Elliptical Track

[coylo]

GraviTar wrote:

I looked at all the pictures I could find and I don't see any that are even close to my idea.

Maybe you can point me to something that I may have missed. But it looks like my idea is completely original.

Perpetual Motion
The idea of a Perpetual Motion Machine has been around for some time. Here is my quick conceptual sketch on such a machine. The mass is guided by rails in such a way that each opposing mass around the rotational center creates a torque. The total system friction is minimized by the use of many roller bearings. I made the machine massive with 10 ton blocks of concrete rotating around a wheel. The reason for a large system mass is that the total energy of the system needs to be quite large to be able to extract any work out of such a machine. There is very little energy left over after all the internal friction against the perpetual motion is accounted for; that is, if we do end up with excess energy.

http://www.designonme.com/onme/workinp/wiptut.html
This is just one example I found quickly in an internet search, there are others buried in this forum.
People assume that the weights exert their weight all on the wheel itself, when in fact the rail takes its fair share of the load.

[coylo]

Below, are two ideas that are based on the same principle as yours (yet superior IMHO), only they've taken their guide rails outside the wheel - a matter of scale...

[GraViTaR]

Have ANY of you even completely read what I have posted and studied my pictures?

These examples you show are NOTHING like my concept. The Claudio Wheel is somewhat similar in the fact that there are multiple wheels rotating on different planes, but that is the only similarity.

[AB Hammer]

GraViTaR

May be you need to post a complete diagram and then point out your differences. Part diagrams and descriptions are allot of the time not fully understood because of an individuals intent. We cant see inside your head. We only have what we have seen to compare with.

I have tried to show what I see, and I understand your umbrella spokes are suppose to help but when you are trying to get a gravity wheel going, you need to be able to drive all the mechanisms off gravity, and over come any friction. Thats the trick, and that is what make seem easy but is hard to figure out.

[coylo]

Have ANY of you even completely read what I have posted and studied my pictures?

These examples you show are NOTHING like my concept.

Yes I have read what you wrote!

What is it with this whole elipse thing?
Just because a few elipses (paths) are found in nature dosen't necessarily mean it will help towards a working wheel, sheeesch!

This classical thinking of forced/guided overbalance just dosen't work!
If you strip all your ideas and the other(s) ideas I have posted, down to their fundamentals...... they are the same.

[Jon J Hutton]

Ok......

This is really a duh but I will explain. Look at the drawing.....1 and 5 are balanced(but are rolling uphill). 7 and 3 are the only ones that offer oob(out of balance)....is it enough, no. All the rest even though they are out of balance they are rolling uphill. Out of balance that is useful can only happen when the weight furthest out is rolling down, with gravity .

[rmd3]

Here's another pictorial attempt at explaining why the track carries the weight that you would want (even if it should be further out by the rim).

Taking one weight as an example. The force due to gravity is the sum of the forces that (1) support the weight on the spoke of the wheel, and (2) support the weight on the track. It doesn't matter where the track touches your ball (be it the bottom, or on an edge, or wherever) - if the track is supporting your weight, your track is taking away your intended advantage.

[evgwheel]

GraViTaR

GraViTaR wrote:

Have ANY of you even completely read what I have posted and studied my pictures?
These examples you show are NOTHING like my concept. The Claudio Wheel is somewhat similar in the fact that there are multiple wheels rotating on different planes, but that is the only similarity.

Are you saying that your track is flexible and rotate (move) with the weights?
If you still feel it works, Let us know what is different with your design to give it the working edge. If you get to the stage of “it should work, but it doesn’t� leave it alone for 3 months and look at it again later. Merry Xmas and may 2008 reveal the answer. EVG

[rlortie]

GraViTaR,

You can debate and defend your proposal until this forum runs out to band width and achieve nothing.

The only way You are going to satisfy your adamant feelings is to get off the computer and build it.

I have suggested this to many of "Newbies" some who have now told you the same thing. Build it, for if you don't it will hinder any future innovation as you carry the doubt.

Ralph

[GraViTaR]

GraViTaR

Are you saying that your track is flexible and rotate (move) with the weights?
If you still feel it works, Let us know what is different with your design to give it the working edge. If you get to the stage of “it should work, but it doesn’t� leave it alone for 3 months and look at it again later. Merry Xmas and may 2008 reveal the answer. EVG

Thank you, evgwheel, for realizing that there is something different here. And thanks to EVERYONE in this discussion for stating opinions, ideas and information upon which ALL of us can expand our work.


My idea is two different wheels sharing the same balls.

