Sorry!
I should have said' drop the inner wheel... a bit VERTICALLY down...'
Raj
A 100 % Gravity Wheel concept
Moderator: scott
re: A 100 % Gravity Wheel concept
Raj .. have you read Bessler's comments about MT21 in the wiki ? - the wheel turns CW & would only work if the bottom lever A was lifted onto the paddle wheel C so that the left side had less torque than the right side.
What he doesn't tell you is that the paddle wheel would have to have a one-way clutch bearing so that it couldn't turn CCW [because it is sharing the weight of the levers & has negative torque] & it would remain stationary while the outside wheel rotated if it had a one-way bearing.
But his drawing shows it turning at the same rate [rpm] as the main wheel so they must be geared theoretically & both turning at the same speed - so if the lever is lifted into position at 6 o'cl the external wheel would have some torque then keel until the next lever was lifted - there is no excess energy to keep it rotating by lifting the levers successively.
What he doesn't tell you is that the paddle wheel would have to have a one-way clutch bearing so that it couldn't turn CCW [because it is sharing the weight of the levers & has negative torque] & it would remain stationary while the outside wheel rotated if it had a one-way bearing.
But his drawing shows it turning at the same rate [rpm] as the main wheel so they must be geared theoretically & both turning at the same speed - so if the lever is lifted into position at 6 o'cl the external wheel would have some torque then keel until the next lever was lifted - there is no excess energy to keep it rotating by lifting the levers successively.
re: A 100 % Gravity Wheel concept
Hello Fletcher!
I agree with you if only we go by MT 21 drawing.
But if we change the levers (rigid) in MT 21 by strings (flexible) and we bring the paddle wheel lower vertically, (as in MY drawing), then the weight at 6 o'clock will just roll and rest on the paddle arm on its way upwards.
In my drawing, both the inner (paddle) wheel and the larger outer wheel move/rotate at the same speed/rate because they are geared by strings/levers/
Therefore, just like MT21, my wheel is expected to move cw, because the clockwise torque on the wheel/s by the weights hanging on the rim of the larger wheel will be greater than the ccw torque by the weights on the inner (paddle) arms (which depends on their position with regards to the axle/s...)
So What do you make of this?
Raj
I agree with you if only we go by MT 21 drawing.
But if we change the levers (rigid) in MT 21 by strings (flexible) and we bring the paddle wheel lower vertically, (as in MY drawing), then the weight at 6 o'clock will just roll and rest on the paddle arm on its way upwards.
In my drawing, both the inner (paddle) wheel and the larger outer wheel move/rotate at the same speed/rate because they are geared by strings/levers/
Therefore, just like MT21, my wheel is expected to move cw, because the clockwise torque on the wheel/s by the weights hanging on the rim of the larger wheel will be greater than the ccw torque by the weights on the inner (paddle) arms (which depends on their position with regards to the axle/s...)
So What do you make of this?
Raj
re: A 100 % Gravity Wheel concept
I could have said it won't work Raj .. BUT .. study the diagram & wm2d file for yourself to see why there is no continuous torque - I have positioned two of the roller weights favorably [can you see which ones ?] but still it moves just slightly & locks up with NO TORQUE to turn it.
- Attachments
-
- Raj3.wm2d
- Sim file of geared wheels
- (44.49 KiB) Downloaded 211 times
-
- Vertically offset wheels geared to turn the same direction on a 1:1 basis
re: A 100 % Gravity Wheel concept
Hello Fletcher.
Many Thanks.
I am, so far, only trying to present my gravity wheel concept, and not yet claiming a runner.
Your drawing is very good, but differs from my drawing in some ways.
1. your weight between the 3 o'clock and 6 o'lock weights is shown in a favourable position/torque
2. your inner/paddle wheel's axle is slightly higher than mine, which make the positions of and torques by your ccw weights slightly unfavourable
Your drawing is in a static position, and shows as you mentioned that the wheel/s can just move slightly but not enough torque to turn continously. At worse, the wheels must be in equilibrium position.
I agree with that, because as per my theoritical calculation we could have here upto 2 % net positive cw torque comblned by the eight weights, enough to cause slight turning of the wheel\s cw.
Should the wheel/s turn just one degree, the 9 o'clock weight should instantly roll towards the axle of the inner/paddle wheel coming close to rest at the rim of the inner/paddle wheel.
That rolling of the 9 o'clock weight towards the axle, will instantly increase the net positive positive torque from 2 % to 12 %.
