plus à l'envers pour comprendre qu'on est en présence d'un gag.
Dépose d'un brevet pourquoi faire ? LOL

All La grenouille knows how to do is to make you work on a concept that he himself is incapable of stating simply. All you have to do is look at the rag he's sent us, which is also upside down, to understand that we're in the presence of a joke.
What's the patent for? LOL

[Frog]

And I didn’t foresee that this forum wouldn’t understand it - I thought that everyone would understand it since they all have built their own version of a gravity wheel and seen that it doesn’t work.
A gravity wheel wouldn’t work - because gravity is a medium for energy.
So you got to use kinetic energy to give gravity something to work with, kinetic energy has a value and this value is set.
It’s like saying, as an allegory: “one kilo dry wood”, then one kilo = kinetic energy, and dry wood = gravity.
whatever you do to it it will always be one kilo wood that holds a potential heating energy, a maximum value.
A good wood stove can get closer to that potential then a bad stove, but if you can change the potential you can change the output.

Your device is operating in a gravity medium. So potential energy is using gravity. Kinetic energy is completely due to the loss of Potential energy....IE, your KE = what your lost PE is. KE has the same limitations as PE. Just adding a flywheel to a non runner and saying it works due to kinetic energy is a little naive. Especially when there is equal negative and positive torque. This means that any kinetic energy will be slowly (or quickly) sapped. Perhaps you should consider the limitations of your understanding before you claim that everyone doesn't understand why your design shouldn't magically spring to life.

I’m sorry if I offended you, that was not my intention.
You think that this wheel is overbalanced in a classical way - it isn’t.
The goal is different! I don’t want an overbalanced wheel!
I want two a half pendulums from a balanced wheel.
The wheel is added kinetic energy - that energy runs the wheel.
It’s the same as if anyone adds one kilo one side of the wheel that falls off at the bottom.
This wheel is always balanced - if you stop it, it stops.
If you can make it, an overbalanced wheel runs always.

[Robinhood46]

Hi Frog,
I have only skimmed this thread, because i am naturally repelled by claims of success. I have fooled myself so many times over the years, and thousands of others have too, that the probability you have fooled yourself is very high, very very high. In all probability you are fooling yourself.

That being said, you are sharing how you claim to achieve what the rest of us failed to achieve. Which is a huge step up from those who fool themselves, but don't even share how they fooled themselves. They just give us the facts about how it works in their head and demand that we believe them.

I am all for we don't understand something about your work. I accept the possibility that you have found the answer, there are some details we are struggling to comprehend and our bias toward you being fooled by your imagination, is the principal reason.

I haven't read every post, but i have spotted a few comments indicating that you haven't actually got a runner, and it is still just in your head that the wheel goes round.
Can you confirm whether you have a runner, yes or no?
I have no intention to be disrespectful, and i would very much like to give you the benefit of the doubt, but we need to know clearly what it is we are talking about. Are we talking about the wheel you have that is PM works, or are we talking about how the wheel you think is PM works?

I will bend over backwards, and spend hours on end, as would many other members, to try and understand the faults in my understanding, if you have a runner, but if you don't i will throw you on the heap of other delusional seekers who fool themselves and make unfounded claims of success.

Can you please make it clear what we are talking about Frog. You actually have a runner, or you don't?
I too would like to welcome you to the forum Frog, and please don't think we are all miserable old gits who don't want to believe you, because we do want to believe you, it is just that we can't. We are just fed up with claims of success that are unfounded.
RH46