I have a design I stumbled across today, which is actually a combination of a couple different things I have been working on. I had a total failure on one design today, which I was sure WOULD be a failure, but I wanted to see it for myself. (posted here for the curious among you)
http://www.youtube.com/user/11Turion
With that out of my head, I turned to something I was working on earlier using weights and levers and pulleys and such. An entirely new direction. I discovered something, and am more than happy to share it with anyone who is interested. What I would like to do as I build it is explain it as best I can and answer any questions anyone may have as accurately as possible, since I haven't built it yet and am in the process of doing that this week. I worked on the mechanics today to make sure they worked, but have to mount it to a wheel and hook up some larger weights. Here is the description.
1. By the 12:00 position, possibly between 10:00 and 12:00, but no later than 12:00 it will move a weight from near the hub out to the rim at the top of the wheel. At the bottom of the wheel it will move a weight from the rim to the hub at the same time. The weight on the bottom of the wheel equals the weight at the top of the wheel, so there is no weight gain on either side of the wheel, just a movement of weight from hub to rim and conversely, from rim to hub. Equal weight, equal mass. Just a different placement.
2. At the exact same time, it will shift a HUGE weight from the bottom half of the wheel to the top half of the wheel, overbalancing the wheel significantly on the top half. And I mean a BIG weight. As MUCH weight as I want without breaking the wheel. BUT that weight is not that far from the hub. Now we have unequal mass on the top of the wheel at the 12:00 position ready to fall and pull the wheel around with it, AND we have the weight that just got moved out to the rim at the 12:00 position which would normally just shift the wheel a little, since there is a mass on the opposite side of the wheel to balance it (only closer to the hub), but this time I think if it shifts just a little, we will get 180 degree rotation because of the big mass that is also at the 12:00 position, but closer to the hub. Close to three times as much mass (weight) on the top of the wheel ready to fall as there is on the bottom half of the wheel.
3. When the wheel has rotated 180 degrees from wherever the original shift took place ( ie if it began at...10:00 11:00 or 12:00) the action will be repeated. The huge weight that WAS at the top when we started and is now at the bottom, will move back to the top half of the wheel. The weight which is at the hub on the top will move out to the rim, and the weight that is at the rim on the bottom will move in to the hub.
That's it. That's what I've got. The mechanics I have already tested, and they work. Of that I am positive. What I DON'T know is will it rotate the wheel. What do you think guys???
I haven't figured out the amounts of the weights yet for my 3 foot wheel, but I'm thinking I have a whole bunch of 5 and 8 lb weights, and I can make the "HUGE weight" as much as I want to make it.
Mechanically, this works. I've already tried it. Whether it will make the wheel turn is another story. There may be some bugs in the mechanics I have to work out when things start spinning around, but nothing serious. I'm still trying to decide whether to do some of it with pulleys and cables, or with rods and levers. but either way it works. It would work rotating in either direction. The million dollar question is will it rotate? Any thoughts?
Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Moderator: scott
Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Last edited by 11Turion on Sun Jul 24, 2011 6:57 pm, edited 2 times in total.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
11Turion
I liked your video. A common sight with builders. I am a bit heat fried from work so I will take a closer look when I have a clearer head. But keep up the good work.
I liked your video. A common sight with builders. I am a bit heat fried from work so I will take a closer look when I have a clearer head. But keep up the good work.
"Our education can be the limitation to our imagination, and our dreams"
So With out a dream, there is no vision.
Old and future wheel videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/ABthehammer/videos
Alan
So With out a dream, there is no vision.
Old and future wheel videos
https://www.youtube.com/user/ABthehammer/videos
Alan
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Attached is a bad drawing of the basic mechanism. This is a SIDE view of the wheel (remember, a SIDE VIEW), and pivot points are marked with a red circle. There are two weights joined by a rod and the weights slide up and down in a track. In the center of the rod that connects the two weights is a connecting rod that goes to a third weight. In my drawing I mistakenly show the rod that connects the two weights as solid. I know from experience that it has to be two rods that meet the pivot point with the third rod because they have to move independently of each other. As the wheel spins and the two weights connected by the rod slide up and down in their track. The weight in the center will shift from the bottom half of the wheel to the top half of the wheel on its pivot point. There would be one of these mechanisms on EACH SIDE of the axle so that the wheel is balanced, and they would be connected to each other so that the weights would all slide at the same time. This weight mechanism would be at the center of the wheel on each side of the axle.
