Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Moderator: scott
-
eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
Turion, no matter what the combination of weights is, or the lengths of the rods, or both, there will never be enough motion to overcome not only the frictions involved, but the tendency for the mechanisms to establish equilibrium underneath the center of gravity - the axle of a wheel in this case. But I know you want to try it anyway, I'm just giving you my opinion.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
eccentricity,
Thanks for the comment, and we can agree to disagree, but I sincerely appreciate the tone in which you disagree. That's what this is all about. Giving each other input and respectfully arguing our positions. I understand what you are saying, but isn't that what we want? We WANT the wheel to try to establish equilibrium, while we continually put it out of balance so it CAN'T. Isn't that the whole idea behind a gravity wheel? It is what I have based all my thinking on. So I hope I don't have to eat crow, but then it wouldn't be the first time, and I buy seasoning in bulk.
I believe with this design that once you set it in motion it will be so overbalanced on one side that no matter when in the rotation you stop it, it will begin to spin on its own again when you let it go. But if you were to stop it and rotate it by hand in the opposite direction, once you got it to the reset position, it would begin to rotate in that direction and continue. Only time will tell. By the end of the week I should have all my answers and I will not slink away into the night if I am all wrong, only move on to the next idea. One thing about me, my humility will never overshadow my enthusiasm. I get wound up about this stuff. My wife says I have an on switch, and it gets flipped on every time I start talking about this stuff, and it takes a crowbar to turn it off.
Thanks for the comment, and we can agree to disagree, but I sincerely appreciate the tone in which you disagree. That's what this is all about. Giving each other input and respectfully arguing our positions. I understand what you are saying, but isn't that what we want? We WANT the wheel to try to establish equilibrium, while we continually put it out of balance so it CAN'T. Isn't that the whole idea behind a gravity wheel? It is what I have based all my thinking on. So I hope I don't have to eat crow, but then it wouldn't be the first time, and I buy seasoning in bulk.
I believe with this design that once you set it in motion it will be so overbalanced on one side that no matter when in the rotation you stop it, it will begin to spin on its own again when you let it go. But if you were to stop it and rotate it by hand in the opposite direction, once you got it to the reset position, it would begin to rotate in that direction and continue. Only time will tell. By the end of the week I should have all my answers and I will not slink away into the night if I am all wrong, only move on to the next idea. One thing about me, my humility will never overshadow my enthusiasm. I get wound up about this stuff. My wife says I have an on switch, and it gets flipped on every time I start talking about this stuff, and it takes a crowbar to turn it off.
-
eccentrically1
- Addict
- Posts: 3166
- Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 10:25 pm
That's why these designs always fail Turion. We can't design them to continually be out of balance. Gravity always wins that race.
The reasoning behind your argument, that we WANT the wheel to reach equilibrium, so we can use that to our advantage is a logical fallacy; a red herring or smoke screen. In this case it doesn't matter what we want. That's irrelevant to a scientific argument. All that matters to science is what we observe. And all observations of gravity thus far have the same conclusion; that it is not a force capable of creating "free" energy; despite everything you've read to the contrary, including about Bessler's wheels.
The reasoning behind your argument, that we WANT the wheel to reach equilibrium, so we can use that to our advantage is a logical fallacy; a red herring or smoke screen. In this case it doesn't matter what we want. That's irrelevant to a scientific argument. All that matters to science is what we observe. And all observations of gravity thus far have the same conclusion; that it is not a force capable of creating "free" energy; despite everything you've read to the contrary, including about Bessler's wheels.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Well, that may well be true. There are many of us that hope it is not. Regardless, it is a fun hobby, and I am learning about gravity and leverage and weights and pulleys. Maybe I will learn something useful in this whole process.
I just got one device bolted to my wheel. It's totally out of balance with only one device in place, but even then it did not do what I expected. With a clockwise rotation by hand, it triggered at the 10:00 position rather than the 12:00. I thought it might go early, but I did not expect it to be THAT early, and that may cause some problems in my design. It means the large weight moves to the top of the wheel when it is still on the left side of the axle, which is counter to the rotation I am trying to achieve. I will wait until I get the second device mounted before I report back on this because tying the two together is one way to delay the triggering until later in the rotation, and I had already thought of that. I don't know if it is going to be a serious problem or a minor glitch.
