Peter Lindemann

[ruggerodk]

Very interesting link Ralph - thanks ;-)

I couldn't help notice that the tension (or weight) of the weight at the down position (maxG at 06:00) is doubled up going from 2.5 at rest to 5.0.

And at the point of weightless the weight is reduced to 0.5, which is 1/5 of its weight at rest.

Looking at the "Double Pulley Pendulum" movie shows a very surprising feature: The right and left vertical 'edge' of the swinging pendulum seems to increase through its fall, while at the same time the angle to its pivot point getting smaller and smaller.

Also - I noticed that on the first swing after release, the pull starts after 06:00, while on the rest of the swings the pull is applied through the whole swing.
This indicates, that some of the pull force is transfered from one swing to the next...?

regards
ruggero ;-)

[AB Hammer]

Alan;

I dont know what you mean by "Walker"...and I still cannot see the point of your statement concerning the weights positioned between 03:00 and 06:00, as this is exactly where you will see the 'weight' occur on a waterwheel...?

But what I can say is, that my design as suggested has 8 'compartment' or - if you prefer - 8 sections. Each section contain a separate double escapement with one pendulum and spring.

All 8 sections turns with the wheel at all time, holding their positions respective to eachother.

You need at least 4 sections to make it run.

Also - my design does not need a cam.
The escapement is a matter of simple mechanical lever functionality, and one way to do that is by gravity or springs.

regards
ruggero ;-)

ruggero

A walker is a device that mimics a hamster in a cage. As it roles around it try's to walk up the descending side yet always falling back down to the bottom.

The 3 to 9 is what I like to call the keel line. If you have more weight below it than above. How are you going to get it to lift? I will ask alone if I can post one of our joint wheel designs that I built. It shows a very good overbalance but it still didn't work due to the keel line of the counter weights.

As per the 3 to 6 for a water wheel is wrong. for a water wheel is 1:30 to 4 o'clock position for the best power unless it is on a stream then it is 7:30 to 4:30.

I have a wheel design that kicks out at 1:30 and it pulls up at 6 in a clockwise spin. I was very proud of it and and anyone that sees it will believe it to be a possible runner. But all and all it will keel. So the fish wheel like I called it , becomes sushi. lol

All and all I think you need to go ahead and build it. For your understanding and your learning for if you believe in it that much. Like Ralph says, it will eat at you until you do build it. I can only say what I see.

[DrWhat]

Animation of original

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GY0oz0iTiI

[ruggerodk]

Alan:
Thanks for your reply...

I think we talking about two different things here.

The reason why the cage is turning is because of the hamster walking and pushing down on the descending side.
i.e. the mouse is not falling to the buttom because the wheel is turning.

The 3 to 9 is what I like to call the keel line. If you have more weight below it than above. How are you going to get it to lift?

Sorry, but I still can't follow your reasoning:
Try imagine a hamster cage wheel.
Fasten one single weight on the wheel at 03:00 position and let go.
What will happen?
The weight falls and the wheel turn.
Then...At 06:00 you let the weight fall out of the cage.
So now we have an empty hamster cage.
And it will run a little while longer.

Repeat the cycle, and you have a runner.

"But what about rising and lifting the weights back up?", you will perhaps argue.

My answer to that is: First thing first.
If we can agree on the first case mentioned above, we can continue and take the next step....

I will ask alone if I can post one of our joint wheel designs that I built.

If you a referring to a built that are based on the design drawings I sent you and to our mutual agreement, I would appreciate if you will kindly send it to me as e-mail or PM, so I can look at it before public publishing.

I am most keen to see what you have accomplished.

Regards
ruggero ;-)

[AB Hammer]

Greetings ruggero

I don't show any bodies joint or otherwise design with out permission. alone is another member of this forum which we had worked together on a few projects. So far close but no runner. It was one that we partnered on.