The "classic" wagon wheel in which the balls ride within the spokes, and the conical array of rods that guide the balls in their elliptical path via the holes through the center of the balls.

The ball at 9:00 in the wagon wheel is also furthest from the hub of the conical array. This spot produces maximum torque on both wheels. It magnifies the effect.

The balls roll up and down the length of the wagon wheel spokes, and they SLIDE up and down the length of the rods.

Conversely, look at the 3:00 spoke. The ball is at its closest point to the hub. It is also at it's closest point to the hub of the rod array.

In effect, the two wheels are turning each other with the one, shared set of eight balls. The rods guide the balls to the rim at 9:00, and the spokes slide the balls farthest away from the hub of the rod array at the same point.

[LustInBlack]

I believe it doesn't work the way you describe.. You are still supporting your weight and changing it's path...

I think you miss the point.. You force your weight in an oval path, at 9 or 3, the weight doesn't apply full force as you deviate it to bring it into an oval path.. It might as well slide it doesn't change anything..

It's the same as the pictures in this thread .. Take them as 2 wheels too, it doesn't move ..

The position of the weight isn't the whole story..

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Grav...

Thank you, evgwheel, for realizing that there is something different here. And thanks to EVERYONE in this discussion for stating opinions, ideas and information upon which ALL of us can expand our work.


My idea is two different wheels sharing the same balls.

The "classic" wagon wheel in which the balls ride within the spokes, and the conical array of rods that guide the balls in their elliptical path via the holes through the center of the balls.

The ball at 9:00 in the wagon wheel is also furthest from the hub of the conical array. This spot produces maximum torque on both wheels. It magnifies the effect.

The balls roll up and down the length of the wagon wheel spokes, and they SLIDE up and down the length of the rods.

Conversely, look at the 3:00 spoke. The ball is at its closest point to the hub. It is also at it's closest point to the hub of the rod array.

In effect, the two wheels are turning each other with the one, shared set of eight balls. The rods guide the balls to the rim at 9:00, and the spokes slide the balls farthest away from the hub of the rod array at the same point.

Now, think about this....you have one set of weights driving two wheels now. You have two contributors to friction (the weights sliding on the spokes and moving on the rail) as opposed to just one. It was pointed out earlier that at certain points on the descending side, it would actually be pushing the weight up the rail....this is not good. You could probably get a good eye full with a simple test.....cut up a couple of clothes hangers and stand a bicycle upside down. Now, make two rods out of the clothes hanger at 180 degrees apart and shape them like your umbrella idea, you won't even need weights for this......now use the spokes of the bike as your rails. Set your umbrella rods on the spokes and just hold it in the position you would want at 3 and 9 o'clock. Spin the tire around and see what happens at about 6 o'clock.....hmmmm. Now, if you hang the tire....see what happens at about 12 o'clock.


Steve

P.S. This is going with the design you presented here.....

[RIPPERTON]

Hi, just joined up. Its great to have a forum about Perpetual Motion and hundreds of people like me trying to discover it.
Heres a variation on the elliptical path concept. Imagine discs (weights 8mm in diameter) rolling in each of the elliptical slots. The main slotted disc rotates clockwise in the drawing and is flanked by covers so the weights dont fall out the side. The ellipse accelerates and decelerates the weight gradually so there is minimal freefalling or pause in thrust coming from the weight.
I was just about to send this pattern to the laser cutters when I put few dimensions on it and found it to be in perfect equilibrium (280=280).
I think this is the issue with all elliptical path machines.

[AB Hammer]

RIPPERTON

Welcome to the forum and thanks for posting another example why these don't work. There are allot of examples that look different but all have the same problems and when you add to those it just gets worst.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Rip....

Hi, just joined up. Its great to have a forum about Perpetual Motion and hundreds of people like me trying to discover it.
Heres a variation on the elliptical path concept. Imagine discs (weights 8mm in diameter) rolling in each of the elliptical slots. The main slotted disc rotates clockwise in the drawing and is flanked by covers so the weights dont fall out the side. The ellipse accelerates and decelerates the weight gradually so there is minimal freefalling or pause in thrust coming from the weight.
I was just about to send this pattern to the laser cutters when I put few dimensions on it and found it to be in perfect equilibrium (280=280).
I think this is the issue with all elliptical path machines.

It's not about ellipses, so to speak....it's about an eccentric reaction taking place within a concentric enclosure, just an opinion on my part. Your design has ellipses....arranged in a concentric pattern. So, this is what I mean about not just being about ellipses.

Welcome to the madness!

Steve