Here I've been worried about being able to reset a large mass to the top of the wheel and it turns out I can do it easily, but now I have to worry about doing it too SOON.
I just got one device bolted to my wheel. It's totally out of balance with only one device in place, but even then it did not do what I expected. With a clockwise rotation by hand, it triggered at the 10:00 position rather than the 12:00. I thought it might go early, but I did not expect it to be THAT early, and that may cause some problems in my design. It means the large weight moves to the top of the wheel when it is still on the left side of the axle, which is counter to the rotation I am trying to achieve. I will wait until I get the second device mounted before I report back on this because tying the two together is one way to delay the triggering until later in the rotation, and I had already thought of that. I don't know if it is going to be a serious problem or a minor glitch.
Here I've been worried about being able to reset a large mass to the top of the wheel and it turns out I can do it easily, but now I have to worry about doing it too SOON.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Turion, eccentrically1,
It is a pleasure to watch a good optimist-pessimist debate without mud slinging. Each gives the other the incentive to push each other forward.
Turion; I have been keeping up with your videos and am rather impressed and find myself waiting for the next stage.
Your concept so far, I find innovative and very interesting. I suggest you consider that 'Greed' can hinder your design very effectively if you are not careful. It is surprising what only 1 to 1-1/2" will do with 10# weights on a moderate size wheel. Bessler would say something like' Keep the flail close the the thresher'...
By that I mean it may be in best interest to keep the slider weights limited in travel and extend the leverage on the rocker weight. You have here a rendition of the Hammer toy. The less travel you have in the handles (weights) the less OB you have to compensate for with your drive or hammer weight.
A Banned member http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/profi ... file&u=102 Built a large twelve foot wheel with very heavy weights that only shifted approximately 1-1/2". Once set into motion it would run long enough to sucker some people into believing it was either a runner or close enough to invest in.
Point being; Watch out for trading width for height. You know it's going to kill your design.
The fact that it is sliding at 10:00 rather than 12:00 IMO is great, it shows that your friction level is low and within an operable range.
Ralph
It is a pleasure to watch a good optimist-pessimist debate without mud slinging. Each gives the other the incentive to push each other forward.
Turion; I have been keeping up with your videos and am rather impressed and find myself waiting for the next stage.
Your concept so far, I find innovative and very interesting. I suggest you consider that 'Greed' can hinder your design very effectively if you are not careful. It is surprising what only 1 to 1-1/2" will do with 10# weights on a moderate size wheel. Bessler would say something like' Keep the flail close the the thresher'...
By that I mean it may be in best interest to keep the slider weights limited in travel and extend the leverage on the rocker weight. You have here a rendition of the Hammer toy. The less travel you have in the handles (weights) the less OB you have to compensate for with your drive or hammer weight.
A Banned member http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/profi ... file&u=102 Built a large twelve foot wheel with very heavy weights that only shifted approximately 1-1/2". Once set into motion it would run long enough to sucker some people into believing it was either a runner or close enough to invest in.
Point being; Watch out for trading width for height. You know it's going to kill your design.
The fact that it is sliding at 10:00 rather than 12:00 IMO is great, it shows that your friction level is low and within an operable range.
Ralph
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Turion
In this case, is not how much weight above and below the axis that is important, but their position compared to the axis.
In this case, is not how much weight above and below the axis that is important, but their position compared to the axis.
Re: re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
What I was thinking of was extending the movement of the weight through scissor jacks. Theoretically you could counteract the friction the scissors with the leverage applied to the movable arm.11Turion wrote: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.
The thing I really like about this concept is the fact that the scissors would only expand horizontally which as Bessler said is preferable. Obviously this is because you are no longer fighting against gravity plus friction, only the friction...
The issue of the movement of the "prime mover" weight and how much back torque it may create is still the most vexing issue. The thing to do would be to somehow devise a way that it at one (3 o'clock) or the other (9 o'clock) the prime mover weight is in "neutral". That is to say that it is aligned directly over the central axis and is balanced over the fulcrum.
Anway, I had a few goes at these ideas in WM2D and wasn't able to sustain any self rotation. It does jerk violently in the right direction but then only turns about 180 degrees before puttering out. It is however true that, as the name implies, WM2D is only a 2D simulation that cannot exploit the 3rd dimension as you do with your design. I'm not sure that it matters with this design though.
I think more experimentation is in order!
