"interesting company" contin., I think Eviron has

[Jonathan]

I massivly misunderstood (yes, again) Eviron's device, and now that I have thoroughly looked, I think Eviron has it! However, I don't like their exact version. I want everyone to go there and mull over all their animations.http://www.environenergy.co.uk/environ_ ... ture..html, lower right of page. They apparently use the small shifts of a big weight to store energy in a spring, so that the spring can shoot a small weight from the bottom to the top. Do any of you remember before when I thought it was funny that their device was spinning the wrong way in the diagram? It wasn't, the device is not run by the radius differential of the obvious weights on the outside. In fact, one would perferably want the large weights to change radius as fast as possible, so as to not let them interfere with the unbalance caused by the small weight.

[Jonathan]

several mispellings, I meant Environ.

[Jonathan]

Here is the inequality that must be fulfilled for it to work:
2Wrsin(t)>2wR>.5Wr(sin(t)+sin(t+pi/#s)), (W>w), (R>r), (0<t<pi/2)
Where W is the large weight that oscillates on it's spoke, r is the distance it oscillates through, w is the small weight that flies up through the middle of the device when it is at the bottom, R is the radius of the wheel, #s is the number of spokes, and t is theta.
Now this inequality takes some explaining. I made the simplification that W moves through r instantaneously, and that it is not allowed to do this until it is some angle t above horizontal. All masses are assumed to be point masses, and the mass (and losses) of various mechanisms that make it work are ignored since they would/could perferably be light(and greased). The maxium radius that w and W can orbit at is assumed to be the same as R.
Now, this equation will never be true for all t, and that is the point. This equation is used to determine, given W, w, r, R, and #s, the interval over which W can be allowed to fall. One would then pick those numbers so that the angular interval is of reasonable amount to allow gravity to pull W through r in a reasonable amount of time.
Now I can't be sure I did this correctly, but I think that this math coupled with the fact that it seems like it might work would warrant an attempt.
Included is a graph showing the acceptable interval that occurs with one possible choise for numbers. To make the equations simpler, I have defined W to be some simple multiple of w and R to be some simple multiple of r. Because I cannot graph in four dimensions, I havn't as yet found a way to calculate the optimum amount for each variable.

[ovyyus]

environenergy.co.uk - lots of CAD drawings and animations, yet not a single photo of an actual real-world construction or experiment. Now why is that?

IMO, this is yet another example of a theory being promoted as fact. No beef in this burger at all.

[Nitro]

Jonathan

Wouldn't it seem logical that the amount of PE required to compress the spring, would result in a negative imbalance to the system that the bullet could not over come with the possitive imbalance it creates in the system?

[Guest]

Here is the inequality that must be fulfilled for it to work:
2Wrsin(t)>2wR>.5Wr(sin(t)+sin(t+pi/#s)), (W>w), (R>r), (0<t<pi/2)

Some simple questions for you in the spirit of constructive discourse:
How exactly did you arrive at this equation? Did you think of it yourself or did the company send it to you?
Why must theta be between 0 and pi/2?

How would your mathematical statement be any more relevant or better than this one?:

8Wrsin(t)>4wR>.25Wr(sin(t)+sin(t+pi/#s)), (W>w), (R>r), (1<t<pi/2)

[Big brother]

After looking at the Environ website thoroughly; I would describe it simply as a bad investment waiting to happen; can you imagine how much energy it would take to depress those springs to shoot the weights up to the other side of the wheel?; I'll let you all in on a little tip when evaluating companies to invest in; take a look at who they are hiring; are they hiring millwrights?mechanical engineers?;and so on; or are they hiring computer graphic people to help formulate their pitch; any company with genuinely valuable proprietary info on energy production would never outline its schematics publicly; the company is one big pitch for investment money; they have to use all the graphics of their technology to draw in the unsuspecting investors who don't know any better; I feel sorry for anyone who can't readily see this

[Jonathan]

