Tarsier79,
I understand what you are talking about, but to be fair, we need to look at what is happening in reality. So let me use your drawing to do that. If we assume that the two smaller weights are doing what you show on your drawing. (Basically they ARE) The larger weight is moving from the 0.500 position to the -0.500 position. From one side of the axle to the other if 0.00 is the axle position. This overbalances the wheel.
"Can a single weight of 20 pounds lift more than 20 pounds a greater distance." In the case of the mechanism I currently have built. I can use 20 pounds (2 ten pound weights) to lift 30 pounds. It may be able to lift MORE. I haven't tried.
http://www.youtube.com/user/11Turion?feature=mhee
When the two ten pound weights slide, they are pushing down on one end of a seesaw. There is four times the length of lever on one side of the fulcrum of that seesaw as there is on the other. To lift the same 30 pounds I am lifting a greater distance, the arms would have to be longer and the fulcrum point would have to be moved out from the wheel further. But to answer your question...The answer is yes. A single weight of 20 pounds (two 10 pound weights) CAN lift more than 30 pounds, and move it over a greater distance. Can I do it with my current mechanism? The weight part, absolutely. The distance part, no I cannot. Not without modifications to the arm length and fulcrum point. Which means a thicker wheel, probably around three feet thick. It is a really tricky balancing act. You want the fulcrum at exactly the point where the two sliding weights will still flip the larger weight, but as close to the sliding weight end as you can get it so that the distance you move it is as great as possible. I need to build a device that allows me to raise and lower the fulcrum to get it into balance with the two sliding weights I am using and whatever amount of weight I decide to try and lift into position. I have an idea in mind for that, but busy with so many things! And I KNOW lengthening the arm works, because initially the distance on each side of the axle the large weight was moving did not make me happy, so I lengthened the arm. Now it moves farther above the axle when it flips, and I did NOTHING but put a two inch longer arm on the large weight. Every other single thing remained exactly the same. ALSO to be fair, I am NOT moving the large weight anything like equal to the distance the two sliding weights are moving. I don't NEED to for my design. My only goal was to get it above the axle, and it does that.
Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Moderator: scott
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Last edited by 11Turion on Thu Aug 04, 2011 12:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
"Can a single weight of 20 pounds lift more than 20 pounds a greater distance?"
Not with gravity alone. I asked this question in response to your video, where the leverage of the weight out on the left is counter balancing your other two weights... regardless of where you pivot and lever, your mechanism in its current form shows this, and will do so with any modifications. Before you go any further, try to understand why your mechanism does what it does, vertically, and horizontally.
Not with gravity alone. I asked this question in response to your video, where the leverage of the weight out on the left is counter balancing your other two weights... regardless of where you pivot and lever, your mechanism in its current form shows this, and will do so with any modifications. Before you go any further, try to understand why your mechanism does what it does, vertically, and horizontally.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Tarsier79,
I am trying to examine my device as you suggested. Not that I will EVER get to the point you want me to be at! LOL
Horizontally, there are some changes I can make.
I can put it out of balance on one side by adding more weight to the flipping arm. I THINK you are saying this cannot be done, but I already did it, just by adding another 10 pound weight. If I am mistaken in my interpretation of what you said, I apologize. That's what I am reading into what you wrote.
I need to maximize the amount of weight that is flipped to get a larger differential between the two sides. I need to put so much weight on there that it barely flips at all. I am still working on this. The problem is that it probably won't be enough weight to get the wheel to rotate as much as I need it to.
I can see that I need to maximize the distance I can get the weight to flip above the axle. That would mean lowering the pivot point of the flipping weight, and to do that sacrifices the amount of weight that can be moved, so it is a delicate balance. I need to see how MUCH lower I can make the pivot point and still have the weight clear the axle.
There is a ratio I need to exploit here, and that is for every pound of weight I add to the sliding arms, there is an amount I can add to the flipping weight, and it is MORE than the total of the two sliding weights combined. But as rlortie said, less may be more. I now wish I had sliding weights that I could subtract from, because the same formula applies in reverse.
I also need to minimize the movement away from the hub of the lower sliding arm. I don't know how helpful that will be. The problem is, for every inch I move it in, I also have to move in the counter balancing sliding weight on the opposite side, so I'm not sure I gain anything by shortening the arm. The travel distance remains the same, it would just stop far short of the outer rim.