This increased net positive torque of 12 %(+) will gradually decrease to the 2 % range (certainly not zero/ equilibrium) as the weights reset themselves as per the start positions, after turning 45 degrees.
The dimensions of my 100 % gravity wheel drawings are as follows.
1. the diameter of the larger/outer wheel is 16 cms.
2. the diameter of the inner/paddle wheel is 12 cms
3. the length of the gearing strings/levers is 2 cms
4.the length of the hanging/swinging strings is 4.5
5. the length of the paddle arms is 3 cms
6. the diameter of the roller weights is one cm.
The theoritical torques calculation can be easily checked by using the dimensions mentioned above.
Please see my drawing again below, where I have traced in large black line, the path of the weights through one complete revolution.
Please let us know if you think what I have explained above make sense.
Raj
Many Thanks.
I am, so far, only trying to present my gravity wheel concept, and not yet claiming a runner.
Your drawing is very good, but differs from my drawing in some ways.
1. your weight between the 3 o'clock and 6 o'lock weights is shown in a favourable position/torque
2. your inner/paddle wheel's axle is slightly higher than mine, which make the positions of and torques by your ccw weights slightly unfavourable
Your drawing is in a static position, and shows as you mentioned that the wheel/s can just move slightly but not enough torque to turn continously. At worse, the wheels must be in equilibrium position.
I agree with that, because as per my theoritical calculation we could have here upto 2 % net positive cw torque comblned by the eight weights, enough to cause slight turning of the wheel\s cw.
Should the wheel/s turn just one degree, the 9 o'clock weight should instantly roll towards the axle of the inner/paddle wheel coming close to rest at the rim of the inner/paddle wheel.
That rolling of the 9 o'clock weight towards the axle, will instantly increase the net positive positive torque from 2 % to 12 %.
This increased net positive torque of 12 %(+) will gradually decrease to the 2 % range (certainly not zero/ equilibrium) as the weights reset themselves as per the start positions, after turning 45 degrees.
The dimensions of my 100 % gravity wheel drawings are as follows.
1. the diameter of the larger/outer wheel is 16 cms.
2. the diameter of the inner/paddle wheel is 12 cms
3. the length of the gearing strings/levers is 2 cms
4.the length of the hanging/swinging strings is 4.5
5. the length of the paddle arms is 3 cms
6. the diameter of the roller weights is one cm.
The theoritical torques calculation can be easily checked by using the dimensions mentioned above.
Please see my drawing again below, where I have traced in large black line, the path of the weights through one complete revolution.
Please let us know if you think what I have explained above make sense.
Raj
re: A 100 % Gravity Wheel concept
Raj .. whilst your exact dimensions are more accurate it makes not a jot of difference to the principle - if it were to work at all then the dimensions & ratio's could change slightly & still work - however it does not provide torque as you anticipate - it simply oscillates a few degrees back & forward until it finds the keel position where torque is zero.
In the diagram & sim below I have made a few alterations from your original diagram & my sim of that - I shortened the hockey sticks foot & lengthened the strings slightly so that it didn't jam up as in the first sim at 12 o'cl - now it moves more freely & the balls clear the hockey stick - it oscillates until it keels - the picture is of the sim in the keel position with zero torque & position of lowest Pe.
IMO, it's a no go - the principle is flawed.
In the diagram & sim below I have made a few alterations from your original diagram & my sim of that - I shortened the hockey sticks foot & lengthened the strings slightly so that it didn't jam up as in the first sim at 12 o'cl - now it moves more freely & the balls clear the hockey stick - it oscillates until it keels - the picture is of the sim in the keel position with zero torque & position of lowest Pe.
IMO, it's a no go - the principle is flawed.
- Attachments
-
- Raj4.wm2d
- Sim keeled
- (44.48 KiB) Downloaded 202 times
-
- Wheel in 'keel' position of zero torque & lowest position of Pe
re: A 100 % Gravity Wheel concept
Ok Fletcher, the principles are the same. I agree.
But there is something we do always to improve EFFICIENCY of a system. It is ' fine tuning '. Sometimes this makes a dead car, ROAR...
Again, I am not saying that my device is a runner.
In you SIM testing, just run it several times, with different hanging string lengths.
I bet each time the result will be different, giving different weights positions and torque throughout a complete revolution.
