Mayday! Mayday!!!

[triplock]

Raj

Firstly, IMHO, you need to ground the two smaller gears. This can be done using a large suspended weight off the axle . Affix the gears to the pendulum shaft.

Secondly, you need to configure an additional drive gear which will back feed the OB torque produced by the bi-rodded weights into the outer or inner rod attachment wheels.

I, personally, have always favoured cogs within a PM design as it ensures synchronisation of all systems during rotation.

A big, simple 10th watch if you will !!!

Chris

[rlortie]

raj,

please bear with me as I have a lot going on right now and admit problems in understanding your design.

If both wheels have pivot points as shown in your earlier sketch, and now you say the inner travels twice that of the outer, what keeps this thing from wrapping itself up into a tangled mess?

Ralph

[raj]

Thanks Chris!
I have incorporated your suggestion about the two smaller gears in my design. See drawing below

Thanks Ralph! Your comments are worth taking into accounts.

I do not believe that the movements of the weights as presented in my drawings have any possibility of getting tangled up and get into a mess. The reasoning is simple. There is no way a weight can overtake another weight while following our intended orbital/elliptical path round the common axle.
The intended orbital/elliptical path of the weights depends entirely on the fact that the smaller wheel must turn in the same direction at twice the speed of the larger wheel.

Just to assure ourselves of avoiding the weights getting tangled up in any way, we can alter my gravity wheel design into a drum wheel design with four smaller wheels inside. Each smaller wheel now has only two weights as shown in the drawings and each pair of weights now have a clear path inside the large (drum) wheel.

I am open to refining my gravity wheel design with constructive suggestion from forum members.

Raj

[Tarsier79]

There looks like there will be countertorque in #1 but mostly #4 of your design. In this position, the weight is supported by the central wheel, which has a gear ratio of 2:1, so will have twice the force acting on rotation than the outer wheel.

[raj]

Hello Tarsier 79!
Thank you for your very pertinent comment.

I can assure you that torque calculations in my design is my most desperate need at this moment.
It is the very basis of my present topic on this forum, seeking desperate help from from members to resolve the forces/torques by the weights on the wheels.
Any forum member with a good physics knowledge can help me solve my problem.

Let us assume that you are right and we have counter torque in drawing 1 and 4 that would force the wheels into counter-clockwise rotation.
Let us further assum that this counter-clockwise rotation upto 11.25 degrees on the central wheel, and 5.625 degrees on the larger wheel.

Rotation of the wheels will affect the positions of all the 8 weights.

Below is a drawing (drawn faithfully and as accurately possible), showing the movements of the 8 weights counter-clockwise through a 11.25 degees turn of the smaller central wheel.

What we find from the drawing is that 4 weights have lost heights and 4 weights have gain heights.
The average weight height loss is 1 25 cms
The average weight height gain is 1 75 cms
IS THIS a fair result???

In a seesaw situation, the weight going down loses more height than the one going up.

Does this mean then that the counter torque we referred to in drawing 1 and 4 would not cause the wheels to turn counter-clockwise.

I would very much appreciate if you could kindly comment on my above analysis.

Raj

[Tarsier79]

The difference between analasys of 2 and 8 weights makes quite a difference.

Firstly, I like that you have gone old school with a compass, protractor and ruler. Using a small rotation is perfect for examining how it will act here. The next step would be to build a low friction model of the two armed version, and study the torques and directions, and ultimately why this is so.

What we find from the drawing is that 4 weights have lost heights and 4 weights have gain heights.
The average weight height loss is 1 25 cms
The average weight height gain is 1 75 cms
IS THIS a fair result???

It depends what you mean by fair result.

Measuring height gain, instead of apparent overbalance is also the correct way to examine this mechanism. How much energy does it take to raise a weight 1.75cm, compared to how much you gain from a weight dropping 1.25cm. Based on your measurements here, since gravity is pushing down on the weights, and Potential Energy is mass x gravity x height, which direction do you think the resultant torque will be?

In a seesaw situation, the weight going down loses more height than the one going up.