These things would increase the out of balance on one side. They are small adjustments, but every little bit helps.
Vertically, the changes I listed above don't affect what happens at all. It will still operate exactly the same way, except that I may pick up some more leverage for rotation by having the weight further above the axle.
MrTim,
I am not sure exactly how I would use a parallelogram to connect everything. Could you elaborate? I can't get my head around that idea. Sorry, sometimes I am rather dense.
erick,
I have been thinking about what you said...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. as well as... 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.
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.
I am still thinking about that scissors jack idea and how to incorporate it into use with the sliding weights. If you take a clockwise rotating wheel as a basis for discussion, all my thinking has been around how to take a weight at the 6:00 position (where its presence out at the rim becomes a problem for the continued rotation of the wheel) and move it to the 12:00 position where it begins to benefit the rotation of the wheel as it contributes in two ways.
1. Less mass below the pivot point.
2. More mass above the pivot point.
The next best option is moving the weight at the 6:00 position up near the hub and having a weight on the opposite side (12:00) that moves out to the rim.
SO, I am still thinking about what you said, and I appreciate the input!
I am trying to examine my device as you suggested. Not that I will EVER get to the point you want me to be at! LOL
Horizontally, there are some changes I can make.
I can put it out of balance on one side by adding more weight to the flipping arm. I THINK you are saying this cannot be done, but I already did it, just by adding another 10 pound weight. If I am mistaken in my interpretation of what you said, I apologize. That's what I am reading into what you wrote.
I need to maximize the amount of weight that is flipped to get a larger differential between the two sides. I need to put so much weight on there that it barely flips at all. I am still working on this. The problem is that it probably won't be enough weight to get the wheel to rotate as much as I need it to.
I can see that I need to maximize the distance I can get the weight to flip above the axle. That would mean lowering the pivot point of the flipping weight, and to do that sacrifices the amount of weight that can be moved, so it is a delicate balance. I need to see how MUCH lower I can make the pivot point and still have the weight clear the axle.
There is a ratio I need to exploit here, and that is for every pound of weight I add to the sliding arms, there is an amount I can add to the flipping weight, and it is MORE than the total of the two sliding weights combined. But as rlortie said, less may be more. I now wish I had sliding weights that I could subtract from, because the same formula applies in reverse.
I also need to minimize the movement away from the hub of the lower sliding arm. I don't know how helpful that will be. The problem is, for every inch I move it in, I also have to move in the counter balancing sliding weight on the opposite side, so I'm not sure I gain anything by shortening the arm. The travel distance remains the same, it would just stop far short of the outer rim.
These things would increase the out of balance on one side. They are small adjustments, but every little bit helps.
Vertically, the changes I listed above don't affect what happens at all. It will still operate exactly the same way, except that I may pick up some more leverage for rotation by having the weight further above the axle.
MrTim,
I am not sure exactly how I would use a parallelogram to connect everything. Could you elaborate? I can't get my head around that idea. Sorry, sometimes I am rather dense.
erick,
I have been thinking about what you said...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. as well as... 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.
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.
I am still thinking about that scissors jack idea and how to incorporate it into use with the sliding weights. If you take a clockwise rotating wheel as a basis for discussion, all my thinking has been around how to take a weight at the 6:00 position (where its presence out at the rim becomes a problem for the continued rotation of the wheel) and move it to the 12:00 position where it begins to benefit the rotation of the wheel as it contributes in two ways.
1. Less mass below the pivot point.
2. More mass above the pivot point.
The next best option is moving the weight at the 6:00 position up near the hub and having a weight on the opposite side (12:00) that moves out to the rim.
SO, I am still thinking about what you said, and I appreciate the input!
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
I spent most of yesterday working on my kitchen remodel and thinking about my project rather than working on it. But there are some things I have learned so far. These are facts, not theories, about this design. I have proven every one of them with my wheel which has just one device on it so far, and I can demonstrate any of these FACTS on video for anyone who is interested.