Yes I do see your point big brother. I have no plans to give them money, I'd rather make my own from their schematics.
Nitro, that is that way it seems to me too, but that's not what the maths are telling me. Of course I could be screwing up the maths very badly, I have made some corrections I'm about to post.
You all have very good points for them being fraudsters. However, I think this device is worth some investigation. Wouldn't it be ironic if fruadsters actually stumbled upon a working design, and didn't even know it?
Guest, I usually give my full reasoning for the math I come up with, but in this case it is kinda hard to explain how I came up with it. But I can easily say that the reason I chose 0<t<pi/2 is that there is no point to going to the trouble of lifting something all the way up pi/2 radians so that it can go back down a few, because that few down will release energy stored by the few extra up. It is like this: why raise something by turning it 100 degrees when you could get it to the same height by turning it 80 degrees (since the interventing two tens are equal and opposite)? One could do that, but there is no reason to.
Okay, now for the small mistake. It is hard to explain what I did wrong, but it results in this:
2Wrsin(t)>2wR>Wrsin(t+pi/#s), (R>r), (0<t<pi/2), and (W>w)
And using that I came to the conclusion that W*r should be just less than two to give an optimally large interval.
If I pick:
W=1.75
w=1
R=2
r=1
#s=8
We get the graph attached.

[Jonathan]

Okay, I am going to try and explain the maths. the term of the inequality that is first, 2Wrsin(t), is the amount of energy released by the shifting of the weights as one from the top and bottom side are given enough of an angle to shift themselves lower. Their are two, so it is 2W, and the height they each fall through is given by rsin(t). Something which I wish I had made clear earlier, is that I am measureing angles with 0 being on the left and pi/2 at the zenith, in a clockwise direction. By a meathod that I have not bothered to figure out, as it would just be a matter of engineering, both weights contribute their falling energy to the spring.
The middle term, 2wR, is the amount of energy released by the small weight as it falls through the distance 2R.
The last term, Wrsin(t+pi/#s), is the amount of energy it takes to turn a balanced wheel (with no small weights) throught the angle t+pi/#s. It occurs to me now that this only holds for designs with an even number of spokes, but since I probably wouldn't make an odd numbered one, this doesn't concern me.
I hope this is helpful and I'm sorry my posts have been hard to follow.

EDIT
You know, something has just occurred to me. Since you all are suspecting of Environ, and my posts are hard to understand, would you all just like me to shut up about it until I have determined if it will work experimentally? I only post these half baked ideas for you guys, because I know I would like it if you all posted all your ideas.

[grim]

Best thing to do if there is question is build a junkbox model and see if the concept's valid, or if it's obviously got problems in design then don't waste your time.

[MrTim]

Exactly. The best wheel ideas look great on paper, but a physical model takes into consideration everything you missed....

[Jonathan]

I think you guys are right, I was getting ready to post a redo of all the math, starting from the simplest possible device and stopping when I have fully modeled it. But even then it will be worth nothing because I will undoubtably make another obvious mistake. So I will develop my ideas alone, do the math just to the extend to convince me it is worth more effort, build a concept model, and go the usual route from there (usu. failure :)). If the concept model is promising too, then I tell you all and start making attempts at workable wheels.

[jim_mich]

Grim, junkbox models can sometimes be built and sometimes not!

I usually spent a LOT of time in planning and sketches. Then if I'm trying to prove a concept, a simple junkyard experiment may suffice, or if it is more complex a computer simulation or calculation maybe? Most any mechanical devices can be computer simulated and animated. I've gotten good at it over the years. Many times I can bang out a simulation quicker than building a model. And if you misjudge something, a few keystokes and it is fixed! and the cost of matterials is zip. Computer simulations help you to really understand what is happening with a device thats moving too fast to see.

[Nitro]

Hey Jim-Mich


What do you use for computer sim. And does it account for all forces?


Big Brother.

That is the same feeling I got,
Seems the only thing there tring to tap is an investers wallet, and not an energy source.

[jim_mich]

Nitro, I use Visual Basic 6.0 and write the programs from scratch. I start with a module I wrote that contains some commonly used sub-programs.