Symmetrically Balanced Systems – are they able to develop useable torque ?

[Wheeler]

Ken I agree, but the suspense is good for the forum.
Remember all those ideas that we tried to twist our minds around?

[Fletcher]

Annexed is the "Floatation Mech".

This is a _very_ rudimentary depiction of the basic components for ease of understanding to all.

For the time being do not consider the the mass of the bucket, the bracing arms or the float & T rod.

Brief Explanation : The fluid is _almost_counterbalanced by the top most mass. The float displaces the mass of the red weight (say 2 kg's) as explained by Archimedes & Pascal's Principles i.e... "when a body is wholly or partially immersed in a fluid it experiences an upthrust equal to the weight of the fluid displaced" & "a change in the pressure applied to an enclosed fluid is transmitted undiminished to every portion of the fluid & to the walls of the containing vessel".

Now think about where the CoG for the mech is ... & what if any torque will be generated in this stable upright condition ?

After some discussion I will provide more diagrams of the concept with some of the obvious faults (for ease of depiction) addressed.

I will also present two main possibilities that I can see that could change this mech to an unstable arrangement with a little encouragement.

For those pondering what I'm suggesting here, think of the fluid as a block of ice (no, I'm not suggesting a thermal engine), just for illustration purposes. If the water is considered as a solid, what happens to the CoG then & what will happen to the mech ?

[Wheeler]

I can see it is a gravity engine at least!

[Michael]

Fletcher and I have a friendly disagreement. He doesn't think it is possible to create a pure out of balance wheel that uses excess weight to drive the wheel. In other words the standard idea. I know you can. I've known how to for coming up to 2 1/2 years now. I've known Fletcher for several years and I have offered to show him the idea if he agrees to a few requirements, mainly, that he doesn't run off and show it around or try to claim the nobel prize for it etc. For various reasons this never came to pass. Occasionally he said not at the moment, he wanted to work on what he was doing, and occasionally I decided to hold back. We finally came to an agreement several months ago. I would show him the basic standard model/idea and he could develop it into his own version providing that when he gets a working model he honorably mentions that I realized the principle. I did give him the basic core idea but didn't give him, as he says, the full road map. I got cold feet. I thought I would be done in January but do to life in general haven't been able to meet that date, it's coming up June and I am still far away. So I held back. I had also planned to show the idea in some form on my board at that time. I've decided to come forward and show him, as he asked, in a few days provided he still holds to the agreement and makes a point of saying on this board that I was right ( provided he agrees with me ). He would do this without giving out any details so please don't go writing him in private asking how it is done.

Now, is this Bessler's idea? At first I happily didn't think so. I couldn't see how this version could be Bessler's and Fletcher might think the same thing at first, although it does meet all of the requirements of Bessler's wheel. After I realized the principle someone sent me the translated version of the M.T. notes. I didn't pay much attention to them but occasionally, as the months went past I noticed there were certain key phrases and items that congealed together and formed the basis of my idea. I still had my doubts if it was the same but now thought he might have built a version based on the same idea. I still couldn't see how though. Eventually I did come to realize how other versions could be built. I'll let Fletcher verify if I am telling the truth but here is some ground for now. The drawings I am referring are closer to the middle of the book.
This principle is different from what Fletcher has been discussing.

[LustInBlack]

Fletcher : Not sure, will the 2 upper weights knock themselves then the rebound into the "water" will shift the upper balancer and reset the whole system ?!..

If so, is that a pendulum motion ?!

[coylo]

I thought I would be done in January but do to life in general haven't been able to meet that date, it's coming up June and I am still far away. So I held back. I had also planned to show the idea in some form on my board at that time.

Michael, still far away from what?..........building a working model?....or have you already done that?

Coylo Do you always want to go negeitive ?
If you have some idea that I a something you think is a threat to you, please explain it.

Wheeler, the only threat you pose is to the contents of my stomach after I read one of your posts.
If you love this thread so much why don't you offer some genuine input instead of telling us how you and your buddy go weak at the knees every time Fletch makes a post!

I started shaking and my friend is having cold chills all over since I mention he read the thread!

