Playing with a different design first I then got a completely different idea. So far I haven't tried much but I wanted to share it to get some mechanism ideas from people.
The concept is easy. On one side the weights applies their weight tangentially and on the other side it's simply vertical. The main question is how can you accomplish the tangential weight concept?
Please give feedback on tangetial weight concept.
Moderator: scott
Please give feedback on tangetial weight concept.
- Attachments
-
- On the right side the weights apply their weight tangentially to the wheel and on the left vertically.
re: Please give feedback on tangetial weight concept.
All you need is the equivalent of an ordinary hinge - a bearing restricted to 180 degrees of movement. Let the arms fold up completely on the left hand side, but be constrained to remain fully open on the right hand side.
This is no different from numerous over-balanced wheels that don't work.
The basic problem with forcing a weight outwards to increase the torque is that you simultaneously increase the radius that it has to sweep. Yes, you have more force - but the weight will now fall further than it's counterweight with the smaller radius, and it will have to be lifted higher than it's counterweight.
You are trading horizontal distance for vertical distance. The total energy available (from the force of gravity acting on the mass) remains the same on both sides. The maths can be a little complicated, but it all adds up to zero in the end.
This is no different from numerous over-balanced wheels that don't work.
The basic problem with forcing a weight outwards to increase the torque is that you simultaneously increase the radius that it has to sweep. Yes, you have more force - but the weight will now fall further than it's counterweight with the smaller radius, and it will have to be lifted higher than it's counterweight.
You are trading horizontal distance for vertical distance. The total energy available (from the force of gravity acting on the mass) remains the same on both sides. The maths can be a little complicated, but it all adds up to zero in the end.
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
re: Please give feedback on tangetial weight concept.
Exploring the idea for the sake of it ...
Imagine each of those yellow pivot points was an eccentric cam ... there could be a stationary inner circle acting as a cam follower, constraining the arm. Or perhaps a shaped cam follower, with pairs of wheels on the pivots having to 'ride' the shape of the cam follower.
The cam or follower shape would be contoured to force the arm to be in the desired position at all points in the circle. That could give more control over the angles than just a hinge allowing gravity alone to determine the angle.
As drawn - I see a problem at 11 oclock. The ascending, downward-hanging arms on the left would have to be flicked up 90 degrees to get from the vertical to the horizontal angle. That would require a lot of energy at that point - soaking up anything gained on the other side.
Imagine each of those yellow pivot points was an eccentric cam ... there could be a stationary inner circle acting as a cam follower, constraining the arm. Or perhaps a shaped cam follower, with pairs of wheels on the pivots having to 'ride' the shape of the cam follower.
The cam or follower shape would be contoured to force the arm to be in the desired position at all points in the circle. That could give more control over the angles than just a hinge allowing gravity alone to determine the angle.
As drawn - I see a problem at 11 oclock. The ascending, downward-hanging arms on the left would have to be flicked up 90 degrees to get from the vertical to the horizontal angle. That would require a lot of energy at that point - soaking up anything gained on the other side.
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
re: Please give feedback on tangetial weight concept.
ok ... I get it ... i'm the idiot here who can't see what everyone else can see....
So there are no arms? And this isn't a gravity wheel??? What are you using to apply the horizontal "tangetial" force?? Magnets? Rockets? Compressed air??
And what the hell is "negative torque" or "positive torque" ...
I seem to have missed some private joke ...
So there are no arms? And this isn't a gravity wheel??? What are you using to apply the horizontal "tangetial" force?? Magnets? Rockets? Compressed air??
And what the hell is "negative torque" or "positive torque" ...
I seem to have missed some private joke ...
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
Greendoor no you're not an idiot I really appreciate your time. Basically what I'm asking is how can a weight apply its own weight tangentially on one side and just regularly on the other.
As you may know a weight usually at 12 oclock causes no torque, but once it falls clock wise it gives the wheel a max torque at 3 o'clock and zero again at 6 o'clock. What I want is to have maximum torque at all position on the right side and just the regular 0-max-0 on the left side. If this can be done we found a gravity wheel.
PS: I just made a very interesting discovery using the Centrifugal Force...More info will follow.
As you may know a weight usually at 12 oclock causes no torque, but once it falls clock wise it gives the wheel a max torque at 3 o'clock and zero again at 6 o'clock. What I want is to have maximum torque at all position on the right side and just the regular 0-max-0 on the left side. If this can be done we found a gravity wheel.
PS: I just made a very interesting discovery using the Centrifugal Force...More info will follow.
re: Please give feedback on tangetial weight concept.
Weight is by definition the downward force of gravity. I don't think you can make the mass exert a force horizontally unless you apply some other external force with a horizontal component (magnets, rockets, compressed air, whatever) which I don't think is what you are looking for.
Centrifugal force is a contender, but that is going to be equally balanced with centripetal force until the point of failure. And I don't believe there is a way to stop this force from occuring on one half of the wheel.
But if the orbit of the mass is constrained into an offset or elipticall orbit, it is possible to to have the mass travel at different velocities on each side of the wheel - and therefore exerting out-of-balance centrifugal force ...