Fletcher, thank you my frriend. ( I hope you don't mind me calling you, friend)
Raj
But there is something we do always to improve EFFICIENCY of a system. It is ' fine tuning '. Sometimes this makes a dead car, ROAR...
Again, I am not saying that my device is a runner.
In you SIM testing, just run it several times, with different hanging string lengths.
I bet each time the result will be different, giving different weights positions and torque throughout a complete revolution.
Fletcher, thank you my frriend. ( I hope you don't mind me calling you, friend)
Raj
re: A 100 % Gravity Wheel concept
Small changes give small performance differences, no doubt.
The problem with doing a turning moment analysis Raj is that it will give you a torque surplus depending where the structures are - you need to recalculate every degree or so & plot the torques [negative & positive] - then draw a trend line & you will see a position in the middle where there is zero torque - that's the natural keeling position of no torque.
I have created this sim in the hope that you will see that it is rather obvious Raj - I like your commitment & enthusiasm Raj & thought you could do with some accelerated learning to ease the frustration perhaps ? - sometimes silence is deafening but that is also the fate of those who do not learn, IMO.
The problem with doing a turning moment analysis Raj is that it will give you a torque surplus depending where the structures are - you need to recalculate every degree or so & plot the torques [negative & positive] - then draw a trend line & you will see a position in the middle where there is zero torque - that's the natural keeling position of no torque.
I have created this sim in the hope that you will see that it is rather obvious Raj - I like your commitment & enthusiasm Raj & thought you could do with some accelerated learning to ease the frustration perhaps ? - sometimes silence is deafening but that is also the fate of those who do not learn, IMO.
re: A 100 % Gravity Wheel concept
Dear Fletcher.
You are absolutely right.
I and the whole of mankind will keep learning to the end of time. That's for sure!
I just printed your last drawing just to check the dimensions/measurment.
I found the your larger wheel's diameter to be 8.3 cms and the diameter of the inner/paddle wheel to be 7 cms.
I then measured the COG of your eight weights.
SURPRISE... the COG is one cm to the right of the axle/s, which logically means the the wheel/s must turn slightly cw...
Is it possible for you to check the COG of the eight weights and let us know where I have gone wrong?
Thanks.
Raj
You are absolutely right.
I and the whole of mankind will keep learning to the end of time. That's for sure!
I just printed your last drawing just to check the dimensions/measurment.
I found the your larger wheel's diameter to be 8.3 cms and the diameter of the inner/paddle wheel to be 7 cms.
I then measured the COG of your eight weights.
SURPRISE... the COG is one cm to the right of the axle/s, which logically means the the wheel/s must turn slightly cw...
Is it possible for you to check the COG of the eight weights and let us know where I have gone wrong?
Thanks.
Raj
re: A 100 % Gravity Wheel concept
Fletcher.
My sincere apology.
The COG is NOT one cm but one 0.1cm to the right of the axle/s.
Raj
My sincere apology.
The COG is NOT one cm but one 0.1cm to the right of the axle/s.
Raj
re: A 100 % Gravity Wheel concept
It's funny how I keep making misprints...
The COG is 0.1 cm to the right of the axle/s.
I feel that in a small scale, even 0.1 cm makes a difference...
Raj
The COG is 0.1 cm to the right of the axle/s.
I feel that in a small scale, even 0.1 cm makes a difference...
Raj
re: A 100 % Gravity Wheel concept
If my calculations/measurements of the COG of your eight weights that is 0.1 cm to the right of the axle/s is CONFIRMED, then the wheels must must turn for another 15+ degrees...
Raj
Raj
re: A 100 % Gravity Wheel concept
Negative - I had no friction on in the sim so it took an awful long time to come to a stop - when the oscillations had died down to about 1 degree of swing I took a snap shot of the sim & posted it as close enough - had I loaded friction into the sim it would have stopped somewhere very near where you see it with No Torque.
N.B. 1 degree of swing in both directions does not equal another 15 + degrees of further turn.
If you doubt or can't use the program then build a real world facsimile [model size] & see if it behaves as you expect or more closer to the sim prediction - theory is fine as far as it goes, the real learning comes from building & then reworking your updated theories with what you've learned.
N.B. 1 degree of swing in both directions does not equal another 15 + degrees of further turn.
If you doubt or can't use the program then build a real world facsimile [model size] & see if it behaves as you expect or more closer to the sim prediction - theory is fine as far as it goes, the real learning comes from building & then reworking your updated theories with what you've learned.