Let's look at just one of the two mechanisms that there would be on the wheel. With the length of the arms being equal on both sides of the pivot point and two 5 pound sliding weights, you could move 10 pounds from the bottom half of the wheel to the top half. And even though the weights slide, one is pushing and one is pulling, and each remain on its own half of the wheel. By using the mechanical advantage of a longer arm on the sliding weight side of the pivot point, you can lift an even larger weight. I haven't experimented to see exactly how much yet. It would depend on how THICK you want to make the wheel and how heavy you want to make the sliding weights. With an 18 inch thick wheel, you could gain some pretty significant mechanical advantage and move some serious weight to the top half of the wheel.
In this drawing I only show the sliding weights moving ONE weight from the bottom half of the wheel to the top half. You could have the sliding weights connected to two more weights, one at each end of the track, and it would move these weights:
1. From the rim toward the hub at one end
2. From the hub toward the rim at the other end.
I hope this makes sense.
I had a strange thought yesterday. What if the 8 knocking sounds per revolution that people heard when Bessler's wheel was turning was just some small steel balls he put in there to bang around while the wheel moved (to no effect) to confuse people who heard it while it was working. Or am I just naturally devious?
Let's look at just one of the two mechanisms that there would be on the wheel. With the length of the arms being equal on both sides of the pivot point and two 5 pound sliding weights, you could move 10 pounds from the bottom half of the wheel to the top half. And even though the weights slide, one is pushing and one is pulling, and each remain on its own half of the wheel. By using the mechanical advantage of a longer arm on the sliding weight side of the pivot point, you can lift an even larger weight. I haven't experimented to see exactly how much yet. It would depend on how THICK you want to make the wheel and how heavy you want to make the sliding weights. With an 18 inch thick wheel, you could gain some pretty significant mechanical advantage and move some serious weight to the top half of the wheel.
In this drawing I only show the sliding weights moving ONE weight from the bottom half of the wheel to the top half. You could have the sliding weights connected to two more weights, one at each end of the track, and it would move these weights:
1. From the rim toward the hub at one end
2. From the hub toward the rim at the other end.
I hope this makes sense.
I had a strange thought yesterday. What if the 8 knocking sounds per revolution that people heard when Bessler's wheel was turning was just some small steel balls he put in there to bang around while the wheel moved (to no effect) to confuse people who heard it while it was working. Or am I just naturally devious?
- Attachments
-
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
I have been playing around with this for a couple days now. Maybe sometime next week I will post a you tube video. I think my description is already accurate enough for anyone interested in replicating it.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
I said I would try to get a video made, and so here is one of just the mechanism. It goes flat against the wheel, just like it was flat on my work bench. One on each side of the axle. The two sliding weights remain on their own "half" of the wheel, so there is equal weight/mass on both sides of the wheel. Only the middle weight shifts from bottom to top as the wheel rotates.
http://www.youtube.com/user/11Turion
I haven't mounted it on a wheel yet to see what happens, since I need two of them at minimum to balance the wheel. I ran out of parts for the second one because the first one took more rods than I had envisioned. I thought I could get away with only one rod going to each weight, and I could have if I had a machinist make my stuff, but with this home built job I needed two. Couldn't go to the hardware store because I left my wallet in my wife's car and she took it to work. If it isn't one thing going wrong, it's another. By tomorrow I'll have the rest of my hardware, and I should have it built and mounted on the wheel in the next day or two, or three, or four.
Nobody has commented on what they think of this design yet, so I hope it's not completely ridiculous. Wouldn't be the first stupid design I have come up with though! LOL
http://www.youtube.com/user/11Turion
I haven't mounted it on a wheel yet to see what happens, since I need two of them at minimum to balance the wheel. I ran out of parts for the second one because the first one took more rods than I had envisioned. I thought I could get away with only one rod going to each weight, and I could have if I had a machinist make my stuff, but with this home built job I needed two. Couldn't go to the hardware store because I left my wallet in my wife's car and she took it to work. If it isn't one thing going wrong, it's another. By tomorrow I'll have the rest of my hardware, and I should have it built and mounted on the wheel in the next day or two, or three, or four.
Nobody has commented on what they think of this design yet, so I hope it's not completely ridiculous. Wouldn't be the first stupid design I have come up with though! LOL
Hi 11Turion,
That's some good stuff you have going there. Your craftsmanship really shows in what you've come up with so far.
I don't know if I think that small amount of weight shift would be enough to sustain overbalance. I do however think that there are other ways to exploit this motion/amplify it.
E
That's some good stuff you have going there. Your craftsmanship really shows in what you've come up with so far.
I don't know if I think that small amount of weight shift would be enough to sustain overbalance. I do however think that there are other ways to exploit this motion/amplify it.
