Power to the people.

[Daisymartin]

Absolutely Correct.

[nebollinger]

The spring plays a very important role.
1. gravity slowly loads the spring
2. when the spring over powers the small weight
because of the reduced leverage
the spring rapidly kicks the wheel clockwise.
3. and when the wheel rotates the spring can be used
at any wheel position with no work required beyond the work to
release the spring which gravity does so well at 90+ degrees later.

It reminds me of the Trebuchet here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-Hwxw4fgqk 2m 30s
and here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE54m0fojHQ 8 mins

I call it a variable lever.... Beginning physics only teaches the basic lever.

Norman

[Downsvalve]

Very Well Said. Thanks for sharing this. I'm new here from the UK. Looking forward to this group

[nebollinger]

Suncity Dave - I used plastic milk jug strips to make a "auto like leaf spring" because I can add layers to get the spring and weight and leverage to match.
It took me about 5 attempts to get them to match. And then when only one mechanism was tested it rotated 120 degrees so given 72 degrees for 5 mechanisms there seems to be 48 degrees of extra rotation.
It took me about 10 days to get this far so maybe 5 more and I'll know
if it works as it is said to.

My wheel is made of 1/8 plywood about 9 inches in diameter.
It is quick and dirty ugly.

Seems very hopeful to me

Dave do you have that annimation for algodoo? I am not that skilled and
I'd like to learn from it to make one to match my setup.
I emailed you about that but you did not reply.

Norman

[ME]

On a good day a pendulum can perform just a little shy of 360 degrees.

--
I'm afraid that the amount of degrees will be divided by the amount of mechanisms.

[nebollinger]

"On a good day a pendulum can perform just a little shy of 360 degrees.

--
I'm afraid that the amount of degrees will be divided by the amount of mechanisms." MM said

But this is not a pendulum. It is a balanced wheel with a gravity/spring shifted arm with a weight on it. very different.
If 1 arm rotates the wheel 120 degrees then 5 arms would
make 600 degrees of rotation...

Norman

[Fletcher]

Norman .. another way of saying what ME is saying is that it depends on what vertical height and Gravity Potential Energy (GPE) the one-mech starts at.

If for example the weight bob is at its highest position attainable in the rotation, let's say 12 o'cl, then it could on a good day probably rotate around till nearly at 12 o'cl again.

I think you said the spring force started to 'flip' the mech about 11 o'cl from memory. So it might swing around to nearly 11 o'cl again.

And if you had say two mechs at different positions on the clock face it would naturally swing nearly around to a position where the two bob masses Center of Mass (CoM) is between them.

A good way to see a trend is when you add the next mech. See if you get twice the distance or less than the original distance.

Looking forward to your experiments. You are being creative in solving your spring problem. Best of luck with the full mech tests.

[raj]

This is how I am trying to solve this problem in my current wheel concept, on my SPEED DOUBLER thread.

1. Two wheels on same axle rotating, a smaller of half the diameter inside, rotating at twice the speed of the larger wheel.

2. The wheels start rotating with four weights (in black) swinging on three strings each, with GPE position manually providing starting torque.

3. The four weights (in red) show how the weights swinging is controlled, tethered by the swinging strings, moving the weights further from axle ( in blue) on the descending side and nearer to axle on the ascending side.

Raj

[ME]

Fair enough Norman, I don't know your mechanism and I made an educated prediction.
For a better prediction one needs the full rotation torque signature, and not only that 120° where the sum breaks-even.
When you add new mechanisms, then you basically add those full-rotation torque signatures on top of each other.

So in effect, the (forgotten?) 240° degrees of a second mechanism will likely overlap some of that first 120°... unless you put it exactly on top of the other: but then it still traverses 120° only with more mass.
My prediction is based on the assumed (I know) tendency where your 120° rotation is the best-case scenario for the whole 360°.
Best of luck.

Raj, thanks for your topic hijacking... we didn't know you had that concept. \s

[raj]

@ ME.
DRAW me a SINGLE ENERGY vector of a HUMAN in motion,

I sincerely believed what I posted here IS PERTINENT to what I believe Norman is trying to explain, when he is talking about multiple mecs on a wheel.
My posting here was meant to be a counter-argument example to Flecher's post.

@ Norman, my apology, if you think that my posting here is a highjacking of your thread.

