A Gravity Wheel using 360 degrees???

[Ant]

If there has been a similar design to my post above using the same math tried tested and failed then fair enough, I will down tools and give up.

I have not seen one that conforms to what I am proposing to build so I will continue to build it.

[Ant]

Anybody checked out this link - museum of unworkable devices?

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/un ... #neverwork

It contains the cartoon I referred to earlier.

Here http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/psych.htm is the best bit...

"Suppose someone claimed he could make a flat (plane) triangle with equal sides but unequal angles. He doesn't actually show us the triangle, though. Suppose he supported that conclusion with 15 pages of dense mathematics. Should we believe him? Should we bother to check all of that mathematics? Should we say, "Well you might be correct?" Should we refrain from drawing conclusions? No. We should suspect that he made a mistake somewhere in his math. We would conclude that he didn't understand mathematics very well, or he wouldn't even have done all of that math. If we took the trouble to show him the specific place where he made the math error, and he still insisted his conclusion was correct, we would be justified in concluding that he's a wacko on this subject."

I have the same flat (plane) triangle with equal sides but unequal angles posted on youtube at this link...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Yyqxq6UVqM
or seen a different way here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3qikFk9wwc

It is just a point of view.

[broli]

Anybody checked out this link - museum of unworkable devices?

Of course but more than checking out I haven't done. I have nothing to find on a website that opposes my believes..

[AB Hammer]

Greetings Antony

I borrowed a picture of MT1 from orffyre.com and modified it with track example as if it had 8 scissor jacks to give example, so you may see what I see. You have to look at it as what goes down, must come up.

Please forgive the art it was a very quick job.

[AB Hammer]

@ Antony

Here are a couple of my scissor jacks with weights. It became a very good lesson in balance. and yours has to get up past 9:00 to reset and natural swings will not allow it up that far. But don't give up on what you started for they can still be very useful.

[Ant]

Excellent Alan a big THANKS for posting the pictures.

I note you are using the same length 'square' in your scissor jack.

I am using incrementing ones.

To give you an idea to the math I am using - to replicate my square consisting of 31 X's to enclose 30 1/8th inch incrementing squares - a string of those single size scissor jacks you're holding would need to be 466 X's long.

The string of single size scissor jacks as a mechanism would only be recognized as a single units because they are not incremented. By incrementing them, a scale is set by the smallest square and the increment size. I am going for minimum energy hence my 1/8 inch increment.

To apply them to my math apart from being so long they would need the weights removed and for maximum swing 8 thick. No doubt you have discovered added weight retards the mechanism.

As long as they are single length squares it does not matter if the square is 4 inch squares or 4 feet square, the whole mechanism will only recognize the string of scissor jacks as one square unit each extension, hence the insane length. 1+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9+10+11+12+13+14+15+16+17+18+19+20+21+22+23+24+25+26+27+28+29+30=466

[Ant]

Greetings Antony

I borrowed a picture of MT1 from orffyre.com and modified it with track example as if it had 8 scissor jacks to give example, so you may see what I see. You have to look at it as what goes down, must come up.

Please forgive the art it was a very quick job.

Hi again Alan

Please forgive me if this sounds a bit weird but the large ends of my scissor jacks are intended to be fixed at 12, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 & 11 o'clock. The reason I put the the mechanism test of 4 arms so close to the axle was because of the size of perspex I had left over in the shed. In the final model I will need to pin the large end of the scissor jack mechanism higher on the wheel to accommodate 6 on one side and 6 on the other. Incidently as I said earlier it will now be designed differently because of the mechanism test.

The drawing you have shown has 8 segments - if there are 360 degrees in a circle - this model will need to be 8 arms at 46 X's with I believe 1/32 inch incremented squares, the scissor mechanism again 8 thick for maximum swing all to to create minimum rotation. NO additional weight just the large end pinned at 12, 1:30, 3, 4:30, 6, 7:30, 9 & 10:30 clock positions.