I still believe there is a relationship between gravity wheels and intertial space drives ... solve one, and you solve the other. The idea of an inertial space drive is that you create a unidirectional force from a rotating mass system ... action without equal and opposite reaction without ejecting mass. If we can do that, we can power a space vehicle with solar panels and an electric motor indefinately.
IMO - if we can make a rotating mass system create a unidirectional force, it should be completely possible to take a unidirectional force (gravity) and use it to power a rotating mass system ...
So far, neither seems to be do-able ... or any successes have been effectively suppressed.
I believe it's possible - and it's sort of related to your idea here, so i'll try to give the short version in my next post. (I've posted it here before, and nobody has ever debunked the idea - I probably haven't explained it well enough for anyone to understand).
Centrifugal force is a contender, but that is going to be equally balanced with centripetal force until the point of failure. And I don't believe there is a way to stop this force from occuring on one half of the wheel.
But if the orbit of the mass is constrained into an offset or elipticall orbit, it is possible to to have the mass travel at different velocities on each side of the wheel - and therefore exerting out-of-balance centrifugal force ...
I still believe there is a relationship between gravity wheels and intertial space drives ... solve one, and you solve the other. The idea of an inertial space drive is that you create a unidirectional force from a rotating mass system ... action without equal and opposite reaction without ejecting mass. If we can do that, we can power a space vehicle with solar panels and an electric motor indefinately.
IMO - if we can make a rotating mass system create a unidirectional force, it should be completely possible to take a unidirectional force (gravity) and use it to power a rotating mass system ...
So far, neither seems to be do-able ... or any successes have been effectively suppressed.
I believe it's possible - and it's sort of related to your idea here, so i'll try to give the short version in my next post. (I've posted it here before, and nobody has ever debunked the idea - I probably haven't explained it well enough for anyone to understand).
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
The CF idea is not related to this concept. It doesn't even use gravity. So far all my wm2d tests confirm increasing energy and rotational speed. I made the simulations as accurate as wm2d allowed and it still produces the results so a glitch should not be part of it imo. The idea behind it is diverting the centripetal force that is caused by the centrifugal force.
re: Please give feedback on tangetial weight concept.
Imagine you are stranded in space - with two bricks and two ropes - and your goal is to propel yourself back to your ship. You could probably do this by throwing the brick in the exact opposite direction you want to go in. The equal & opposite reaction would send you flying backwards. But you have lost your brick - this is the basic principle of jets and rockets - you eject mass with force, in the opposite direction you want to go in. But it is not sustainable - you run out of mass. Like a water wheel running out of water in the overhead tank.
So is there anyway of doing this without losing the bricks? I believe there is.
What happens if we spin the brick on a rope around our head? We start spinning in the opposite direction. OK - let's use equal & opposite counter-rotation to stop that happening - we will swing two bricks around our heads in opposing directions.
Once we have the two bricks rotating - we now have some control of direction. We can vary the speed, and the radius of rotation. With this, we can change our position in space - but can we actually travel anywhere from that fixed position?
I believe we could achieve unidirectional travel by using this method:
from the balanced counter-rotating state, allow the bricks to fly off in a tangent. Don't force them - quite the opposite - just let them go.
This is similar to the tangential force you are looking for ...
As the two bricks fly out into space - let the ropes trail behind them, until finally they reach the end. At that point, jerk the rope back. What should happen is that the bricks that were let go have now found themselves a new centre of gravity that is some distance from our own centre of gravity. By jerking the rope and reeling in the bricks, we will actually move ourselves closer to the bricks ... and by constantly repeating the process, we should be able to winch ourselves through space.
The mechanism requires a 'disconnect' of mass - it has to temporarily leave the rotating system, and then be reconnected.
If this basic concept works - it would prove that it is possible to convert rotating energy into a unidirectional force (action without reaction) which is currently considered impossible. It should also work backwards, allowing the unidirectional force of gravity to provide rotating energy.
Bessler's wheel allegedly involved falling/impacting weights - this suggests it may have been using this principle. If an earthbound space drive was used for antigravity, it would do this by using a motor to spin the masses and release them so they fly upwards without an opposite reaction (balanced, counter-rotating). As they reach the end of the rope, the rope would be winched in, and the spacecraft would be jerked upwards, against the pull of gravity. To reverse this and make a gravity wheel, we would need the disconnected weights falling into the rotating system to create the energy, and then being flung back upwards with the opposite of the rope jerk action - which I guess would be some sort of spring recoil action.
I haven't thought this through completely - but if we are to believe Bessler's wheel actually ran, I think this is a logical train of thought to consider.
the rope
So is there anyway of doing this without losing the bricks? I believe there is.
What happens if we spin the brick on a rope around our head? We start spinning in the opposite direction. OK - let's use equal & opposite counter-rotation to stop that happening - we will swing two bricks around our heads in opposing directions.