What the....?

[Michael]

A working model coylo. There are reasons why too long to go into here.

[Wheeler]

coylo wrote;

the only threat you pose is to the contents of my stomach after I read one of your posts.

Sounds like you got a problem.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher and I have a friendly disagreement. He doesn't think it is possible to create a pure out of balance wheel that uses excess weight to drive the wheel. In other words the standard idea. I know you can. I've known how to for coming up to 2 1/2 years now. I've known Fletcher for several years and I have offered to show him the idea if he agrees to a few requirements, mainly, that he doesn't run off and show it around or try to claim the nobel prize for it etc. For various reasons this never came to pass. Occasionally he said not at the moment, he wanted to work on what he was doing, and occasionally I decided to hold back. We finally came to an agreement several months ago. I would show him the basic standard model/idea and he could develop it into his own version providing that when he gets a working model he honorably mentions that I realized the principle. I did give him the basic core idea but didn't give him, as he says, the full road map. I got cold feet. I thought I would be done in January but do to life in general haven't been able to meet that date, it's coming up June and I am still far away. So I held back. I had also planned to show the idea in some form on my board at that time. I've decided to come forward and show him, as he asked, in a few days provided he still holds to the agreement and makes a point of saying on this board that I was right ( provided he agrees with me ). He would do this without giving out any details so please don't go writing him in private asking how it is done.

Now, is this Bessler's idea? At first I happily didn't think so. I couldn't see how this version could be Bessler's and Fletcher might think the same thing at first, although it does meet all of the requirements of Bessler's wheel. After I realized the principle someone sent me the translated version of the M.T. notes. I didn't pay much attention to them but occasionally, as the months went past I noticed there were certain key phrases and items that congealed together and formed the basis of my idea. I still had my doubts if it was the same but now thought he might have built a version based on the same idea. I still couldn't see how though. Eventually I did come to realize how other versions could be built. I'll let Fletcher verify if I am telling the truth but here is some ground for now. The drawings I am referring are closer to the middle of the book.
This principle is different from what Fletcher has been discussing.

That's about right Michael, with the exception that I really have no idea what your principle was to be, so that will interesting reading :)

I accept the challenge you put down & your complete terms, as long as you understand there is the possibility that I won't understand it & sometimes I am limited for time, as is everybody.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher : Not sure, will the 2 upper weights knock themselves then the rebound into the "water" will shift the upper balancer and reset the whole system ?!..

If so, is that a pendulum motion ?!

Lust .. lets see if I can clear up a few possible misconceptions.

There are two parts to this conceptual device.

1. A bucket with fluid in it. The bucket is attached via fixed brackets to a pivot. The brackets extend on upwards to which is firmly attached a counter weight. Disregarding the weight of the bucket & brackets themselves, the counter weight is of slightly less mass than the weight of the fluid (so its like a pendulum in this regard & is slightly bottom heavy). The mean distance from the pivot of the CoM of the fluid & the CoM of the counterweight is the same.

2. Independant of the bucket & conterweight arrangement is a "T" rod system on its side. It is free to rotate around the samepivot. The float rests in the fluid & displaces an equivalent weight of fluid to the red weight on top of the rod.

In its current configuration the arrangement should stay vertical,as you see it, because the fluid spreads the force of the red weight evenly thru it.

But if you look at where the CoG for the entire mech is it should be above the pivot & it doesn't try to get below the pivot as usually happens. So its stable & remains upright. But if you were to replace the fluid with a soild of the same density & mass the red weight would transfer its force directly to its contact point & cause the entire mech to swing as it tries to lower its CoG in the normal manner of mechs.

The trick is to change the charactoristics of the fluid so that it acts (or is capable of) acting like a solid when you want it to.

[LustInBlack]

Water Balloon or something of that kind ?!..

Or Hydrolock !? .. .


I mean, you want it to be solid, in the sense "firm" .. Or Solid in the sense, it will "rebound" like a water balloon .. !?? ..


Interesting, but I'm not sure yet if I understand the principle correctly.. We'll see . .