Or 8 single length scissor strings comprized of 1036 X's.

[Ant]

Oh... the width of the bars may need to be smaller to facilitate the smaller increment, and full closing at 6 o'clock, I put my estimate of width at 1/8th inch.


Thanks for letting me know Broli, the thickness of bar was an after thought. I need to stress that it is important that the open-wave-closed at 6 o'clock for each arm is important part of the mechanisms function. As there is a difference in increment there must be a difference in bar width.

[broli]

I believe you can edit your posts Ant no need to keep making new posts if noone has replied.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Antony....I wanna thank you for this link...

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/psych.htm

For a PMM to work, some well-established physics principle would have to be broken or bent by a considerable amount, an amount large enough that it could be experimentally tested. Or some new phenomena would have to be operating to produce an easily observable effect on performance. We are not talking "small effects" here. If the inventor could identify the part of the device that does those remarkable things, that part could be isolated and tested. Yet the inventor usually cannot identify that part, or propose a way to make the test.

This is where I am at......I believe it is going to stand out, not just a little thing....it's going to be so obvious it will be a ....."What the heck just happened!" moment.

I have followed what you are doing for a good while now and await the results. As far a building it goes.....there is no other conclusion that would be acceptable at this point. Build it!


Steve

[Ant]

Thanks for the encouragement Steve.
The 12 arm version is in the process of being built.
The time I spend building it and the equipment I have is somewhat restricted but I will get there eventually - I estimate about 3 months.

[Ant]

For those that have shown an interest.
1/3 done.

I am on target to film something on the next video update due in 1 to 2 weeks time, when I should be near to completing 50% of the 12 arm mechanism.

[Ant]

During a long weekend off, I saw the Stargate Atlantis repeat episode 'The brotherhood'.

As I have now made 8 arms or 'scissor strings' 15 incremented squares long, I thought over the next couple of days I will mount the 8 onto an old wheel housing and experiment on positioning them for optimum swing/movement.

I don't think it can be as easy as playing with the eight constants @ 15 seen in a magic 3 square but as I have the arms made and seen the episode Stargate Atlantis that refers to a zero point module and the magic 3² - Ynot.

8 1 6
3 5 7
4 9 2

[Ant]

The 8 arm at 1 to 15 squared tested and as expected a no goer - no harm in trying.

If the opening arm pinned at 12 o'clock can mechanically assist each arm pinned at 4:30 to close, without loss of displacement, it would work. IMO at this stage the weight of the dropping arm has inadequate force to assist lifting the arm at 4:30 without loss of displacement.

Unlikely to have a video update for a couple of months. I'll wait until all 12 arms are extended to 30 squared, before building a new wheel housing about a metre in diameter in 4mm clear plastic sheeting.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=WQmoMkeYGmE

It shows some displacement but not enough for the next arm to fall ad infinitum...

[Dave Roberts]

Hi everyone. I have been lurking for quite some time. Having been shot down with prior failures, I feel the need to add a little input.
1. My previous designs were way too complicated. Keep it simple. A carpenters apprentice is supposed to be able to build this.
2. Learn from your mistakes. This whole process is highly educational. It is way too easy to get sidetracked. Too many, many times I have felt that I had it (right Ralph?) only to be shot down. I don't quit, I won't quit, I enjoy the challenge.
3. Look for a very low powered wheel, something akin to being near balance.
4. I do not believe a simple OB wheel is the answer and believe Bessler led everyone in that direction just to confuse. Not to say that an OB wheel won't work, I just have never had any success (and I have built many).
5. I personally believe the sizzorjack was just to illustrate movement within the wheel. Too complicated for a carpenters apprentice.
6. I do not believe the springs had any major contribution (although I may be proven wrong), just another way Bessler tried to lead thought processes astray.
Just throwing in my 2 cents but keep in mind my above observations are based on many years of prototype testing. Enough for now, based on reactions to this, I am elaborate further.