Calloway Gravity Engine

[agor95]

Hello Calloway

The hardest thing is having a path forwards. Your investigation of pendulum motion fixed to a wheel has been helpful.

Some times you have too go down a path to see were is leads. Hopefully new insights.

I try not to slam the door in an investigators face because there are possible secondary insights near by the main path.

All the Best

[Calloway]

Hello agor95, Hope your doing well. Most all here experiment and will post what their results are. Right or wrong folks can gain insight into these interesting experiments. Maybe learn something. I enjoy watching others that share their experiences. I never critique their experiment or may never even comment. If I did I wouldn't use snide remarks or belittle them in doing so. There is one here that does nothing but critique with his snide remarks and I have never seen him post any experiment of his own. He talks of such but it's all talk. He needs to stay off of my thread (s) or he can reap the results.

Cheers

[Tarsier79]

Damm I'm glad you don't live in East Texas or I would cure you of those bad habits.

or he can reap the results.

That is a new one. I have never seen someone here so imbecilic as to threaten someone in a public forum for trying to provide insight into the conservative gravity fields effect on a mechanism. It is a pity we can't all get along. We are all trying to achieve the same goal.

What would you do? ...

Someone put on some popcorn.

[Calloway]

Tas...What is a walking frame? How come we can't get along? Because you don't how to shut your mouth. You offer nothing. Boy you are a piece of work...just stay off my thread. Offer your brilliance elsewhere.

[eccentrically1]

Your mechanism looks roberval to me too.
I guess the added grounded pulleys make it appear to be something else?

Maybe call it something else like a pulley-belt engine, gravity engine is a poor choice.

[daxwc]

Ecc1: Your mechanism looks roberval to me too.

That is because it probably is one. But as far as where he is in his journey that is unknowable because I accidently make Roberval Balances myself all the time; it is a lesson I can’t seem to learn. Maybe if I knew exactly how to free it up. What makes a mass feel its weight exactly where it is and when does it turn into a RB and how do you recognise it instantly? I know it is about the bottom pivot, but why can’t I lock it and unlock it. Is there a point I can make the pivot have too much stress and break-away using a magnet or a latch?

[JUBAT]

It looks cool though. The fishing weights hold the arms out no matter the orientation and the fishing weights are always in balance. The only drawback I see is the fishing weights will produce some countertorque to the weighted arms and might even cancel everything out.

One can see the thought that went into this so despite my skepticism, I'm forced to give it 2 thumbs up for ingenuity. Well done.

[Fletcher]

Hey Agor .. I actually built a small model of that "offset axles" RB arrangement - it sits on a shelf in my shed next to a traditional one .. first I simmed it then went to the build - it was one of my offset looped chain designs which attempted to add back permanent imbalance to a torque balanced/cancelled base wheel (the RB or Ramali) .. anyways it was devil to get to run, even by hand turning - too many joint twisting/stress forces and it would bind up - would have to be machined to fine tolerances etc to run smooth so wasn't worth the effort.


Anyhoo .. to answer your questions, and to reinforce Tarsiers point of reference he made in his earlier post ..

There can be NO TORQUE if one equal mass cannot fall (lose PE) more than another equal mass gains, around a fulcrum .. the losing more GPE is the critical point of his discussion .. that's why equal masses can be placed anywhere each side of a RB and it will not move - simply because one mass cannot lose more PE thn the other gains due to geometry and the 2 stationary fulcrum points ..

This applies to whatever balanced or unbalanced mech you are investigating, including RB's and Rameli's etc, or Calloway's design imo - Where is the mech COM ? - the experiments are always worth doing and discussing, then people can share their own experiences and analysis techniques etc .. maybe save someone some time and effort .. that's what sims are for ..

If one side cannot lose more PE than the opposing there is no torque i.e. no turny-spinny .. the same applies to B's. 555v ..

[agor95]

Hello Fletcher

I appreciate the correctness in your and T79 world view. Any way forward needs to respect the observations that under pin this position.

I chose to look for a way forward that agrees with the above world view and at the same time see another without saying not, can't or don't bother.

One alternative view is a device is actively dynamic when it is not moving.
Your computer screen is actively being pushed up against gravity.
Ironically the only thing not actively dynamic is a mass in free fall.
Which looks be in motion to all.

So Calloway is looking at arms that when analysed will show the Centre of Mass keel to below their pivot points. Also there combined CoM are balanced on the wheel.

That is the start. Then we move on when Calloway is ready.

All the Best

[Fletcher]

Totally agree ..

As for your inquiry earlier about "releasing/unlocking" 1 fulcrum pin in a traditional RB's 2 fulcrum pins to change it from balanced to unbalanced state, and back again - I have experimented heavily with that concept in the past - and it works well to unlock 1 fulcrum pin - the mech then can lose more PE on one side than the other (due to 1 fulcrum and weights at different horizontal displacements from that fulcrum) and she dutifully turns ..

fwiw .. Overall the mech COM loses GPE and I could never get it to relock in position again without extra energy input i.e. when unlocked it became a regular (but complex) pendulum with the usual problems of no OU, imo ..

[daxwc]

Fletcher: fwiw .. Overall the mech COM loses GPE and I could never get it to relock in position again without extra energy input i.e. when unlocked it became a regular (but complex) pendulum with the usual problems of no OU, imo ..

Thanks Fletcher for your opinion. But I see you do admit that that there is instant unbalance once the stressed bottom pivot is released. So a magnet pivot being stressed till it breaks could result in a PE gain. Then of course another mechanical application has to reset it and harvest the PE. Easier said than done.

Fletcher: If one side cannot lose more PE than the opposing there is no torque i.e. no turny-spinny .. the same applies to B's. 555v ..

In 555v we do not know if it is static in any position or it always keels to that position.


/5

[Fletcher]

In 555v we do not know if it is static in any position or it always keels to that position.

A good one to sim dax .. track the system COM ..


Try it first with the geared lever-weights as drawn (horizontal) ..

Try it second with the geared lever-weights unequally off-set from horizontal e.g top one at say 45 degs up and the bottom at horizontal etc ..

What happens to orientations when Cf's enter the fray because you moved the assembly ?

[eccentrically1]

Can we finally all agree that his wheels didn’t rely on overbalancing?
That’s not what he meant when he said he found it where everyone had looked.

[daxwc]

You must be mistaken Fletcher as I can’t even make 555v out.

If you meant Sim 556v then I did one better I built it. It is interesting it is static and will stay in any position you place the weights in. I just wish I would have thought of twisting it in the third plane as was suggested here and noticed that phenomenon.

[daxwc]

Ecc1: Can we finally all agree that his wheels didn’t rely on overbalancing?

NO. No because that directly conflicts with what his statements are. So until somebody makes a wheel that works that option will always be on the table.