Based on your comments above, I am forced to conclude that a simple seesaw, with a weight closer to the fulcrum (in whatever gear) and another identical weight further away from the fulcrum (in whatever gear), will not move at all, but stay balanced.
Allow me to come back to the seesaw argument.
Lets say we have a seesaw with a large vertical circular ring at one end further away from the fulcrum.
Now if we put a circular weight inside that large ring further away from the fulcrum and another identical weight on the other side of the seesaw nearer the fulcrum.
Will this seesaw stay balanced?
Should the seesaw move , will the circular weight rolling inside the large ring (flexible loop in my design) feel any 'ramp climbing ' effect?
I do not think so, because the large circular ring (flexible loop in my design) is part of the seesaw, and moving with it.
The weight to the outside will obviously move first, because this is the "low gear" and does have leverage in its favour. However the weight near the axel/fulcrum posses more kinetic energy.
Visualize a bicycle wheel spinning around freely at high speed, if you wanted to force this wheel to stop would you apply resistance to the rim or the hub?
Sorry friend, I don't get it.
To me it looks like making mountain out of mole-hill.
No weights move first or second.
All weights move TOGETHER, only when the wheel moves.
But, but some weights may move faster or slower depending on their location inside the wheel and their path/orbit round the axle.
I have come to understand that in order for a gravity wheel to work with weights acting iinside it, weights must change orbit round the axle going nearer the axle on the ascending side and further away on the descending side on every revolution of the wheel so that we can have continuous net positive torque to keep the wheel rotating.
Many of us are trying to find a way to achieve this.
My present concept is just another proposal.
Lets not make this debate too technical, because I am far from a Phd.
Raj
Can you tell me what would happen if I replace the 'flexible loops' by rigid vertical rings/loops in my design and everything else stay the same?
Would this make my concept better or worse?
I think it would make it worse, and the wheel will quickly keel at the 12 o'clock position.
The flexible loops is the novelty that matters in my present concept.
They help to make the weights follow an elliptical path round the axle.
nneba.
Your last comment is generally undisputable.
Well, look at the drawing below, and tell me what accounts for the different positions of the weights swinging/rolling in the flexible loops(in black colour) as compared to the same weights swinging/rolling in the rigid vertical circular loops (in red colour).
Is gravity having the same effect on both the black weights and red weights?
If yes, Am I showing fake positions of the weights?
Can you check the drawing for accuracy?
Raj
nneba.
Your last comment is generally undisputable.
Well, look at the drawing below, and tell me what accounts for the different positions of the weights swinging/rolling in the flexible loops(in black colour) as compared to the same weights swinging/rolling in the rigid vertical circular loops (in red colour).
Is gravity having the same effect on both the black weights and red weights?
If yes, Am I showing fake positions of the weights?
Can you check the drawing for accuracy?
Raj
raj I just quickly eyeballed your diagram and unless I'm mistaken you will have a problem with the "upside" of the wheel because the lever will not allow the weight to move to the centre until the weight is at about 10 o'clock and the fulcrum of the lever is at about 8 o'clock.
Green ink is the track of the weight down; and red is the track up.
The blue is what the lever does at about 8 o'clock.
This means double lifting and keeling methinks.
Have a look at the attachment and see if a) I have understood your design and b) I have it right?
Shap-O-Vert, BINGO!!!
You've got it.
Your assessment of the upward and downward tract/path/orbit of the weight is exactly what I am proposing.
If you continue your weights movement one full revolution of the wheel, you will get a complete elliptical track/path/orbit taken by the weights.
I do not quite get what you are trying to say with reference to your 'blue line' and 'lever action'.
I assume you are questioning the upward leverage of the upward weight.
The upward weight is being moved/lifted up on two pivots simultaneously: (1)one pivot where the string is attached on the outer rim of the wheel.
(2) one pivot where the flexible loop rest/roll on the top pulley.
There is not double lifting.
Oh, yes. The two weights shown in my explanatory drawing will keel and come to s stop at some position of the wheel.
But when you take the whole system with a minimum of eight weight as in my original drawing, you will have, part of one revolution of the wheel, more weights going, moving at a slower rate nearer the axle, while not more than one weight less, going down relatively faster in larger orbit, providing larger torque CW.
One serious point: Each weight swings on three pivots.
I would appreciate more of your comments.
Are my explanations plausible?
Raj
Shap-O-Vert, BINGO!!!
You've got it.
Your assessment of the upward and downward tract/path/orbit of the weight is exactly what I am proposing.
If you continue your weights movement one full revolution of the wheel, you will get a complete elliptical track/path/orbit taken by the weights.
I do not quite get what you are trying to say with reference to your 'blue line' and 'lever action'.
I assume you are questioning the upward leverage of the upward weight.
The upward weight is being moved/lifted up on two pivots simultaneously: (1)one pivot where the string is attached on the outer rim of the wheel.
(2) one pivot where the flexible loop rest/roll on the top pulley.
There is not double lifting.
Oh, yes. The two weights shown in my explanatory drawing will keel and come to s stop at some position of the wheel.
But when you take the whole system with a minimum of eight weight as in my original drawing, you will have, part of one revolution of the wheel, more weights going, moving at a slower rate nearer the axle, while not more than one weight less, going down relatively faster in larger orbit, providing larger torque CW.
One serious point: Each weight swings on three pivots.
I would appreciate more of your comments.
Are my explanations plausible?
Raj
Perhaps, you will not fail to appreciate this iimportant aspects of my gravity wheel conception:
All weights are free to continuously roll to and search their lowest positions inside the flexible loops, as far as their tether (strings) allow them.
There is absolutely NO FORCE restricting their movements, except may some frictions.
What do you have to say on this, my statement above?
Let us hear from you.
Raj