The hamster cage is what I call the basis on a walker yes. The hamster walks up it to keep from going down but if he stops he would go down. But a system that does a flip or pick up to make the steps walks but the foot goes down. The Asa Jackson wheel I believe was a walker but was rebuilt incorrectly.

Try imagine a hamster cage wheel.
Fasten one single weight on the wheel at 03:00 position and let go.
What will happen?
The weight falls and the wheel turn.
Then...At 06:00 you let the weight fall out of the cage.
So now we have an empty hamster cage.
And it will run a little while longer.

Repeat the cycle, and you have a runner.

This is true if you can reload it. But how to reload?

The keel line is always level to the axle. If there is more weight below the line than above you need a much greater leverage to spin the wheel. I am awaiting the reply from alone to show one of ours.


Alan

[ruggerodk]

Greetings to you too Alan,

I didn't know that "alone" was name.
And I would never question your integrety.

Before I go any further on the reload, I think it is omportant that we agree on some basic lever rules.

Please look at the attached drawing of a simple lever principle of some weight mounted on a wheel.
All weights are 1 kilo (2 lb).

If you look at the distance from the pivot point (i.e. the axle center of the wheel) you'll notice that it changes at 03:00 and 06:00.

Counting the lever-torque from each weight based on the distance to the pivot point, will give you .....a positive net torque.

Do you agree..?

regards
ruggero ;-)

[rlortie]

Ruggerodk,

You graphic looks impressive and I do not think anyone can find much to debate about, However!

How much do you loose getting the weight at six back up into the -1 position? I wish it was that simple. :-)

Ralph

[ruggerodk]

Thank you Ralph I'm glad to hear that my schoolmoney hasn't been totally wasted lol

How do I get it back up?

If I were God I'd probably just snap my fingers....but obviously I'm not, so I have to 'snap' something else.

Imagine at between 06:00 and 07:00 the weight could in some magic way 'snap' from the outer position to the inner position.
At the same time, the weight at 03:00 'snap' from the inner to the outer position.

Would that look like the beginning of a new cycle?

regards
ruggero ;-)

[AB Hammer]

Greetings ruggero

I didn't know that "alone" was name.
And I would never question your integrety.

No problem, handles sometimes run form personal meanings.

Now your example is the basics behind people believing that perpetual motion is possible. Then they build it to find the problem I call keel or equilibrium. The mass weight is bellow the 3 to 9 marks. This example of yours also fits the MT1 for positioning. I disagree with your numbers though. In my view I would say that the ones from 12 and 6 are 0 and the middle +3 would become 1 1/2 or 2. It would still show a positive torque. Even though in a pendulum your greatest power is at the 6 o'clock position and that is downward force and in a wheel it is in a wheel but that is downward force and spinning effect counteract, thus that is why my grid will read that way for a spinning wheel.

I am now in a position that I have to be careful of what I say, due to other projects.

[jim_mich]

The most accurate way to calculate total leverage torque is to us the radius and the angle of each weight to calculate its torque and then add all the torques together. According to your picture, if we use the diameter of a weight as one unit, then the radius out from the center of the wheel to the red weights looks to be 1.5 units and the radius out to the outer green weights looks to be 3.5 units. You show eight weights evenly spaced around the wheel.

The inner green weight is at 45º.
Its torque will be Cos(45º)×1.5 = +1.06

The top red weight is at 90º.
Its torque will be Cos(90º)×1.5 = 0

The red weight at 10:30 is at 135º.
Its torque will be Cos(135º)×1.5 = -1.06

The red weight at 9:00 is at 180º.
Its torque will be Cos(180º)×1.5 = -1.50

The red weight at 7:30 is at 225º.
Its torque will be Cos(225º)×1.5 = -1.06

The bottom green weight is at 270º.
Its torque will be Cos(270º)×3.5 = 0

The green weight at 4:30 is at 315º.
Its torque will be Cos(315º)×3.5 = +2.47

The green weight at 3:00 is at 360º, which is the same as 0º.
Its torque will be Cos(0º)×3.5 = +3.50

Adding them all together you get:
+1.06
+0.00
-1.06
-1.50
-1.06
+0.00
+2.47
+3.50
-----
+3.41421356237 torque

Or you can precisely draw the wheel with weights (say with a CAD program or on paper) and measure each weight's distance right or left from center. In either case these dimension are the 'X' coordinate in the commonly used X & Y coordinate system.

