Iris wheel

[jim_mich]

Well, my iris wheel is finished, tested, and failed to produce.

[racer270]

To all that care to try: The pivot point on the left side must be similar to the effect of a ratchet device(3/8 drive ratchet hand tool) which will pinch tighter and tighter in a counterclockwise direction to eliminate the keel effect. At the 12 oclock position the ratchet effect must disengage allowing the arm to freefall, there is no need to attempt a lifting as in Jim's depiction (unnecessary work) when the right side freefalls the kinetic energy should be absorbed Via a spring to keep it from bouncing but allowing the appendaging's arm wieght to be added smoothly into a roatational force. After the freefall the ratcheting mechanism must be reengaged so that no keel effect is allowed to initiate. (take jim's drawing and rotate it 45 degrees counter clockwise realizing that the weight or wheel that's now in the 11 oclock position would not be lifted you would then have 4 weights on the tight radius and 4 weights at the extended radius, and furthermore the appendage arms need only be a fraction of the weight of the rotational mass, heavy flywheel light arms.) If anybody has any questions, please feel free to email me.

[racer270]

Confusious say theories on free energy should be kept exclusively free!!

[VergingOnDone]

So has it been running continuously?

[MrTim]

Well, my iris wheel is finished, tested, and failed to produce.

Judging from the .gif, it looks just like the 'classic' PM design (which never worked either.)
Any weight hanging down from a radial arm ('spoke') is bad. (I call it "drag", but it's really the same effect as a keel.) Any weights you have moving about should be moving up-down/in-out along the 'spokes' of the wheel.
Trust me. I've tried over 5,000 designs so I feel that I've at least learned something.

[Jonathan]

Verge, I'm aware of it having made three revolutions. His models aren't great, so he's not claiming success so much as a concept.
I agree MrTim, that drawing doesn't really have anything new about it, and is almost completely different from Gordon's device. You can see that the arms are pressing on each other, but it's not enough.

[racer270]

oops

[scott]

Sorry for the delay in posting this. Racer270 had tried to poast a .tiff image of his latest iris wheel idea, but .tiff is not a supported web graphic format. I have converted it to jpg and posted it for him here along with his comments. Thanks racer!


----------------- snip -----------------
scott; I cant seem to post this!! I have re-thought the keel effect and how to use water in the wheel to negate it. FLOAT IT!!!! I am still thinking on how to launch the 2 o.c. (weight/float), magnetic or an assist using the buoyancy effect (180 deg.) I don't have the money to produce the construction described in this, or my last post to the iris wheel!! and I am sure it's going to take some tweaking! gordy

[Jonathan]

I should mention that I've built two models of this water idea, and I didn't get it to work. One should note that my models used water tight pill bottles for floats, and I didn't have a water proof outer wheel, I merely partially submerged the inner wheel and arms. I'd like it if someone else built a model and gave their opinion. My theory on why it didn't work (assuming the concept is sound) is that there was too much drag from the floats as they moved through the water. I'm leaning toward no on this design though, and my theory for that is that the bouyant force that keeps the floats up is analogous to the normal force that keeps objects from passing through each other. If this analogy is sound, then it would follow that this design is identical to MT12, except that the ramp labeled "A" has no incline, but is merely a surface that interupts the arms' usual path.

[Oxygon]

I have seen alot of ideas in my time that have come really close...
this looks really good... hope you get it working with a little tweaking.

[Jeff L.]

I think the Iris Wheel has considerable merit, and the water at the bottom got me to thinking... what if there was a "reguaging ramp" for a short distance at the bottom instead of a pool of water? Limitations imposed by buoyancy requirements would no longer be an issue and the ramp could be adjusted so that the weights are brought closer to the main axle at an optimum rate determined by experimentation. The weights, perhaps in the form of rollers, would contact this "warped board" fairly close to the bottom and would be supported by it for only as long as needed to remain in the closed position on their way back to the top. It seems that the ramp contact would need to start as close to the bottom as practical, since it would actually interfere with a portion of the torque produced by the descending weights.

A possible alternative or supplement to the "pinching effect" of overlapping weights would be to have a weighted latch that holds each arm in the closed position after being brought there by the ramp at the bottom. I'm thinking it would be similar to a trigger on a firearm and would swing away by gravity as it approaches the top, freeing the arm to extend on the descending side.

I plan to try this myself, time permitting, and maybe someone else might be willing to put a ramp under a wheel they already have on hand...

Jeff L.

[Jonathan]

I'm not clear on how that is different than MT12. I'm still interested in the original idea of using the weight of the weights to keep the bottom arms up. It really seems promising to me because I can't tell that it takes any energy from the wheel to do that, since the weights never get a chance to fall, they never have to be lifted. Though Jeff is right, if one got that to work it would take out a good 45 degrees (6 to 4:30) of torque from the large radius arms.

[racer270]

the original concept was of a latching mechanism that would act similar to a trigger engaging at the 9 oclock and disengaging prior to the (tdc) the arms were of a spring steel on an arc to create the pinching effect. it still had a tendacy to keel but it rotated in a pulsating manner with the latches. the next step in the evolution of theory was a ratchet effect than a more precise movement of pivot joint would be a one way bearing, the theory being the latching and unlatching was hard to accomplish and a one-way bearing would more precisely cinch all the weights counter clockwise to the 5 oclock position . the( k.i.s. s. ) theory was a floating of the weights theoretically accomplishes the cinching or tight rotations from the 5 oclock postition without a mechanical lift . i think it's more than ironic that bessler's wheel was covered with oil cloth. if you think of the inside of the wheel as being a (half pipe) around the whole perameter of the wheel you could theorize that the water for the most part would stay at the bottom until centrifical force would have a tendacy to spread it out. by no means do i think the liquid would necessarily have to be water, a substance like mercury would not evaporate and would have a stronger tendacy to repool, etc,etc. by no means do i suggest you actually using mercury in the building of a model, because of its inherrant dangers. these are my latest theories on how to keep it simplistic. by no means do i have the ability to buy experimental parts so the concept is the best i can offer yours truly gordy p.s all feedback is welcome

[racer270]

i tried to add an attachment but apparently it was too big. by no means did i mean to overlook the necessity for a roller tip. Because of the inherant drag, at the approximately (5 oclock position) be it by a leveraged regathering or by what I would consider simpler floating it back up into position. you will see a distinct interaction between the adjoining appendage arms , no matter where the regathering takes place. if you use a one-way berring or ratchet type pivot not only does it make it a complex movement , it also loads a great deal of force on each pivot point trying to reverse cantalevering the bottom weights. I simply think that the floatation theory would relieve an abundance of strain from the entire mechanism not to mention complexity. I wish a few of you brilliant minds out there would lend your experience and/or suggestions to the afformentioned theories. thanks gordy

[Fletcher]

Hi Jeff L,

A couple of years back I built many variations of ramp assissted placement of weights (on nylon rollers). Some of the ramps were for bottom lifting into position as you speak about while others played with the idea of a ramp of the top to get the weight out as far as possible to create torque (although this lightened the apparent weight of the down going side of the wheel).

My experience was frustrating & ultimately unsuccessful. The problem seemed to me to be that in each case you require the weight to travel uphill. Once again we see that between geometric segments (divisions) of the wheel we can get the weights to run up hill but not all the way i.e. they reach the old favourite "the neutral position" & won't travel further to reset the system (they travel to positions of "least potential energy").

This was my experience & I had to build ramps to prove things for myself. Gordy's bouyancy lift is intriguing however.

Fletcher