Idea I had since elementary school

[Fletcher]

P_F .. peoccupied's animation shows a horizontal shaft - on one end is a square perpendicular [at right angles] to the shaft - the shaft is turned & the square follows - so its like spinning an inflated umbrella in your hands.

Further along the shaft is a swastika - it is free to rotate on the same shaft so with no connection [from the bar linkages] the shaft would turn but the swastika would not.

The swastika is coupled to the square by pivoted connecting rods [4] so the square & swastika are synchronized - the swastika has the same dimensions as the square so if it were a square it would have the same shape & area.

You must assume that there is some spacer on the shaft between the square & the swastika to maintain their distance apart - if there were not a spacer the swastika would have no reason to turn with the square - that's if my assumption that the rod linkages are pivoted - if they are fixed at right angles then all would turn together & no spacer is required - without fixed angle linkages, if there were no spacer, the square would turn, the swastika would move up the shaft towards the square [i.e. the separation would get less] & the linkage rods would form a twisted shape - overall the swastika would lag further & further behind the square as the separation distance got less & less.

The presumption by preoccupied is that somehow the right angle [any angle] formed by the arms of the swastika confers a mechanical advantage which can be amplified over & over by linking in series.

He bases this on the angle arms total length & not the virtual straight line direct points A to B length that we would use.

[preoccupied]

A horizontal axle or 'shaft' exists going in as you can see in the animation coming from the bottom left. The square is perpendicular to the axle, straight up and down, like 90 degrees. I imagine that most people would assume that most wheels on an axle would be perpendicular to it. So let there be no confusion about the orientation of the axle's and the square or swastika. Both the square and swastika sit on an axle in the classic perpendicular fashion.

As you can see in the animation the swastika and the square have different axles. If the square and swastika were attached to something the square axle would be attached to something solid to support all of the pieces position and the swastika would hang by the bars connecting to its hands. I suppose a hollow axle could connect to both allowing two axles to take up the same space but that is not what I have drawn. There is no axle going down the middle of the two in the animation.

The swastika and square are synchronized and any further swastika and squares that can be added later would be synchronized as well. In fact the energy transfer should be instantaneous depending on your belief about whether kinetic energy transfers instantaneously or not.

The animation is all the actions the device would make so since there is no twisting of the bars connecting to the square and swastika there is no twisting of the bars between the square and swastika. It might not make sense by looking at it because nothing seems to change but the pressure given to the swastika's axle will receive mechanical advantage as it appears in the animation if my hypothesis is correct. So lets take this energy transfer one step at a time. Energy is demanded in the form of some kind of resistance by the swastika's axle because of a weight or a high gear ratio or both. The energy would transfer to both the square and the swastika but the energy would travel to THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE. Now I'm not certain exactly where the energy would go but the the right amount of energy would go to the swastika to give it mechanical advantage. I think, though I don't have a physics education, that the energy would travel to the swastika's arm only because the square would have the most resistance because its structure is very solid with many connecting parts. The arm of the swastika would then take the energy given and it would travel evenly through the arm of the swastika. So like all mechanical advantages more force is demanded by the output end than the input end. The input end would be turned on the squares side and the output end on the swastika's axle would get a higher output. The demand for force on the swastika's axle should be 'static', meaning in what I'm trying to say that there would be no kickback it's just sitting there waiting for something to happen. A static demand for force would be like a high gear ratio such as on a bike but because of the swastika, less input would be needed to achieve a higher gear response. THE ANIMATION IS COMPLETE, so all the actions that would be taken are exactly as seen in the animation. Only further explanation of why the animation's actions are important can further an understanding of what is happening.

I hope Fletchers explanation and my follow up response helps make what is happening more clear to everybody.

[AB Hammer]

I don't know why but people seem to think this is an unbalanced gravity wheel. This is a piece of something, we don't know what yet because I haven't been able to explain why the swastika is important to anybody's understanding. This is not an unbalanced gravity wheel. This is a mechanical advantage only. If mechanical advantage can add to another mechanical advantage like my hypothesis states then any amount of extra force can be created as long as more swastika and squares can fit.

Greetings preoccupied

Here is a test I posted on youtube almost 3 years ago. I was working for kinetic advantage and it did prolong the run time to 6 minutes rather than the 3 minutes without the arm weight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhskB-0SjKI

Later I added what I called a kicker. For every time it would slow down the kicker would make contact and advance the spin. but the reset tended to counter about 75% of the gain and it would not help much. Mechanical advantage is only good if you have something to propel the advantage out side of the kinetic energy.