Once we have the two bricks rotating - we now have some control of direction. We can vary the speed, and the radius of rotation. With this, we can change our position in space - but can we actually travel anywhere from that fixed position?
I believe we could achieve unidirectional travel by using this method:
from the balanced counter-rotating state, allow the bricks to fly off in a tangent. Don't force them - quite the opposite - just let them go.
This is similar to the tangential force you are looking for ...
As the two bricks fly out into space - let the ropes trail behind them, until finally they reach the end. At that point, jerk the rope back. What should happen is that the bricks that were let go have now found themselves a new centre of gravity that is some distance from our own centre of gravity. By jerking the rope and reeling in the bricks, we will actually move ourselves closer to the bricks ... and by constantly repeating the process, we should be able to winch ourselves through space.
The mechanism requires a 'disconnect' of mass - it has to temporarily leave the rotating system, and then be reconnected.
If this basic concept works - it would prove that it is possible to convert rotating energy into a unidirectional force (action without reaction) which is currently considered impossible. It should also work backwards, allowing the unidirectional force of gravity to provide rotating energy.
Bessler's wheel allegedly involved falling/impacting weights - this suggests it may have been using this principle. If an earthbound space drive was used for antigravity, it would do this by using a motor to spin the masses and release them so they fly upwards without an opposite reaction (balanced, counter-rotating). As they reach the end of the rope, the rope would be winched in, and the spacecraft would be jerked upwards, against the pull of gravity. To reverse this and make a gravity wheel, we would need the disconnected weights falling into the rotating system to create the energy, and then being flung back upwards with the opposite of the rope jerk action - which I guess would be some sort of spring recoil action.
I haven't thought this through completely - but if we are to believe Bessler's wheel actually ran, I think this is a logical train of thought to consider.
the rope
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
Very possibly we are trying to communicate a similar idea ... what you call "diverting the centripetal force" might be similar to what I call "disconnecting", which is breaking the centripetal force and allow a rotating weight to fly outwards/upwards, acheiving a change in centre of gravity, and therefore being able to fall back down again under the influence of gravity and provide motive power ....broli wrote:The CF idea is not related to this concept. It doesn't even use gravity. So far all my wm2d tests confirm increasing energy and rotational speed. I made the simulations as accurate as wm2d allowed and it still produces the results so a glitch should not be part of it imo. The idea behind it is diverting the centripetal force that is caused by the centrifugal force.
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
-
Bill_Mothershead
- Aficionado
- Posts: 329
- Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 5:52 pm
- Location: Phoenix, AZ
re: Please give feedback on tangetial weight concept.
The basic problem with forcing a weight outwards to increase the torque is that you simultaneously increase the radius that it has to sweep. Yes, you have more force - but the weight will now fall further than it's counterweight with the smaller radius, and it will have to be lifted higher than it's counterweight.
You are trading horizontal distance for vertical distance. The total energy available (from the force of gravity acting on the mass) remains the same on both sides. The maths can be a little complicated, but it all adds up to zero in the end.
Howdy, Greendoor...
I am having a little problem understanding what you are
trying to explain. It is somewhat counter-intuitive.
I have come up with a thought experiment...
Start with a perfectly balanced bicycle wheel with four
weights equally spaced out near the rim. 12-3-6-9 o’clock.
OK, now use "imaginary divine intervention" to nudge the
6:00 weight in a little toward the axle and give the wheel
a shove to get it slightly moving.
I would think that the wheel would not be balanced and,
after rocking back and forth for a while, would settle with
the previously "nudged" weight at the 12:00 position.
I take this to mean that the center of gravity for the whole
wheel is closer to the side opposite the "nudged" weight.
Is this right? Do you "imagine" the same result?
Taking the thought experiment a step further....
By using an undefined automated process (via divine intervention)
for any weight crossing the 6:00 position, nudge it IN slightly,
AND for any weight crossing the 12:00 position, restore it fully OUT.
I take this to mean the wheel will remain unbalanced and
continue to move. It will spin perpetually.
Is this right? Do you "imagine" something different?
There is a great write up on the conservation of energy at:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/firstlaw.html
But as far as I can tell, that has nothing to do with
what happens when the center of gravity of a wheel is
dynamically changed to make it imbalanced.
Could you please explain (or post a URL) some solid
reasoning on how a wheel WILL NOT rotate if its center
of gravity is not at the bottom....
Thank you...
Bill, the phrase, "trading horizontal distance for vertical distance" is a common expression here on the forum. It means that shifting a weight outward so as to cause a gain in horizontal distance and thus a gain in torque also requires a shift in a vertical distance else there is no over all gain. Any shift of vertical distance will exactly match the gain caused by the horizontal shift.
Of course if you find some magical means to shift the weights higher at 6 and 12 o'clock (or anywhere else) then the wheel will gain energy due to the magical shifting and gravity is then just an intermediary force between the magical input and the work output.
Of course if you find some magical means to shift the weights higher at 6 and 12 o'clock (or anywhere else) then the wheel will gain energy due to the magical shifting and gravity is then just an intermediary force between the magical input and the work output.