Torque calculation

[bobriddle]

cloudcamper,
At work today, I got to thinking, I can change my 30 inch wheel into a test wheel. And with the wood I have, I might be able to post a video of a 2 weight test. And by the weekend hopefully show how a weight can be pulled towards the axle while it is swinging.
In the drawing, the red line is a quarter section of something round. What it does is make any line going from above it and then around it take a longer path. For every 1 inch of radius, a weight would be pulled towards center by 9/16th's of an inch.
And as the wheel rotates, the line maintains a position where it will not interfere with the wheel rotating. And with something like a 3 or 4 inch radius, the retraction would be 1 11/16th's to about 2 1/4 inches.
And this means the counter torque of the upwards swinging weight will hopefully have less resistence and fly a little higher than the level of the axle.
Of course, with a 6 inch radius, the retraction would be about 3.4 inches.
And if the weight falling is 12 to 14 inches from center, then the retraction could be as much as 25% which should be the same as the energy saved.
All it would be is redirecting the energy developed by the torque of the falling weight, had to mention torque because that is what this thread is about. A turning force that can be used to perform work.
By the way, if the wheel looks crappy which it will, remembering it's a test wheel :-)

[pequaide]

If you place the .5 kilogram drive mass with the 2 kilograms of driven mass then you would have an Atwood's. After a one meter drop of the drive mass in that Atwood's you would have enough momentum to send the drive mass up 5 meters. You should suspect that Newton was correct and try it.

Furcurequs says 5.6 meters of drop are needed.

But experiments don't show this slow of an acceleration. The .500 kg is a large drive mass compared to the 2 kilograms being driven. My similar experiments show it is much faster. I am just saying; if you want to find some big clues, they are right here.

If you start by assuming that the Law of Conservation of Energy is true then you are saying that free energy is impossible. You used the Law of Conservation of Energy to come up with 5.6 meters; But that is the Law in Question.

Maybe for a moment you should put your Law of Conservation of Energy aside and assume that Newtonian Physics is true. They can't both be true; Newton knew it and Leibniz knew it. They can't both be true.

[path_finder]

Dear bobriddle,
Some old ideas are still useful. See here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/files/pm2b.gif
(excerpt from an old topic: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 5031#15031

[bobriddle]

If you place the .5 kilogram drive mass with the 2 kilograms of driven mass then you would have an Atwood's. After a one meter drop of the drive mass in that Atwood's you would have enough momentum to send the drive mass up 5 meters. You should suspect that Newton was correct and try it.

Furcurequs says 5.6 meters of drop are needed.

But experiments don't show this slow of an acceleration. The .500 kg is a large drive mass compared to the 2 kilograms being driven. My similar experiments show it is much faster. I am just saying; if you want to find some big clues, they are right here.

If you start by assuming that the Law of Conservation of Energy is true then you are saying that free energy is impossible. You used the Law of Conservation of Energy to come up with 5.6 meters; But that is the Law in Question.

Maybe for a moment you should put your Law of Conservation of Energy aside and assume that Newtonian Physics is true. They can't both be true; Newton knew it and Leibniz knew it. They can't both be true.

pequaide,
energy that isn't there can't be used. And if the drive mass is .500 kg, then the driven mass should weigh the same .500 kg's.
The basis I use is for a one inch radius on the retracting cog. With a 4 inch radius, then over 90 degrees, an increased lift potential of 1 inch (2.54 cm's) is possible ina 10 inch (25.4 cm) wheel.
The energy is already present, what usually happens is that when a weight is retracted, it restricts the rotation of the wheel.

It's that restrictive behavior that causes the wheel to lose any potential gain. The simple cog I thought of does not hinder the rotation of the wheel but merely increases the distance between points A and B by not going in a straight line.
And of course, if one weight can throw the other weight a little higher, it could always use a ramp to roll around to the other side and become the drive weight and become perpetual. That might be a simple weigh to do it. After all, with 4 weights, the 2 extra weights would increase the drag and probably take a bit more to get to work if it's possible.

And to anyone wondering, there is a way the retracting line can be rigged to work. A demonstration would be better than trying to explain it.
And with some of the details I am building into the wheel, may slow it down a little.

[bobriddle]

Dear bobriddle,
Some old ideas are still useful. See here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/files/pm2b.gif
(excerpt from an old topic: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 5031#15031

After looking at your animation, I thought of the trebuchet only when the weight is being whipped upwards, it's being pulled in at the same time.
It is something though, to use a 4 inch radius (11.6 cm's), a retraction of 2.284 inches will happen.
For the first 10 inches of CoG from fulcrum to bob is a new CoG of 7.716 inches. That is a good bit of a difference and with no cost energy wise.
Like totaly free. Means basically the weight being thrown should only use about 75% of the energy of the falling weight.
Double the 10 inches to 20 and it's still saving about 1/8th of the enrgy of the falling weight.
Still, do wish I was better set up for what I am doing but will try what I can.

edited to add, a little bit off on energy savings. From 45 degrees and moving up, the weight would be about 8 7/8th's of an inch from center and at the level of the axle it would be about 7 3/4 inches from the axle of a 10 inch wheel using a 4 inch radius cog.
Still, that is a savings. and with the way I am trying it, one cog will be on each side of the wheel so it will pull on the weight evenly.
I am going to try using shoulder bolts (think Frankenstein here) with a nylon bushing or something similar that the line can wrap around.

[bobriddle]

@All,
Thought I would mention that a retraction of about 35% might be the most that can be had with this type of design.
Basically, for a 10 inch radius, the cog would have a radius of about 6.5 inches. And 6.5 times .57 is 3.7 inches.
The distance the weight is retracted and the radius of the cog need to be less than the radius of the weight swinging on the wheel.
I think something like this is something most people will be able to understand.