I hope this helps you.
Alan

[preoccupied]

You must assume that there is some spacer on the shaft between the square & the swastika to maintain their distance apart - if there were not a spacer the swastika would have no reason to turn with the square - that's if my assumption that the rod linkages are pivoted - if they are fixed at right angles then all would turn together & no spacer is required - without fixed angle linkages, if there were no spacer, the square would turn, the swastika would move up the shaft towards the square [i.e. the separation would get less] & the linkage rods would form a twisted shape - overall the swastika would lag further & further behind the square as the separation distance got less & less.

The distance between the swastika and the square is for illustration purposes. The swastika and the square can be closer in a working device.

[Reticon]

How heavy was the arm weight Alan? Did you time it with the arm fixed as well? You may have gotten a longer run time just because you added weight to the fly wheel, in fact, IME allowing a lever to move ends up leeching momentum, not enhancing. I'd seriously like to know the specifics of the result cause if your arm action even broke even to the fixed rotation it would be better than I could accomplish.

[AB Hammer]

Reticon

It was the same weight as the weights around the wheel but it was on the arm bolted solidly. I still have the wheel and I painted red and black for my future hobby shop if I can ever afford to build it. Maybe after I can walk again without duel supports.

Alan

[preoccupied]

If there is anyone out there who understands my hypothesis, and wants to consider the hypothetical possibilities of what could happen if it were true, I would like you to register with the website forum if you have not already and give me a green reputation rating. Then post a comment explaining how you understand the hypothesis. That would be appreciated!

The hypothesis is that any amount of mechanical advantage can be created as long as more squares and swastikas can be added. A square on its own axle turns a swastika on its own axle by four bars attached to the corners of the square and swastika. The input is at the axle of the square and the output is at the axle of the swastika. The output of the first swastika's axle is the new input of a new square's axle and turns a new swastika by four bars just like the first. This will repeat and create higher output each time if the hypothesis is correct.

I would like to start discussing the hypothetical applications of this as if it were true. I have some input into that and I would like to hear some input from other people if people can imagine it.

I admit that I have been holding my tongue regarding my frustration that people have not at least hypothetically understood my idea since I made my first post. I think I'm getting better at explaining things now than I was when I first started.

[preoccupied]

This animation is supposed to be a bike with a square and swastika used to amplify the pedals. If my hypothesis is correct a small input can get a large gear to move when normally larger amount of force is necessary to rotate the large gear on a bike. The bike would be able to operate at maximum speed and also minimum input force. A person would be able to accelerate super quickly without working very hard. The blue box at the gears is supposed to be a square and swastika set. A few swastika sets should make a bike super easy to operate if my hypothesis is correct.

[Fletcher]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

Preoccupied .. Look up Mechanics > bottom left corner Work Energy & Power > Work Concepts > Simple Machines

Note that Work Done = Force x Distance.

Any MA [+ or - devices] cannot cheat Conservation of Energy.

[preoccupied]

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

Preoccupied .. Look up Mechanics > bottom left corner Work Energy & Power > Work Concepts > Simple Machines

Note that Work Done = Force x Distance.

Any MA [+ or - devices] cannot cheat Conservation of Energy.

According to My hypothesis you can cheat the conservation of energy. And I hope everyone here wants to be able to do that because otherwise I can't see how one could rationalize being able to make a gravity wheel somehow. Because making a gravity wheel would break the conservation of energy as it is known. So for you all sake lets hope I'm right. =-D

The main thing I like about what you posted is that it is the first real debunk of my idea. I can't defeat it, really, I don't even understand it because I have had no physics education. But I can try to explain my point of view from it. "Note that Work Done = Force x Distance" is different with the swastika. The swastika is like a long plank on a pivot lifting a short plank. For the plank the short plank would lift a shorter distance but require less work to lift that shorter distance and be more manageable so it could be used as a useful tool. The swastika provides mechanical advantage as if it were a long plank and the axle were the short plank but instead of a distance change there is nothing. The distance is programmable. You can even add more mechanical advantage according to my hypothesis. So for a swastika it is "Work Done = Force x whatever you want". If this explanation is correct then my hypothesis is correct. If my hypothesis is correct then we can create a gravity wheel and a variety of other useful mechanical devices that can create energy or amplify mechanical advantage using the swastika.

