The Wheel is solved in a New Norwegian Patent

[sparkshade]

It's a non worker. As I thought, the counter-torque when the pendulum engages is basically a big brake.
The locking mecanism isn't great, so I cannot test at high rpm.

I'm making a video.

[sparkshade]

I will stop working on this now. If it showed potential I would fix the locking mechanism and make it better, but I don't feel it.

1. it is NOT in balance everywhere as was described by Frog
2. the pendulum swing is not doing anything more than applying torque at 9
3. the locking mecanism is basically a big brake since it engages counter-torque on the wheel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N_YaYLU2Ks

[sparkshade]

Nvm it won't work

[Tarsier79]

Still a great build Spark. What printer did you use? Also what modelling software and slicer?

[agor95]

Hi Frog

If you are reading this then good.

The New Patent is only the start. Getting approved is another matter.

The interesting part of this patented concept is the dynamics it presents.

There is no point is saying a concept will not work unless you are ready too recommend an improvement.

So here you go; Look for a way a pendulum drops on the upward side and locks on the downward side.

This is an improvement on dropping on the downward side.

All the Best

[sparkshade]

Still a great build Spark. What printer did you use? Also what modelling software and slicer?

Fusion360 and a bambulab P1S

[Fletcher]

I will stop working on this now. If it showed potential I would fix the locking mechanism and make it better, but I don't feel it.

1. it is NOT in balance everywhere as was described by Frog

2. the pendulum swing is not doing anything more than applying torque at 9

3. the locking mechanism is basically a big brake since it engages counter-torque on the wheel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-N_YaYLU2Ks

Awesome build Spark - really nice to see a quality real-world build to stack against a sim-world build - yours had natural frictions to contend with which add to the dissipative energy losses ..

I agree with your summary - it appears Frog was off base from the get-go by assuming that a 3 pend setup would be balanced in any position - I don't know where he got that idea, most of us know it makes no difference whether it is odd or even numbers ..

I really liked your mild guitar string spring to begin the move, that was innovative - but as your build showed it might start the move but it was slow ( lag ) - and if you had made it stronger it would have transitioned earlier and quicker but on the down-side also waste much more energy in the collision of the bobs as they came together ..

Also, as you said it couldn't handle anything but a very slow rpm, otherwise too much lag as the pends opened and closed again after 9 o'cl ( no time to apply the torque ) ..

Anyways, good effort to supply some real information to the debate ..

[Robinhood46]

I think it is unfortunate that Frog didn't stay to give some feedback.
There is always the possibility of a slight discrepancy between what he is trying to tell us and what we are understanding. I might be talking nonsense, because as i have already said, i only skimmed over the thread.
Another thought that crosses my mind, is something THX4 often spoke about, the speed of the mechanism doing the lifting doesn't necessarily need to be going as fast as the wheel, because it can be independent and only feeding the wheel. Or it can be geared to turn the wheel faster. I have never been too keen myself, but i certainly wouldn't consider it impossible.

[sparkshade]

I think it is unfortunate that Frog didn't stay to give some feedback.
There is always the possibility of a slight discrepancy between what he is trying to tell us and what we are understanding. I might be talking nonsense, because as i have already said, i only skimmed over the thread.
Another thought that crosses my mind, is something THX4 often spoke about, the speed of the mechanism doing the lifting doesn't necessarily need to be going as fast as the wheel, because it can be independent and only feeding the wheel. Or it can be geared to turn the wheel faster. I have never been too keen myself, but i certainly wouldn't consider it impossible.

There's a lot of ways to fix the mechanisms, but it doesn't really make sense to try until we have math to back the idea, which doesn't exists.

In static position, the wheel is non functioning, but then again, Frog talks about a new concept in physics that does not exists.. If we take him to his words, we need to see the math that back that physical model. It's a pretty big statement and it needs to be backed by big maths.

[sparkshade]

Here's how the movement should be for the wheel to work. Could we store more energy into that spring and make it fire just above 9?
Interesting...


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sQk9IiYN3Q0

[ArchCalc]

Like they say, "If a frog had wings, he wouldn't kick himself in the ass every time he jumped."

[m2x]

I am merely a lurker, but from they way Frog described it I thought the length of the pendulums and the ratio of pendulum mass:flywheel mass would need to be precise.

Would you need to compute the (compound) pendulum's natural period and work with that?

[johannesbender]

Here's how the movement should be for the wheel to work. Could we store more energy into that spring and make it fire just above 9?
Interesting...


https://www.youtube.com/shorts/sQk9IiYN3Q0

Your hand is basically helping it by keeping it from turning backwards , which can be replaced by ratchet and pawl or the one way bearings kind of thing , however i believe it wont cycle and complete a reset too , there is nothing one can do to it that will work except lifting .

More weight can be added and different radiuses can be used and different arm lengths can be used it would not make it work , it just changes the values around , because when you increase one value another decreases equally and when you decrease one value another increases equally that's how the law of conservation keeps the total value unchanged , in a ideal situation where there are no losses - if you have 10 gold nuggets and give 5 of it to your friend you still have 10 in total , and if your buddy gives 2 of his 5 to his friend then you still have 10 in total , all the physics values affect each other in this way , however when there is losses like friction and sound and heat and resistance involved - some of those gold nuggets gets given to strangers and they run off with it so you and your friends dont have all of the 10 anymore but together with those strangers there still is 10 in total , so no gold nuggets is created or destroyed they just change owners.

Moving out above 9 would be a lift ,the concept of lifting solves most non working designs , although no design has ever achieved a full reset where the height was restored again .

Anyway the build does as much as i expected it to do , and behaves as i envisioned it to behave , of course the locking/unlocking mechanism could not cope at times but even that would not make it work , the COG has to be restored back to its original height or higher than its original height before 6 to make it work , IOW it has to be lifted to restore its gravitational potential energy .

[sparkshade]

I am merely a lurker, but from they way Frog described it I thought the length of the pendulums and the ratio of pendulum mass:flywheel mass would need to be precise.

Would you need to compute the (compound) pendulum's natural period and work with that?

Possibly, but the creator didn't provide engineering drawing or a proof of operation so we need to decypher and assume it's operation.

The assumption is that when locking, we sync with the pendulum precisely when it's trying to move in the direction of rotation I suppose, to counter act negative torque. That assumes that we can release the pendulum at the bottom and that the pendulum swing with enough momentum to counter the negative torque created by locking pendulum at top.

Maybe that's not even how it's supposed to work, who knew we'd need more proof for such a BIG claim that physics need to be rewritten lol.


Again didn't see ANY proof of that in the patent. Such an important element should be clearly explained. Just goes to show that the patent office is a joke.

[sparkshade]

Frog replied on youtube that its not designed as it should, didn't give any math or proof.. still waiting for his non existing build.

It's real easy to simply run away from your problems and not actually be involved with the guys that can help you apparently.