The calculation values change a little as the wheel rotates and as the weights positions change. Thus the torque on any wheel is never constant; it is always changing slightly or greatly depending on positions of the weights and the wheel rotation.

Another thing that many fail to consider is how inertia affects the wheel when weights move in and out. If you have a weight riding the rim of a wheel and you force it to move straight inward, the inertia of the moving weight will push the wheel forward and the weight is forced to slow down due to its more inward radius path. And the reverse is also true. A weight moving straight outward will push the wheel rearward as the weight is forced to speed up to match the rim speed.

Also any weight that falls requires the same energy be used to lift it back up no matter what path the weight takes in falling or rising. Thus there is no way for gravity, by itself, to power a wheel. Gravity can only power a wheel if some other force is involved in lifting the weights.

Bessler said that the weights in his wheel, gain force from their motion which seems to say that the wheel is powered by dynamic forces that come into play when the wheel and weights are moving.

[ruggerodk]

Brilliant Jim...!

That's what I like about this board: There's allways an expert ready to give the novice a helping hand.

Thank you for the calculation Jim ;-D

Then Jim....what are your conclusion?

regards
ruggero ;-)

[Fletcher]

Another thing that many fail to consider is how inertia affects the wheel when weights move in and out. If you have a weight riding the rim of a wheel and you force it to move straight inward, the inertia of the moving weight will push the wheel forward and the weight is forced to slow down due to its more inward radius path. And the reverse is also true. A weight moving straight outward will push the wheel rearward as the weight is forced to speed up to match the rim speed.

Adding to what Jim has said here - this is why momentum is conserved as momentum is a function of a bodies inertia - so if a mass changes radius, in or out, then it wants to travel a straight line path unimpeded - but to change radius it must travel a curved path [in a dynamic wheel] & so the inertia of the translocating mass & the inertia of the wheel proper interact & you get a speeding up or slowing down of both i.e. a mass moving outwards must speed up but due to Newton's equal action & reaction forces the wheel slows down to compensate, & visa versa.

This means that momentum is conserved.

Where it gets interesting is in the situation that Jim described in another thread - where two masses move apart or together from the same starting radius - when you calculate the Kinetic Energy of the weights & add them up mathematically there appears to be a difference in total energy, providing they both gain & loose the same velocity - N.B. momentum is a vector quantity having magnitude & direction, Energy is scalar having magnitude only.

The problem [as I see it] is that we know the Ke is the capacity to do work, so if we can have more total energy in the system by increasing the separation distance along a radial between two masses then that would mean that the system energy quotient could be manipulated up or down at will - the conclusion being that you could separate the masses, bleed off excess energy to do work, use some of that energy to reposition the masses together/closer again, & then repeat the process bleeding net energy out off the system each cycle.

But we know that momentum is conserved & since momentum is a vector quantity [we add & subtract it depending on direction] & function of inertia then from that we can calculate Ke - but energy is not a vector quantity [it has magnitude but not direction, it is scalar] so in a way we're not comparing apples with apples, because we simply add the energies.

The conclusion would appear to be that if momentum is conserved then so must total system energy & you can't actually get a greater total Ke by increasing the mass separation distance because the momentum will automatically be conserved - some will argue that that is circular logic but nevertheless it is true, imo

N.B. what I mean is that if two equal masses are traveling at the same speed in opposite directions on a direct collision course they will both have the same positive Ke [even though travelling in opposite directions] - once they collide [assuming the collision is perfectly inelastic] their net momentum will be conserved & be zero [as it was before the collision] but now their Kinetic Energies are also zero, & their sum wasn't before the collision.