E
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
erick,
It isn't a small amount of weight. Using those two 10 pound sliding weights I can move 30 or 40 pounds to above the center point, just because of the leverage they have. That would give me 50 pounds on the top half of the wheel vs 10 pounds on the bottom half.
The question remains, will it rotate the wheel 180 degrees to set off the second movement of the weights in the opposite direction. I have also thought of adding a LOT of mass around the rim, because even though it would all be balanced, once you get that mass moving in a specific direction, it wants to continue moving in that direction. The way the weight flops out from the wheel requires that the wheel be thick. Two of these on one side of the wheel and two on the back that are 90 degrees offset would be very, very interesting because if you can picture it in your mind, once you have raised a weight above center at the 12:00 position, and YOU rotate the wheel just slightly to the right, now the right side of the wheel has an extra 20 or 30 pounds on it to pull the wheel down, and once that weight has rotated 90 degrees to the right, to the 3:00 position, you have the weight on the Back side of the wheel coming to the 12:00 position. You have continuous weight on the right side of the wheel from 12:00 all the way around to 6:00 where they are reset, and you never have any weights from 6:00 back up to the 12:00 position on the left side of the wheel.
I am very excited about this whole concept. Don't know if it will work, but I can dream can't I??
It isn't a small amount of weight. Using those two 10 pound sliding weights I can move 30 or 40 pounds to above the center point, just because of the leverage they have. That would give me 50 pounds on the top half of the wheel vs 10 pounds on the bottom half.
The question remains, will it rotate the wheel 180 degrees to set off the second movement of the weights in the opposite direction. I have also thought of adding a LOT of mass around the rim, because even though it would all be balanced, once you get that mass moving in a specific direction, it wants to continue moving in that direction. The way the weight flops out from the wheel requires that the wheel be thick. Two of these on one side of the wheel and two on the back that are 90 degrees offset would be very, very interesting because if you can picture it in your mind, once you have raised a weight above center at the 12:00 position, and YOU rotate the wheel just slightly to the right, now the right side of the wheel has an extra 20 or 30 pounds on it to pull the wheel down, and once that weight has rotated 90 degrees to the right, to the 3:00 position, you have the weight on the Back side of the wheel coming to the 12:00 position. You have continuous weight on the right side of the wheel from 12:00 all the way around to 6:00 where they are reset, and you never have any weights from 6:00 back up to the 12:00 position on the left side of the wheel.
I am very excited about this whole concept. Don't know if it will work, but I can dream can't I??
Last edited by 11Turion on Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.
Hi 11Turion,
I wasn't necessarily talking about the amount of mass shifting, more the distance the mass travels. I do however think that the movement can be amplified.
To me, this concept has alot of promise. I'd be interested to know the opinions of the more educated (in physics) members. I'm interested to see the results of your tests!
E
I wasn't necessarily talking about the amount of mass shifting, more the distance the mass travels. I do however think that the movement can be amplified.
To me, this concept has alot of promise. I'd be interested to know the opinions of the more educated (in physics) members. I'm interested to see the results of your tests!
E
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
I see what you mean. I think I need to extend the weight so it is farther away from the hub of the wheel. It just requires a longer rod. The pivot point can also move up and down. What is needed is someone with some engineering skills to take a look at this and figure out what the lowest point you can have the pivot point is for the leverage you need to move the weights against friction and everything else. Right now it's just hit or miss, but I have time, so I will be working it all out. If I have any slight success, for instance, the wheel actually rotates 180 degrees, I will have some parts machined and that will eliminate a heck of a lot of the friction issues.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
For this mechanism to sustainably overbalance (and any OB mech), you would need to lift more weight than is dropping... In your vertical mechanism:
The falling weight (mass x distance) is greater than lifting weight (mass x distance.) All distance is measured vertically. This is common law in leverage.
As gravity pulls towards earth, you can not with simple leverage lift more weight than drops... Hence the difficulty of the problem.
The falling weight (mass x distance) is greater than lifting weight (mass x distance.) All distance is measured vertically. This is common law in leverage.
As gravity pulls towards earth, you can not with simple leverage lift more weight than drops... Hence the difficulty of the problem.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
If the length of the pivot arms on each side of the fulcrum are equal, you cannot lift more than you drop. If they are unequal, you can.
Because one of the weights remains on the top half of the wheel even though it "drops" its weight is counted toward the mass on the top half of the wheel. There can be a large difference in mass between the top and bottom, and between the right and left with this mechanism, even if you ONLY lift an amount equal to what you drop.