[bobriddle]

Here's a pic of the test wheel I've built. For the two weighted torque test,
I'll be using 2 arms @ 90 degrees.
With this wheel, I'll be doing pumping tests.

[bobriddle]

Have realized the cog idea won't work but have done a demonstration of torque.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzIvsOhoHEk

[cloud camper]

Good start Bob -after you're done with torque tests I'm sure your hamsters will get good use from the wheel!

But seriously tho - your fishing line concept is novel and creative. I hope that can be retained in your final concept.

For me I found the most engineering effort on my test rig to be the commutation system as it has to translate
the weights at the right times and then simultaneously latch/unlatch, just as you realized.

Everything else is simple as a stone!

Keep us posted!

[bobriddle]

cloud camper,
I did another test with 8 oz.s of over balance being used with 8 1 lb. weights. That's an overbalance of 6% of the total mass of the weights.
It got a nice rotation. In over balance speak, that's a weight moving outward half the distance of it's inner position.
Water is something that can do this rather easily. Over the next while, I'll be trying to come up with some decent levers and pumps that work sequentially.

[justsomeone]

Great job BOB. I can tell you need a lot of help with the engineering and math. I can recommend a few members if you would like. ;)

[cloud camper]

This is going to be fun Bob!

You, Frank, and myself seem to be the only ones to try and incorporate Emmy into their conceptual models.

I sent several emails pleading with her to change her inane rules to allow an energy gain while the weights are in rotation but she just wouldn't respond. Maybe cuz she's dead, I dunno.

So we will just have to work around it I guess, just like JB did with MT138.

Well, I better get back to finishing my test rig. If I don't hurry up you're going to cross the finish line first!

That would be fine with me though. Gitterdun buddy!

Keep posting!

[Grimer]

"I sent several emails pleading with her to change her inane rules to allow an energy gain while the weights are in rotation but she just wouldn't respond. Maybe cuz she's dead, I dunno."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmy_Noether

You should have prayed to her, Cloud. She might have been recycled by now.

[bobriddle]

This is going to be fun Bob!

You, Frank, and myself seem to be the only ones to try and incorporate Emmy into their conceptual models.

I sent several emails pleading with her to change her inane rules to allow an energy gain while the weights are in rotation but she just wouldn't respond. Maybe cuz she's dead, I dunno.

So we will just have to work around it I guess, just like JB did with MT138.

Well, I better get back to finishing my test rig. If I don't hurry up you're going to cross the finish line first!

That would be fine with me though. Gitterdun buddy!

Keep posting!

If you consider, I have already tested the theoretical parts of it.
Basically, how much over balance will it take to rotate the wheel and can a weighted lever pump that much water.
Since I have done both demonstrations/tests, now it's to consider how to put it in a wheel. I may build a 20 inch wheel which might require a bit more finesse than a larger one, but only have so much room to work in.
Hadn't heard of Emmy before. It must have been difficult working in her times. Kind of like with Bessler.

[cloud camper]

I think it should work Bob.

The whole concept can be compared to a double jointed hula hoop dancer on crack.

The weights are all lined up vertically at the start, like the dancer. Then as the hoop dancer throws her weight sideways, an imbalance in rotational PE is initiated. We have "created" rotational PE faster than the hoop can respond. Then as the hoop gains speed, the horizontal CoM displacement is retracted back to center. So the horizontal CoM continually oscillates from the vertical center axis out to the rim and back. In our four cycle system, we will get two complete oscillations out to the rim and back for each revolution of the wheel.

This causes the system to "chase it's tail", trying to return to stability and is called a parametric oscillation. We continually shift the horizontal CoM ahead of the hoop so the hoop is always trying to play catch up.

Please note that we do not use any vertical PE in the process (unless the dancer falls down!). So a lot of JB's clues are given to prevent this possibility. The "pairs of pairs" concept is needed to allow the horizontal CoM to be displaced without giving up vertical PE. The "when one weight is giving an upward impetus, another is giving an equal downward one" clue is part of the same idea.

I believe we need to consider JB's clues as absolute commandments, not just helpful hints!

So in a four weight system, we have two weights counterbalancing each other in a pair, and then the second pair and then those two pairs counterbalance each other, all to prevent loss of vertical PE.

From this we produce a work-free self pumping action using pairs of weights that never gives up vertical PE and operates strictly from a commutated differential in rotational PE (just like the hula hoop dancer).

This "new" rotational PE shows up abruptly on the overbalanced side and does not effect the system in any way until the weights have reached full extension. This is where your latching system comes in. This is the "horse before the cart" mechanism that creates the rotational PE first then applies it to the wheel.

This is where the weights "come together and one or the other of them applies their weight vertically to the (horizontal) axis".

The latching is necessary to prevent applying this new rotational PE to the wheel before the weight has reached the rim. Without the latching system we have a smooth continuous conservative process, just as you realized.

This is where we diverge somewhat from the hula hoop model in that we employ a discontinuous application of rotational PE where the hoop is continuous.

Emmy's law is not violated as this new PE is dumped instantaneously onto the rim when a weight is at a dead stop, then the PE is converted to KE which is then transferred to the wheel in a soft impact ala 138 trapping and preserving inertia in the wheel. No changes to the system are ever performed while a weight is converting PE to KE or the reverse. Emmy says any changes here would be futile.

We do not expect an energy gain within the confines of a single closed system, instead we are creating and destroying multiple sequential closed systems and only transfer the vertical PE between them, applying "new" rotational PE strictly at the boundary between each system.

Well, that should clear things up!

It would seem you would need four separate pumping systems to apply this model. What are your thoughts Bob?