1. Using two connected sliding weights--one above the axle and one below the axle, this device can move a third weight (the value of which is greater than the combined total of the two slider weights) from below the axle to above the axle
2. This will happen at the 10:00 position and with greater weight on the flipping arm, can be delayed until closer to the 12:00 position.
3. The weight differential between the combined slider weights and the flipping weight can be significant--up to several pounds. This puts the wheel OUT OF BALANCE by SEVERAL POUNDS.
4. When the mechanism is in the horizontal position, if the proper amount of weight is on the flipping arm, the side with the flipping arm and the slider weight which is closer to the hub overbalances the side with the slider weight out at the rim. This is THE key to my whole design, because it was overbalanced in the WRONG direction until I increased the weight on the flipping arm thanks to some comments by you folks!! GREATLY appreciated. I can't tell you how much!!!
5. There is a trade off between the amount of weight that can be flipped and the distance you can move it from below the axle to above the axle.
6. To get the flipping weight further above the axle when it flips, you need a longer rod (period!), which could mean raising the fulcrum point of the flipping weight in order to keep the mechanical advantage of the lever OR it must flip less weight. A longer rod means a thicker wheel.
Now is where conjecture begins, mixed in with some facts and observations. And I am assuming a clockwise rotating wheel here, although with this design, it can rotate in either direction you start it moving.
7. Raising the weight from below the axle to above the axle, in and of itself, does in no way contribute to the rotation of the wheel. Unless the wheel is already moving, the two raised masses (from two devices) exert force in a straight line downward. The wheel must rotate slightly in either direction before their mass can exert any force on the rotation of the wheel. If the slider weights activate too soon, the weight that moves above the axle can, and will, exert a force that is counter to the direction of rotation of the wheel. Picture a spinning disk which is vertical, and you suddenly hit it with a huge weighted dart somewhere near the top. Will the momentum of that added mass, which will now be falling, compensate for the reduction in rotation you caused by suddenly impeding the progress of rotation by instantly adding a weight to the wheel that it must move forward. You must ALSO take into account that you just removed an equal amount of weight or mass from the opposite side of the wheel which it was also trying to move. On a rotating wheel that mass moved from far from the axle (poor leverage) to near the axle (better leverage) to far from the axle again. (poor leverage again.) AND what if the dart hits the spinning disk BEFORE the 12:00 position? Now the wheel is trying to lift the dart up to the 12:00 position before its weight and mass can actually contribute to the forward momentum of the wheel.
8. If there is just one of my devices on the wheel, and the wheel is rotating (what would make it rotate I do not know, but let's just say it DOES for a moment) When the flipping weight reaches 6:00, the sliding weights move it to 12:00. This means that during the time of rotation from 12:00 all the way back around to 6:00, one side of the wheel has more weight on it than the other. Lets say that difference is five pounds. That means there is five pounds of weight that moves from 12:00 around in 180 degree arc to 6:00, and then jumps straight up to 12:00 again.
9. If you put a second device on the back of the wheel, that is 90 degrees behind the first, (If you do this, that second device will have 5 pounds more weight on the right side of it than on the left side, which helps with that needed rotation) just when the first rotating weight reaches 3:00, another weight flips from 6:00 to 12:00 and now you have 10 pounds out of balance rotating for 90 degrees. From this point on, there will always be 10 pounds of weight and mass rotating on one side of the wheel (180 degrees) that is not on the other side of the wheel, except for that brief instant when the weights flip, in which case there will only be 5 pounds out of balance.
10. So we're back to what makes the wheel spin in the first place. It all appears to work on a spinning wheel, but how do we get the wheel to spin? Will putting the wheel 5 or more pounds out of balance on one side be enough to get the wheel to spin? I have no idea.
11. With only one device on the wheel (the second is ALMOST ready) what I am going to do is cut a longer lever arm for the flipping weight and start adding weight until I find out just how much I can flip with my current setup. I am also going to see how far I can move weight out from the axle with my current setup so I have some real numbers to discuss in all this conjecture. That will be my starting point. And then realize that whatever the answers are, DOUBLE them when I add the second device, which I MUST have to balance the wheel.
Well, that's what I know today. Maybe tomorrow I will know something more or something different. I sincerely appreciate all the comments and the questions that are being raised. They help me to focus on the specifics of this idea.