Raj

[nebollinger]

Raj, no apology needed. I am all ears but sometimes it takes me a bit to wrap my brain around an idea.
I saved your post and will get to it if Kerry's wheel fails.
Norman

[ME]

Dum-dee-dum-dee-dah...
ey!

DRAW me a SINGLE ENERGY vector of a HUMAN in motion

Talking about topic-drift... with a pointless distraction...
so let's entertain it for now:

1. an "Energy vector" does not exist;
2. Energy is a scalar;
3. Energy depends on the frame of reference;
4. We have to decide on the definition of MOTION first. (let's say relative to ground, either accelerating or at a constant velocity?).. Does it actually need to be HUMAN?
5. So I could draw a single force-vector, or a single velocity vector (depending on what we actually want to know).
6. Still, this single vector (whichever, I don't care for now) is a RESULTING vector of many in a free-HUMAN-BODY-diagram that indicates the direction of this motion;
7. When there's a lot of head-wind, or this HUMAN stumbled, or is terribly tired, or has very slippery shoes on a slippery road, or was simply not started yet, or died of boredom... then it could be that this resulting vector will be zero;

How does this relate to a wheel, one may ask.
Let me answer it myself.

All mechanisms combined with all their individual torque effects for one full rotation will hopefully result in a complete wheel rotation... all vectors combined lead to one.
This resulting wheel-rotation is this single vector we want...
It may be a primed starting torque. Or it may accelerate till it settles for a single angular velocity: or simpler: an amount of RPM.
Now there's only one thing to do: Proof it's non-ZERO and pointing in the direction you want;

I sincerely believed what I posted here IS PERTINENT to what I believe Norman is trying to explain, when he is talking about multiple mecs on a wheel.

You don't show HOW it applies, nor proof it does apply. You only show that you follow a similar premise.
Multiple mechs simply don't add up only the favored parts (we may wish)... even simple leverage doesn't work that way.

When you investigate the leverage effect of a single mechanism on a wheel, you need include the whole circle or at least until it repeats.... This part gets conveniently circumvented by inserting nonsense statements.
Then multiple mechanisms add each their share to the wheel (perhaps combined with other stuff)...but it does for Better AND Worse.
Best not to cherry-pick only that 'Better'-part for convenience sake, and then blame the non-working part on disbelief only because it's inconvenient.
This needs to be addressed because apparently this filtering bias is a common problem in PM-investigation.
Or... build it and find out yourself without 'discussing' it.

[raj]

Just to make you happy, my dear Marchello,

I concede:

You are right.

I am wrong.

As far as your repeated advice to build, I am obeying to the letter.

Revisit all my recent posts of the last three months.

That should make you doubly happy.

JUST LET IT BE!!!

Raj

[ME]

Raj, it's a discussion forum.
When you claim certain things, you can expect some replies.

There are several ways to verify a claim, but it's not my fault when you can't.
Just tell us that you try, but not that what you show does certain things when you haven't tested it... Also, it can be shown how it actually works (Already did that somewhere in between your posts)

If you want to know, I actually try to compress and rephrase the on-topic information for myself in the hope I find some tricks and insights to make it easier and faster to handle and detect... and perhaps find a loop-hole. It's much better for me to be wrong at some point, that hopefully means I'm getting somewhere. Otherwise, perhaps some other readers will benefit from my notes here, I don't know.

Confusingly, I also react to the illogical off-topic additions and diversions... Again: I can't help if that doesn't work too.

Sorry Raj.

[nebollinger]

I completed my Kerry wheel

The wheel is 24 inches in diameter but Kerry says it must be 2 meters
with 2 lb weights and that takes some sturdy construction.


The arm/weights work as they are supposed to
1. past noon the arm is shifted right by the spring.
2. past 6 the weight shifts the arm back to its original position.
3. about 10:30 the spring pulls the weight to the right again because the
leverage advantage is reduced and the weight will not over power the spring
anymore.
But in all positions it is bottom heavy.



Then I changed the arms so that the wheel rotates counter clockwise
and it is much better but stops.


I tweaked it and it visually looks bottom heavy and stops in various positions.
More to come.


I also rechecked my manually positioned/shifted wheel and it bottom
heavy. I formerly mistakenly thought it was balanced.
See the attached photo for a mock up of the shifted arms/weights.
The red line is where the gravity spring pulled stop is located.
There are no springs. I was worried about what looks like right side heavy
so I manually positioned them like the drawing to see the balance.

I will continue to reevaluate the design.
Kerry had several to pick from.
Norman