[Fletcher]

Theoretically, when in its vertical orientation (as shown) the red weight has displaced an equivalent mass of, say, water i.e. 2 kg's of mass acting down thru the rod displaces 2 kg's of water (that's 2 litres).

The displaced litres rise up in the vessel & as it does so, the local CoM for the water rises closer to the pivot (this is the starting position). This is offset by the CoM of the blue counterweight at the same distance from the pivot but on the top side, exactly opposite it. The device is slightly bottom heavy because the counterweights mass is just slightly less than the mass of the water in the vessel. This allows it to stay vertical. You could have the same contrary masses but alter the distance from the pivot to achieve the same thing.

But, if you look carefully at where the CoG for the entire arrangement is you must take into account the red weights mass. This gives a combined CoG above & to the right of the pivot (by my calculations) & yet it holds itself vertical & doesn't swing down trying to get its combined CoG to the lowest position possible.

What is particularly interesting, besides that imo, is that in this "fixed in space" orientation there appears to be zero torque, else it would swing down around the pivot.

Now, if we can get the red mass to stop being a "ghost" & get it to materialize & add its mass to the "real" CoG it will become top heavy & swing CW.

So we end up with a situation where in the stable fixed state it has zero torque & in the unstable state it has positive torque. After it swings it is morphed back to the very small negative torque state so it can lift itself back up due its very small pendulum effect that we started the cycle with.

This would have small negative torque & large positive torque, i.e torque a-symmetry.

I mean, you want it to be solid, in the sense "firm" .. Or Solid in the sense, it will "rebound" like a water balloon .. !?? ..

We can not make it solid in the real sense but perhaps with the use of a small amount of energy & a more advanced "vessel" we can get the same effect i.e. the red mass contributing to the combined CoG & the water not sloshing sideways & so not detracting from the OOB when it swings.

[Paul]

WOW...my compliment Fletcher ! This could be a kind of perpetual pendulum. If I have correctly understand... more the level of the liquid is low (imagining that the mass touches the bottom of the container) and more the upper weight is directly "trasmitted" in that offset (relative to pivot) point producing a CW torque. If the level of the liquid gets up, the upper weight (2 Kg) is repartitioned in the fluid and therefore the CW torque is cancelled or at least limited. The problem is to find a way to avoid, with very little spent energy, the stability of this system. Maybe a suitable vessel design can create a useful "fluid wave" ..?. I want to think about this.

edit: and add one opposed identical T bar may help ? when the container moves.. the fluid remains under the center (maybe) so a mass will be floating while the opposite mass will be against the bottom of the container.
At the moment I do not know whether using two T bars we obtain an advantage (greater instability) or a disadvantage (more stability). Sure the fluid is the "switching system" between direct and repartitioned weight(s) applied to the vessel. Mmhh very complex vector force to analyse.

edit2:
Fletcher wrote:

The trick is to change the charactoristics of the fluid so that it acts (or is capable of) acting like a solid when you want it to.

Yes... but this change must be done before the mass (lower ball) moves the liquid. if you freeze water after the mass has moved it... then the system remains balanced (obviously).
However yours is a beautiful idea, compliments. As you say it is a start point of a new concept to examine in detail with several applied solutions.

Paul

[Fletcher]

Thanks for the good thoughts Paul. I will be back with a step by step reconstruction for everyone to think about & comment on. There are some very basic concepts at work here. They seem to throw our dependence on the relationship between CoG positioning & torque clear out the window.

[Paul]

I have written:

Yes... but this change must be done before the mass (lower ball) moves the liquid. if you freeze water after the mass has moved it... then the system remains balanced (obviously).

I have made a mistake: I have not considered the form(shape) of the container. This vessel has a rectangular recess(indent) located in bottom-left. This form offsets the absence of the two litres of water moved by the mass.
Maybe it is really as Fletcher said: liquid water = balance ; iced(solid) water = CW torque.
This system is difficult to analyse. Fletcher's drawing is an example to understand a strange (paradoxical?) phenomena. Ok, the energy spent to freeze and defrost water would immensely be bigger than the energy extracted by the system......but this is not the point ! ; his idea highlights an interesting concept.

Paul