N.B. we are only considering the local conditions or reference frame - even two masses that collide & stick together will have some net momentum in the greater cosmic reference frame because of expansion of space & rotation of galaxies etc.

What is the overriding/dominant principle to consider here then ? - is it conservation of energy or conservation of momentum ? - in the example above it appears that the energy changed, simply because we did not treat it as a vector quantity like momentum ! Momentum Rules !!!

[ruggerodk]

Wouw-wee Fletcher...that was heavy stuff...!

in the example above it appears that the energy changed simply because we did not treat it as a vector quantity like momentum !

Pardon me: Could you please say that in plain words?

regards
ruggero ;-)

[Fletcher]

Sure, I'll try ..

Science says that all objects with mass have momentum - even objects that appear stationary to you will have some net movement because our planet & solar system & galaxy is moving outwards & around at the same time - the analogy is blowing up a balloon - as you inflate it two points on the surface move apart, & this is our universe expanding - that means that you can assign a quantity to any mass, in this case a vector quantity i.e. direction & size - if you work it backwards all vectors condense back to a singularity & zero sum - if you were to vectorize all the mass in the universe [as in a snap shot] it would still zero sum.

Momentum is a convenient way to quantify a masses inertia [i.e. its resistance to change] - convention says its a linear scale of mv, but imo it could easily be any other scale, say mv^2 or even 1/2mv^2 - it doesn't matter because momentum is conserved so what ever scale you choose also conserves - N.B. they don't use 1/2mv^2 because then a vector quantity might get used for a scalar quantity [magnitude/size only] by mistake & we might start confusing Energy apples with Momentum oranges because they look similar, & we don't want to do that !

Momentum/Inertia is a body's resistence to change but in order to quantify it meaningfully we have to apply a force to a moving mass - a force is something that pushes or pulls something - that's all we can say about a force - we can only see how it affects something else - so if we want to find out how much energy is required to stop a moving object we apply a known force until the object stops, or conversely we accelerate it from a velocity to a new higher velocity - we measure how much force was applied over how much distance to get work done & then we see how long it took to figure out the power required.

So, energy is the capacity to do work & work is fxd - N.B. 'sGravesande did some experiments dropping lead shot into soft clay & measuring how deep they penetrated - he came up with the formula that Energy of Motion [Kinetic Energy] was mv^2 - later that was refined by other scientists & experimentalists to 1/2mv^2, which we accept as being accurate today.

The upshot is that conservation of momentum is the prime law in the Newtonian universe because it always sums to zero - if you want to know how much energy of motion a body has you use 1/2mv^2 & that tells you its capacity to do work i.e. speed up or slow down an object with mass - but you wouldn't try to say how much Energy of Motion or capacity to to work an object has by using the Momentum scale of mv because it wouldn't make sense compared to experimental results - so one is an apple & the other is an orange.

Therefore, when two masses are moved out & in on a wheel to new radiuses where their theoretical combined average velocity is the same as it was before moving apart, mathematically there would appear to be an increase in energy of motion [when they are calculated & summed] that might be able to be used to do work - but that energy calculation has taken no account of the premise that momentum is always conserved so you can't get one increasing by 5 mph & the other decreasing by 5 mph in a linear fashion where the average velocity remains constant - as soon as you increase or decrease the separation distance you create a new twisting torque around the center of gyration [another inertial consideration] which leads to a new average velocity, so Jim's math would seem incomplete to me i.e. momentum is conserved & energy is conserved.

These are just my opinions.

[graham]

These are just my opinions.

Fletcher I'm very impressed with your posts here and I confess that it took several "reads" to grasp all that you were saying.
Thanks for your input and for laying to rest Peter Lindemanns' proposals and his design.

So now it's back to the drawing board.

Graham