1. Using two connected sliding weights--one above the axle and one below the axle, this device can move a third weight (the value of which is greater than the combined total of the two slider weights) from below the axle to above the axle
2. This will happen at the 10:00 position and with greater weight on the flipping arm, can be delayed until closer to the 12:00 position.
3. The weight differential between the combined slider weights and the flipping weight can be significant--up to several pounds. This puts the wheel OUT OF BALANCE by SEVERAL POUNDS.
4. When the mechanism is in the horizontal position, if the proper amount of weight is on the flipping arm, the side with the flipping arm and the slider weight which is closer to the hub overbalances the side with the slider weight out at the rim. This is THE key to my whole design, because it was overbalanced in the WRONG direction until I increased the weight on the flipping arm thanks to some comments by you folks!! GREATLY appreciated. I can't tell you how much!!!
5. There is a trade off between the amount of weight that can be flipped and the distance you can move it from below the axle to above the axle.
6. To get the flipping weight further above the axle when it flips, you need a longer rod (period!), which could mean raising the fulcrum point of the flipping weight in order to keep the mechanical advantage of the lever OR it must flip less weight. A longer rod means a thicker wheel.
Now is where conjecture begins, mixed in with some facts and observations. And I am assuming a clockwise rotating wheel here, although with this design, it can rotate in either direction you start it moving.
7. Raising the weight from below the axle to above the axle, in and of itself, does in no way contribute to the rotation of the wheel. Unless the wheel is already moving, the two raised masses (from two devices) exert force in a straight line downward. The wheel must rotate slightly in either direction before their mass can exert any force on the rotation of the wheel. If the slider weights activate too soon, the weight that moves above the axle can, and will, exert a force that is counter to the direction of rotation of the wheel. Picture a spinning disk which is vertical, and you suddenly hit it with a huge weighted dart somewhere near the top. Will the momentum of that added mass, which will now be falling, compensate for the reduction in rotation you caused by suddenly impeding the progress of rotation by instantly adding a weight to the wheel that it must move forward. You must ALSO take into account that you just removed an equal amount of weight or mass from the opposite side of the wheel which it was also trying to move. On a rotating wheel that mass moved from far from the axle (poor leverage) to near the axle (better leverage) to far from the axle again. (poor leverage again.) AND what if the dart hits the spinning disk BEFORE the 12:00 position? Now the wheel is trying to lift the dart up to the 12:00 position before its weight and mass can actually contribute to the forward momentum of the wheel.
8. If there is just one of my devices on the wheel, and the wheel is rotating (what would make it rotate I do not know, but let's just say it DOES for a moment) When the flipping weight reaches 6:00, the sliding weights move it to 12:00. This means that during the time of rotation from 12:00 all the way back around to 6:00, one side of the wheel has more weight on it than the other. Lets say that difference is five pounds. That means there is five pounds of weight that moves from 12:00 around in 180 degree arc to 6:00, and then jumps straight up to 12:00 again.
9. If you put a second device on the back of the wheel, that is 90 degrees behind the first, (If you do this, that second device will have 5 pounds more weight on the right side of it than on the left side, which helps with that needed rotation) just when the first rotating weight reaches 3:00, another weight flips from 6:00 to 12:00 and now you have 10 pounds out of balance rotating for 90 degrees. From this point on, there will always be 10 pounds of weight and mass rotating on one side of the wheel (180 degrees) that is not on the other side of the wheel, except for that brief instant when the weights flip, in which case there will only be 5 pounds out of balance.
10. So we're back to what makes the wheel spin in the first place. It all appears to work on a spinning wheel, but how do we get the wheel to spin? Will putting the wheel 5 or more pounds out of balance on one side be enough to get the wheel to spin? I have no idea.
11. With only one device on the wheel (the second is ALMOST ready) what I am going to do is cut a longer lever arm for the flipping weight and start adding weight until I find out just how much I can flip with my current setup. I am also going to see how far I can move weight out from the axle with my current setup so I have some real numbers to discuss in all this conjecture. That will be my starting point. And then realize that whatever the answers are, DOUBLE them when I add the second device, which I MUST have to balance the wheel.
Well, that's what I know today. Maybe tomorrow I will know something more or something different. I sincerely appreciate all the comments and the questions that are being raised. They help me to focus on the specifics of this idea.