Because one of the weights remains on the top half of the wheel even though it "drops" its weight is counted toward the mass on the top half of the wheel. There can be a large difference in mass between the top and bottom, and between the right and left with this mechanism, even if you ONLY lift an amount equal to what you drop.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Consider a circle of wood with an axle. To get it to rotate180 degrees (similar to what you are trying to do,) you have to place a mass at 12:00. Now the mass rotates to 6:00. Then to get it to re-rotate back to its original position, you either need to place a larger weight at 12, or lift the weight at 6 into the 12:00 position.
Turn your mechanism so that it is horizontal, and place it on a fulcrum at its centre. If the small weights can lift the large when vertical, when horizontal, the assembly will rotate away from the large weight... you are expecting the large weight to drive the wheel, but the opposite is happening.
Add: Understanding leverage is the most important thing IMO to understanding gravity's conservativeness. (If that makes sense)
Turn your mechanism so that it is horizontal, and place it on a fulcrum at its centre. If the small weights can lift the large when vertical, when horizontal, the assembly will rotate away from the large weight... you are expecting the large weight to drive the wheel, but the opposite is happening.
Add: Understanding leverage is the most important thing IMO to understanding gravity's conservativeness. (If that makes sense)
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
With one mechanism on the wheel and a clockwise rotating wheel, when the mechanism is at the 12:00 position, the two 10 pound weights slide down, lifting the larger 20 pound weight to above the center axle. One 10 pound weight is always above the axle and one ten pound weight is always below the axle, even AFTER the sliding movement. The range of slide of the two weights does not allow them to cross over that center line. You now have 30 pounds above the axle and 10 below.
As the wheel continues to rotate to the right, and the mechanism becomes horizontal, (90 degrees of rotation) you have 30 pounds on the right hand side of the axle and only 10 pounds on the left, which SHOULD aid in the clockwise rotation of the wheel. I'm not sure why you think it would not rotate to the right when there is three times as much weight on the right side of the wheel as there is on the left. I am confused. I think I understand what you are saying. You appear to think that for the two smaller weights to lift the larger weight, they have to be on the same side of the center point of the wheel, in which case you would be correct, because they would be in balance with the larger weight, or the two smaller weights would have to total more weight than the larger weight to lift it. This is not the case. In this design, one small weight is always below the center point and one is always above the center point. The only thing that moves above and then below the center point is the large weight. It's weight is added to the small weight on whichever side of the axle it is on. Since the two small weights are of equal weight and balance each other, the large weight's movement always unbalances the wheel.
When the wheel has rotated 180 degrees, the weights will again slide, lifting the 20 pound weight from below the axle to above the axle. If the wheel continues to rotate clockwise, you STILL have 30 pounds of weight above the axle or to the right of the axle. The only time there is 30 pounds of weight below the axle is from the 3:00 position to the 6:00 position, which aides in the clockwise rotation of the wheel, and at 6:00 the 20 pound weight is always reset to above the axle. It is never below the axle (except from 3:00 to 6:00) or to the left side of the axle on a clockwise rotating wheel.
There is always more weight above the wheel and on the right side of the wheel than there is on the bottom half of the wheel (except when the large weight is moving from 3:00 to 6:00) or on the left side of the wheel in a clockwise rotating wheel.
There has to be two of these mechanisms on the front of the wheel to balance the left side of the wheel with the right side, and I am also putting two of them on the back. If the two on the front are horizontal, the two on the back will be vertical.
With two on the back, there is a shift every 90 degrees of rotation and there is always more weight above the axle and to the right of the axle. I have drawn it out. For 90 degrees of the rotation there is 60 pounds of weight rotating from the 12:00 position toward the 6:00 position with only 20 pounds being moved from 6:00 to 12:00. This is how it will ALWAYS be, because the larger weight always resets at 6:00. And that is assuming the large weight is only twice as much as the two small weights. It may be possible, because of leverage, to use the two smaller weights to lift MORE than twice their weight. I am not sure yet. Somebody with a solid physics background could probably tell me.
I put a single mechanism on a test wheel, and that is the way it works. I took pictures of every 10 degrees of rotation to see where things reset and where the weights are during rotation. Gravity is my friend in this design. It is a matter of the right length of rods and the right weights.
I am not saying it will self run, but I have yet to see why it will not.
As the wheel continues to rotate to the right, and the mechanism becomes horizontal, (90 degrees of rotation) you have 30 pounds on the right hand side of the axle and only 10 pounds on the left, which SHOULD aid in the clockwise rotation of the wheel. I'm not sure why you think it would not rotate to the right when there is three times as much weight on the right side of the wheel as there is on the left. I am confused. I think I understand what you are saying. You appear to think that for the two smaller weights to lift the larger weight, they have to be on the same side of the center point of the wheel, in which case you would be correct, because they would be in balance with the larger weight, or the two smaller weights would have to total more weight than the larger weight to lift it. This is not the case. In this design, one small weight is always below the center point and one is always above the center point. The only thing that moves above and then below the center point is the large weight. It's weight is added to the small weight on whichever side of the axle it is on. Since the two small weights are of equal weight and balance each other, the large weight's movement always unbalances the wheel.