E
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Alan,
I would love a copy of that video. I watch everything I can find to see how things work and to get ideas.
I am still working on getting my second mechanism put together. I am remodeling my kitchen at the same time.
I would love a copy of that video. I watch everything I can find to see how things work and to get ideas.
I am still working on getting my second mechanism put together. I am remodeling my kitchen at the same time.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Tarsier79,
What did you mean by the important thing is the position of the weight in relationship to the axle? In your opinion, what would be the optimal position for the beginning location of a weight to be moved, and the optimal position for it to end up? I would be interested in your thoughts on this.
I'm using a very simple mechanism with my two sliding weights, but the force they exert is considerable. I put the weight they are acting on in the easiest location to take advantage of that force with the simplest mechanism there is, the simple lever. But by using more complex levers, or levers and pulleys, I could have moved a weight FROM anywhere on the wheel TO anywhere on the wheel as long as the distance moved is no greater than the distance from the rim to the hub, or half the diameter of the wheel.
The key to this design is to let gravity drop two connected weights, one below the axle and one above, and let their combined weight, plus leverage, move a third weight, or even two weights at different locations. But since you drop one weight from rim to hub and the other from hub to rim, that is also the distance you can move a third weight.
UNLESS you use gearing, in which case you reduce the AMOUNT of weight you can move, but increase the distance. With the correct leverage and gearing you could probably still use the two 10 pound weights to move 10 or possibly 20 pounds of weight from one side of the wheel to the other, and to probably ANY location. A 1/2 ratio on the gear lets you move the weight twice as far but reduces the amount you can move by 1/2. By using the proper leverage you bring the amount of weight back up to 1/1 or even MORE. I can think of any number of different configurations that will use those concepts, and I will be trying all of them in the near future to see if any one of them work.
What did you mean by the important thing is the position of the weight in relationship to the axle? In your opinion, what would be the optimal position for the beginning location of a weight to be moved, and the optimal position for it to end up? I would be interested in your thoughts on this.
I'm using a very simple mechanism with my two sliding weights, but the force they exert is considerable. I put the weight they are acting on in the easiest location to take advantage of that force with the simplest mechanism there is, the simple lever. But by using more complex levers, or levers and pulleys, I could have moved a weight FROM anywhere on the wheel TO anywhere on the wheel as long as the distance moved is no greater than the distance from the rim to the hub, or half the diameter of the wheel.
The key to this design is to let gravity drop two connected weights, one below the axle and one above, and let their combined weight, plus leverage, move a third weight, or even two weights at different locations. But since you drop one weight from rim to hub and the other from hub to rim, that is also the distance you can move a third weight.
UNLESS you use gearing, in which case you reduce the AMOUNT of weight you can move, but increase the distance. With the correct leverage and gearing you could probably still use the two 10 pound weights to move 10 or possibly 20 pounds of weight from one side of the wheel to the other, and to probably ANY location. A 1/2 ratio on the gear lets you move the weight twice as far but reduces the amount you can move by 1/2. By using the proper leverage you bring the amount of weight back up to 1/1 or even MORE. I can think of any number of different configurations that will use those concepts, and I will be trying all of them in the near future to see if any one of them work.
Hi 11Turion,
Obviously I'm not Tarsier79 but I do have some thoughts on your questions to him. The biggest issue you'll face with this design is the back torque create by your two connected weights. Back troque will be caused by their position relative to the cental axis of the wheel. One important thing to note is that because the "prime mover" weights are connected they will be "felt" by the wheel as though they were one.
As I said in my previous post; I believe a good solution to this issue would be to arrange the "prime mover" weights in such a way that as they shift downward, extending the arm of the other weight, they become perfectly balanced on the main pivot point of the wheel.
Just my 2c...
E
Obviously I'm not Tarsier79 but I do have some thoughts on your questions to him. The biggest issue you'll face with this design is the back torque create by your two connected weights. Back troque will be caused by their position relative to the cental axis of the wheel. One important thing to note is that because the "prime mover" weights are connected they will be "felt" by the wheel as though they were one.
As I said in my previous post; I believe a good solution to this issue would be to arrange the "prime mover" weights in such a way that as they shift downward, extending the arm of the other weight, they become perfectly balanced on the main pivot point of the wheel.
Just my 2c...