Last edited by 11Turion on Fri Aug 05, 2011 1:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
i have been mesing around with this design a bit, as did bessler something similar,no luck yet...
- Attachments
-
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Tarsier79,
The light finally dawns and I see what you were talking about. At least I think I do. I Am going to have to amend the "Things I KNOW" that I posted yesterday.
When I went out to experiment today and put on the second 10 pound weight, the wheel did indeed shift to an overbalance on the side I wanted it to, but by the time it finished rocking back and forth, it was so close to being balanced that I actually couldn't tell. So yesterday when I just hung a weight on it, and I thought it was overbalanced, I was mistaken. I was wrong, and I see what you are saying. When I put on the third weight (so 30 pounds) on the flipping arm, the sliding weights would not activate it. So I am doing several things to address this issue in the hopes that I can solve the problem.
First, I am shortening the rods to the sliding weights by half their distance or less. They will be the minimum length needed to function correctly. This will mean that the bottom sliding weight doesn't end up anywhere near as close to the outside rim as it has been.
Second, I am taking my device off this wheel and building a wheel just for it, because here is what I am seeing. I CAN move a huge amount of weight just like I thought I could, and I can move it a significant distance, and I can do it just by gravity's action on the sliding weights through this use of three dimensions. BUT, the pivot arm needs to be longer. The longer it is the greater distance I can move those weights from one side of the axle to the other, and the more weight I can move. But to get that depth I may have to use both sides of a wheel. SO I have a bicycle wheel I can use that will give me the ability to work on both sides of the wheel. I won't be using such huge weights, but that's probably best anyway.
I will let you all know when I have it up and at least semi-functioning.
The light finally dawns and I see what you were talking about. At least I think I do. I Am going to have to amend the "Things I KNOW" that I posted yesterday.
When I went out to experiment today and put on the second 10 pound weight, the wheel did indeed shift to an overbalance on the side I wanted it to, but by the time it finished rocking back and forth, it was so close to being balanced that I actually couldn't tell. So yesterday when I just hung a weight on it, and I thought it was overbalanced, I was mistaken. I was wrong, and I see what you are saying. When I put on the third weight (so 30 pounds) on the flipping arm, the sliding weights would not activate it. So I am doing several things to address this issue in the hopes that I can solve the problem.
First, I am shortening the rods to the sliding weights by half their distance or less. They will be the minimum length needed to function correctly. This will mean that the bottom sliding weight doesn't end up anywhere near as close to the outside rim as it has been.
Second, I am taking my device off this wheel and building a wheel just for it, because here is what I am seeing. I CAN move a huge amount of weight just like I thought I could, and I can move it a significant distance, and I can do it just by gravity's action on the sliding weights through this use of three dimensions. BUT, the pivot arm needs to be longer. The longer it is the greater distance I can move those weights from one side of the axle to the other, and the more weight I can move. But to get that depth I may have to use both sides of a wheel. SO I have a bicycle wheel I can use that will give me the ability to work on both sides of the wheel. I won't be using such huge weights, but that's probably best anyway.
I will let you all know when I have it up and at least semi-functioning.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
If you would look at my above diagram showing the COM of the two driving weights, and answer the following:First, I am shortening the rods to the sliding weights by half their distance or less. They will be the minimum length needed to function correctly. This will mean that the bottom sliding weight doesn't end up anywhere near as close to the outside rim as it has been.
Will shifting the weights closer together, or moving them further apart actually achieve anything?
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
I believe it WILL change something. By shortening the rods, I decrease the amount of distance that the sliding weight can move out toward the rim. Right now with 20 pounds on the flipping weight I can balance with the sliding weight that is out near the rim when the device is in the horizontal position. If it can't slide all the way to the rim, it is like a child on a seesaw that moves closer to the pivot point. I won't need as much weight to balance with it, or I will be able to overbalance it, because I am still going to get the same distance of movement on both of the sliding weights. It's just that their beginning and ending points will be different. They will still actuate the flipping arm the same way.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Where the weight balances depends on the COM. So if the COM is unchanged by moving the weights inwards equally, or outwards equally...