When the wheel has rotated 180 degrees, the weights will again slide, lifting the 20 pound weight from below the axle to above the axle. If the wheel continues to rotate clockwise, you STILL have 30 pounds of weight above the axle or to the right of the axle. The only time there is 30 pounds of weight below the axle is from the 3:00 position to the 6:00 position, which aides in the clockwise rotation of the wheel, and at 6:00 the 20 pound weight is always reset to above the axle. It is never below the axle (except from 3:00 to 6:00) or to the left side of the axle on a clockwise rotating wheel.
There is always more weight above the wheel and on the right side of the wheel than there is on the bottom half of the wheel (except when the large weight is moving from 3:00 to 6:00) or on the left side of the wheel in a clockwise rotating wheel.
There has to be two of these mechanisms on the front of the wheel to balance the left side of the wheel with the right side, and I am also putting two of them on the back. If the two on the front are horizontal, the two on the back will be vertical.
With two on the back, there is a shift every 90 degrees of rotation and there is always more weight above the axle and to the right of the axle. I have drawn it out. For 90 degrees of the rotation there is 60 pounds of weight rotating from the 12:00 position toward the 6:00 position with only 20 pounds being moved from 6:00 to 12:00. This is how it will ALWAYS be, because the larger weight always resets at 6:00. And that is assuming the large weight is only twice as much as the two small weights. It may be possible, because of leverage, to use the two smaller weights to lift MORE than twice their weight. I am not sure yet. Somebody with a solid physics background could probably tell me.
I put a single mechanism on a test wheel, and that is the way it works. I took pictures of every 10 degrees of rotation to see where things reset and where the weights are during rotation. Gravity is my friend in this design. It is a matter of the right length of rods and the right weights.
I am not saying it will self run, but I have yet to see why it will not.
Last edited by 11Turion on Tue Aug 02, 2011 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Exciting stuff 11Turion! I have been watching your vids for a while now. Your craftsmanship is excellent :)
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Thanks Steve,
But it's all just flapping the lips until the wheel actually spins. We can all talk ourselves into thinking we have a runner. I always get so ticked off at the guys who come on here and talk about their great idea that they haven't even tried to build as if it were the answer, and here I'm doing exactly the same thing. Only I AM building it just as fast as time and money will allow, and talking about it at the same time. The only reason I talk about it before it is built is because I think it is so important to get stuff out there to trigger something in others. Maybe something I show will inspire the guy who finally comes up with the solution.
I should have two mechanisms mounted to my wheel by the end of the day today, and will post video. Then we'll see what's what. If it looks promising, I'll build the other two mechanisms for the back side. If not.....off we go to something else.
But I do not think I will abandon this sliding weight concept. I love the idea that two weights on opposite sides of the wheel can use their combined weight to do the work of lifting a third weight of the same size, or even substantially larger, if you use leverage. That, I believe, is the solution to the problem somehow, whether it is my design or someone else's. I also like the idea of lifting the weights in that third dimension, out away from the wheel and then back to it, rather than in the direction of rotation or opposite to the rotation. It seems more efficient and somehow cleaner to me. It also explains why Bessler would need such a thick wheel.
But it's all just flapping the lips until the wheel actually spins. We can all talk ourselves into thinking we have a runner. I always get so ticked off at the guys who come on here and talk about their great idea that they haven't even tried to build as if it were the answer, and here I'm doing exactly the same thing. Only I AM building it just as fast as time and money will allow, and talking about it at the same time. The only reason I talk about it before it is built is because I think it is so important to get stuff out there to trigger something in others. Maybe something I show will inspire the guy who finally comes up with the solution.
I should have two mechanisms mounted to my wheel by the end of the day today, and will post video. Then we'll see what's what. If it looks promising, I'll build the other two mechanisms for the back side. If not.....off we go to something else.
But I do not think I will abandon this sliding weight concept. I love the idea that two weights on opposite sides of the wheel can use their combined weight to do the work of lifting a third weight of the same size, or even substantially larger, if you use leverage. That, I believe, is the solution to the problem somehow, whether it is my design or someone else's. I also like the idea of lifting the weights in that third dimension, out away from the wheel and then back to it, rather than in the direction of rotation or opposite to the rotation. It seems more efficient and somehow cleaner to me. It also explains why Bessler would need such a thick wheel.