E
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Look at the overall centre of gravity before and after the motion.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Ahhh, I get it. So not only does the mass need to be equal on both sides of the wheel, it needs to be balanced because the axle acts as the fulcrum, just like on a see saw. So a weight closer to the rim on the bottom is not a good thing because it makes the wheel bottom heavy. I actually KNEW this, because my whole goal with other builds has been just to move a weight closer to the rim on one side to overbalance the wheel. Why that eluded my brain in THIS design, I will never know! With one mechanism on the wheel (like I have now) If I rotate the wheel by hand until the mechanism is vertical, I will be able to actually "Feel" whether the side with two weights (both closer to the hub) overbalances the side with one weight closer to the rim. Going out to check on that right now, and will
report back.
http://www.youtube.com/user/11Turion?feature=mhee
OK, the side with one weight overbalances the side with the large mass close to the rim. Duhh. I never thought to check this until you guys pointed it out to me. By adding ten additional pounds I can overbalance it in the other direction, and the sliding weights will still flip it. I just checked. Maybe they will be SLOWER to flip it. I hope so. I would rather it flipped closer to 12:00 than 10:00.
I sincerely appreciate all the comments. Without your help I would never be able to improve my design in such a timely manner. I might eventually figure things out, but I'd like to finish this before I die of old age.
I will do as I explained on the video for now, but I have actually already figured out that I want the sliding weight on top to begin halfway between the rim and the hub, and slide in toward the hub. I want the bottom weight to begin at the hub and slide out to halfway to the rim. This way the amount of leverage I have to create with weights on the end of the swinging arm will be less, or at least I THINK it will. I am not a math major! LOL I already thought of a mechanism that will enable me to do that and still use the sliding weights.
report back.
http://www.youtube.com/user/11Turion?feature=mhee
OK, the side with one weight overbalances the side with the large mass close to the rim. Duhh. I never thought to check this until you guys pointed it out to me. By adding ten additional pounds I can overbalance it in the other direction, and the sliding weights will still flip it. I just checked. Maybe they will be SLOWER to flip it. I hope so. I would rather it flipped closer to 12:00 than 10:00.
I sincerely appreciate all the comments. Without your help I would never be able to improve my design in such a timely manner. I might eventually figure things out, but I'd like to finish this before I die of old age.
I will do as I explained on the video for now, but I have actually already figured out that I want the sliding weight on top to begin halfway between the rim and the hub, and slide in toward the hub. I want the bottom weight to begin at the hub and slide out to halfway to the rim. This way the amount of leverage I have to create with weights on the end of the swinging arm will be less, or at least I THINK it will. I am not a math major! LOL I already thought of a mechanism that will enable me to do that and still use the sliding weights.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
See a representation of the driving weights of your mechanism below, having the two smaller sliding weights may be clouding your judgement. This is referred to as the COM of the two weights...
Now can a single 20 pound (in the case of your mechanism) lift more than 20 pounds a greater distance?
Look at your mechanism from the side. Consider the movements of the Com of the two weights, and the flipping weight, and compare them to the picture in the following link... http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 9517#89517
In light of this, I understand you will have to build the second mechanism for your own peace of mind, but don't waste your time building the 3rd and 4th... In fact, why not mount your single mechanism centrally on an open faced wheel, which will give you the same result as 2 mechs either side of the axis.
Now can a single 20 pound (in the case of your mechanism) lift more than 20 pounds a greater distance?
Look at your mechanism from the side. Consider the movements of the Com of the two weights, and the flipping weight, and compare them to the picture in the following link... http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 9517#89517
In light of this, I understand you will have to build the second mechanism for your own peace of mind, but don't waste your time building the 3rd and 4th... In fact, why not mount your single mechanism centrally on an open faced wheel, which will give you the same result as 2 mechs either side of the axis.
- Attachments
-
-
MrTim
- Aficionado
- Posts: 923
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:05 pm
- Location: "Excellent!" Besslerwheel.com's C. Montgomery Burns
- Contact:
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
You can probably eliminate the sliding wts entirely by using a parallelogram to connect everything. (I'm assuming you are using the slide tracks to keep the wts parallel to the side of the wheel.) Just throwing an idea into the mix.... ;-)
"....the mechanism is so simple that even a wheel may be too small to contain it...."
"Sometimes the harder you look the better it hides." - Dilbert's garbageman