Bingo! The same can be applied to any torque mechanism. (I won't mention my favourite mechanism here, because it would be like listening to a scratched record.)

[raj]

I am back with the seesaw again.

We have two identical mass, one on each arm of the seesaw, at unspecified distance from the fulcrum.

When the counter-clockwise mass falls down by 1.25 cm, the clockwise mass rises by 1.75 cm.
When the clockwise mass falls by 1.75 cm, the counter-clockwise mass rises by 1.25 cm.

Under normal situation, which of the two is more like to happen?

Does this now shows that my gravity wheels will turn clockwise as intended?

Thanks again, Tarsier 79

Raj

[Tarsier79]

Thats right Raj, At least at this point with 8 arms.

I am back with the seesaw again.

So you conclude as more weight falls, the wheel turns in that direction... At this point more weight will drop on the right hand side. How will the extra weight be picked up in through a complete revolution?

[raj]

Greetings to all.

Hello Tarsier 79!

The last couple of daysI have given a lot of thought about your comments/analysis.

1. you mentioned counter-torque acting on the smaller wheel, which puts a big question mark whether the wheels will rotate clockwise or not, as intended.

As far as I understand, torque and counter-torque will exist on any gravity wheel system. What is most important, in my understanding, is NET torque, i.e the difference between positive torque and negative torque, which would force rotation of wheels.

Since the large wheel and the small wheel are geared, even though the smaller wheel is half the size of the larger wheel, torque acting on the larger wheel will act also on the small wheel and counter-torque acting on the smaller wheel will also act on the larger wheel. That is torques will affect the whole gravity wheel system. See drawing below.

2. You mentioned that weights height gains measurement can be used, just like torque measurement, to work out whether a wheel will rotate or not.

I feel that in a rotating wheel system, going round in vertical orbit, weight gain will always be zero, i.e NO gain. Simply because rising back to the position, where the weight came down from, in the first place, makes no difference to the distance travelled vertically up and down.

But I think net torque can exist, even though there is no height gain, if the rotating weights can reach the APEX at any position away from the 12 o'clock position on the rotating wheel.

A bit surprising to see no replies here, from some prominent members of this forum!!!

Raj

[Tarsier79]

Raj, what do you think creates torque on a see-saw?

You made the point perfectly before.

[raj]

Hi everybody!

My gravity wheel designs seem to be getting crazier.

Well, I have now modified my gravity wheel design.
See drawing below.

So what do you make of this new design?

Raj

[Bill_Mothershead]

raj,

My gravity wheel designs seem to be getting crazier.

Don't ever forget that this is a forum for perpetual motion.
Every one and every thing here has been crazy for many years.
No need to concerned about it...just go with it.

You drawing looks vaguely familiar, but I have no clue as to
where/when I saw something like it or how to go look for it.

I have a "refinement" for your big weight hanging from the axel.

I have seen drawings for systems that have two wheels.
Each wheel is at the end of its axel. The axels are parallel
but do not overlap. So the wheels face each with their supporting
axel structures extending away from each other.
The axels do not have to be the same height, and one
can be offset to left/right.

For your application, the wheel with the lower axel would
be just a small hub to connect the rods supporting the weights.

It is likely that somebody on this forum will quote some relevant
links where this was investigated before.

If not, I will set up a WM2D simulation and see if it locks up.

[JohnnyD]

This looks like a design tha Kas came up with a few years ago.

JohnnyD

[raj]

Thanks a lot Bill.
I would dearly like to see your WM2D simulation of my gravity wheel above.
Kindly note:
1. the wheel is 8 units diameter.
2. the short pivoting rod between the wheel axle and the very heavy cylindrical weight axle is 2 units long.
3. the rods supporting the 8 weights are 4 units long and can move freely and separately, at any of the three joints
4. each pair of diametrically opposite weights move in separate vertical plain, so that the weights do not block each other way.
I look forward to seeing your simulation.

Raj

[path_finder]

Dear raj,
IMHO your wheel will rapidly and unfortunately reach this keeling position.