[Tarsier79]

Preoccupied,

Fletcher is right. Unless your swastika has some flex and becomes a spring, It will act no different to the square, or a single crossbar, or a solid disk with attachment points at the same radius.

The mechanical advantage of peddling a bike isn't due to the swastika, its due to the longer lever the peddle attaches to.

Keep at it and welcome to the forum.

Cheers

[Fletcher]

According to my hypothesis you can cheat the conservation of energy.

And I hope everyone here wants to be able to do that because otherwise I can't see how one could rationalize being able to make a gravity wheel somehow. Because making a gravity wheel would break the conservation of energy as it is known. So for you all sake lets hope I'm right. =-D

Actually the majority here do in fact want to cheat CoE Law & believe a 'Gravity Only' wheel is possible - there is also a much smaller subset [of which I am one] who believe that CoE can't be cheated & that 'Gravity Only' wheels are indeed impossible in every way - that means from our rationale that another source of Energy is required inside the wheel to keep it rotating, cover frictional losses & do external Work.

Output Energy is still less than Input Energy but because of the environment the Input Energy is not clear - that is what we seek.

So, I am the wrong person to be supportive of your idea, as it goes against everything I fundamentally I understand.

Good luck.

[preoccupied]

Preoccupied,

Fletcher is right. Unless your swastika has some flex and becomes a spring, It will act no different to the square, or a single crossbar, or a solid disk with attachment points at the same radius.

The mechanical advantage of peddling a bike isn't due to the swastika, its due to the longer lever the peddle attaches to.

Keep at it and welcome to the forum.

Cheers

I must be wrong but I don't understand why though. You cannot challenge that a right angle bar will not create mechanical advantage because right angle bars creating mechanical advantage is a fact. That is the biggest reason I think there is disagreement with this. You say the swastika would be the same as a solid disk but it is definitely not a solid disk and has not the same fortitude as a solid disk, it would break easily and a lot more tension is collected to a smaller area of the arm of the swastika and because of the smaller area on the arm of the swastika I believe that is the PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE when force is applied. I also believe kinetic energy transfers instantaneously and would spread evenly through the whole set of swastikas and pass by the squares without exerting energy there because there is too much resistance. Somehow a right angle bar creates mechanical advantage when pushed down on and that is important.

I know this would break the CoE but lets look at it from the mechanical advantage perspective. It's not infinite and neither is any mechanical advantage, the lever is just really big because there are so many swastikas. A really big lever has a really big mechanical advantage. I propose that we are projections of time and space and that additional energy can rationally be projected from time and space from actions time and space makes. So kinetic energy is instantaneous but when kinetic energy travels through time and space from a mechanical advantage by time and space, time and space becomes the energy removing the energy instead of kinetic energy being instantaneous. Energy cannot be created or destroyed so because time and space removes energy they give it back in the form of new energy projections. I might be wrong about the details of this new hypothesis about time and space because I haven't got theoretical physics knowledge. Or I mean if I had theoretical physics knowledge my hypothesis about time and space being the form of energy created with the swastika might be better and easier to understand.

[jim_mich]

You cannot challenge that a right angle bar will create mechanical advantage because it is a fact.

A right-angled bar is simply a lever. Levers have leverage when used properly. Somewhere along the line in your life you have acquired a misconception concerning a right angled bar. You need to go back and re-learn what does and what does not happen with your right angle bar.

Just my opinion, which in this case I'm very sure I'm right.

[preoccupied]

square, or a single crossbar, or a solid disk with attachment points at the same radius.Cheers

I'm pretty sure the physics laws for things rotating on an axle aren't that anything within a radius is the same. The laws of physics for regular things should be the same for things on the axle so the CoE would exist and force would seek the path of least resistance. I am trying to discover why I'm wrong about the right angle bar because I must be somehow but so far I still think that the path of least resistance is all the way across the right angle bar. The resistance is taken from the elbow and then the axle also so the whole length of the arm takes resistance making it longer than the radius from the circle. Bessler said something like weights fall on right angles and maybe that is because it is longer than the radius from the circle.

I think that the energy goes to the square and then waits to go to the swastika and passes over the square to the swastika without exchanging energy in the square so that multiple swastika and squares can attach to each other and give each other mechanical advantage from the swastikas. So if this is true even a small amount of mechanical advantage would be useful because the mechanical advantage would be able to be added unto more of the same.

I feel like I'm wrong now even though I can explain why I think I'm right.