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
My head may tell me something different that what is real. I have to build things to see for myself sometimes, and I'm not giving up on the concept of the sliding weights moving a weight below or above the axle to put the wheel out of balance.
When I saw the problems I needed to overcome wiht my current design, I began to look at possibly a simpler implementation of the same concept, which I have drawn here.
Tarsier, I appreciate your patience in explaining to my why my stuff won't work. You may force me all the way to the bottom of my bag of tricks.
Anyway, here is the same basic idea. This is a side view of a wheel. You have two weights connected by a shaft, As the wheel turns the two purple weights slide down the track in the middle of the wheel. This forces the two outside weights (Green and Blue) to lift above the axle, putting the wheel out of balance. The two red dots are the pivot points for the arms. I put some yellow weights out on the ends of the long arms to help with leverage, but that is more of a reminder that I could do that than an actual plan to do that.
So what do you think of this modification of the idea?
When I saw the problems I needed to overcome wiht my current design, I began to look at possibly a simpler implementation of the same concept, which I have drawn here.
Tarsier, I appreciate your patience in explaining to my why my stuff won't work. You may force me all the way to the bottom of my bag of tricks.
Anyway, here is the same basic idea. This is a side view of a wheel. You have two weights connected by a shaft, As the wheel turns the two purple weights slide down the track in the middle of the wheel. This forces the two outside weights (Green and Blue) to lift above the axle, putting the wheel out of balance. The two red dots are the pivot points for the arms. I put some yellow weights out on the ends of the long arms to help with leverage, but that is more of a reminder that I could do that than an actual plan to do that.
So what do you think of this modification of the idea?
- Attachments
-
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
It is neither better nor worse than your current build. Keeping things simple, Like you are doing at the moment, you will be able to understand concepts and their probability of working much better.
Let me simplify even further (See below). Can you ever get the small weight to lift the larger weight, so that you are lifting the COM in the system, or so that the large weight will then overbalance the smaller?
Let me simplify even further (See below). Can you ever get the small weight to lift the larger weight, so that you are lifting the COM in the system, or so that the large weight will then overbalance the smaller?
- Attachments
-
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
But aren't you leaving out of the design the movement of mass by gravity which provides you with an assist? Sorry, trying to work the sliding weight into the drawing, and this is probably incorrect.
- Attachments
-
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
My point is, I am simplifying the two drive weights to their COM, and then using their leverage to lift a larger weight. I agree, this isn't the same mechanism you are proposing, but it is the same principle.
Experimentation is a good thing, keep up the good work!
Experimentation is a good thing, keep up the good work!
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Tarsier,
I really do appreciate your comments. It has forced me to think through my design from all kinds of different angles that has been extremely helpful. I am still working on it. The only way I will ever give up is when I am too old to putter around in my shop anymore.
Here is what I was thinking as I was driving around today. Using the falling weights to spin a gear that rotates a weight above the axle. When the sliders (Weight A and Weight B) drop, the weight (Weight C) which is equal to the weight of the two sliders combined, moves above the axle. You now have A+C or 75% of the weight above the axle, and only 25% below. It may be possible with this arrangement (by using a LARGE gear, to move the weight as for from the axle (in the horizontal position) as is the sliding weight that is closest to the rim of the wheel when the weights fall. In which case, you would be overbalanced quite easily. Still looking at it closely.
erick,
Good! Hope to hear from you soon. Anyway here is my latest:
I really do appreciate your comments. It has forced me to think through my design from all kinds of different angles that has been extremely helpful. I am still working on it. The only way I will ever give up is when I am too old to putter around in my shop anymore.
Here is what I was thinking as I was driving around today. Using the falling weights to spin a gear that rotates a weight above the axle. When the sliders (Weight A and Weight B) drop, the weight (Weight C) which is equal to the weight of the two sliders combined, moves above the axle. You now have A+C or 75% of the weight above the axle, and only 25% below. It may be possible with this arrangement (by using a LARGE gear, to move the weight as for from the axle (in the horizontal position) as is the sliding weight that is closest to the rim of the wheel when the weights fall. In which case, you would be overbalanced quite easily. Still looking at it closely.
erick,
Good! Hope to hear from you soon. Anyway here is my latest:
- Attachments
-