Hi 11Turion and all, this is my 1st post here, just few days ago I joined this great forum, I have not much experience on this kind of machines but watching your video an idea came to my mind.
You are trying to shift weights in the same axis, one trying to go down trying to lift a second one, and a second one trying not to go up, in vertical position gravity affects both weights.
What if you try to shift the outer weights when they are in horizontal position and set the central mechanism in vertical position, this is 90° one axis relative to the other somehow connecting the the movement to change vertical force from the central weight to move the outer weight when they are not affected by gravity.
Just a crazy idea but hope helps.
I will make a sketch to clear up the idea and post it, but i think you are in the right track.
Carlos
Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
Moderator: scott
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
charly2,
That is an idea I have thought about for a while. Ideally you want to move a weight from the center hub out to the rim at the 12:00 position, so that the weight "falls" and has the greatest torque helping to turn the wheel, and then at the 6:00 position you pull it back to the hub. It has helped you for 180 degrees of rotation and you don't want it to hurt you for the next 180 degrees of rotation. At the same time a second weight is moved from the hub to the rim at the 12:00 position, and you alternate as the wheel rotates. Or, you move the one from 6:00 all the way up to 12:00 and only use one weight. When you move something out to the rim at the 3:00 position, you have to move it back again at 6:00 so it only helps you during 90 degrees of rotation instead of 180 degrees.
What I really believe would give me the most advantage is when the two falling weights in my design fall, they pull a third weight from hub to rim on the top half of the wheel
That is an idea I have thought about for a while. Ideally you want to move a weight from the center hub out to the rim at the 12:00 position, so that the weight "falls" and has the greatest torque helping to turn the wheel, and then at the 6:00 position you pull it back to the hub. It has helped you for 180 degrees of rotation and you don't want it to hurt you for the next 180 degrees of rotation. At the same time a second weight is moved from the hub to the rim at the 12:00 position, and you alternate as the wheel rotates. Or, you move the one from 6:00 all the way up to 12:00 and only use one weight. When you move something out to the rim at the 3:00 position, you have to move it back again at 6:00 so it only helps you during 90 degrees of rotation instead of 180 degrees.
What I really believe would give me the most advantage is when the two falling weights in my design fall, they pull a third weight from hub to rim on the top half of the wheel
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
I looked at the wheel and played around a bit with moving the masses out at three. If I can move it back at six I get some good rotation. The problem is that anything I can move back at 6:00 I could also have moved out at the 12:00 position rather than 3:00, so I lose 90 degrees of rotation, since the move back point for both is 6:00. If I move it out at 3:00 and back in at 9:00, what I gained from 3:00 to 6:00 I lose from 6:00 to 9:00. So I think I will stick with the 12 to 6 rotation for now.
I am seeing some good results by having shortened the arms between weights. The weight on the bottom doesn't go nearly as close to the rim when it slides, so it is much easier to overbalance it with the flipping weight. I'm working on restricting that movement as much as possible and still getting the weight to flip. This, I think, is exactly what rlortie was suggesting I do, and it just took a while for that to sink in.
I am seeing some good results by having shortened the arms between weights. The weight on the bottom doesn't go nearly as close to the rim when it slides, so it is much easier to overbalance it with the flipping weight. I'm working on restricting that movement as much as possible and still getting the weight to flip. This, I think, is exactly what rlortie was suggesting I do, and it just took a while for that to sink in.
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
OK, I think I have squeezed everything out of this build that I can. I made lots of modifications to my original build so that I could make tiny adjustments in different things. And while the mechanical parts could be more precisely constructed, they worked well enough for me to see what I needed to see, which is the following;
1. Using two 10 pound sliding weights, one that is below the axle and slides from hub toward rim at the 10:00 position, and one above the axle that slides from between the hub and rim to nearer the hub I can trigger a 20 pound weight to flip from below the rim to above the rim.
2. When the entire mechanism is in the horizontal position, the side with the 20 pound weight and the ten pound weights, because of their position relative to the fulcrum, cause the wheel to tip slightly in their direction, which indicates overbalance on that side.
3. This overbalance is not enough to cause significant rotation in the wheel. I don't believe adding a second mechanism on the other side of the axle would cause any more significant rotation , but since the current mechanism is below the axle and a second one will be above the axle, that is a possibility. I am almost finished with the construction of the second mechanism, so I will go ahead and finish it, but I don't have very high hopes. I DO however want to complete the experiment to remove all doubt from my mind. I certainly don't want to wake up in the night months from now wondering: "What if...."
Thank you to all those who gave me input on this. I think I learned a lot and definitely will take some important knowledge away from this experiment. I did post another video on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/user/11Turion?feature=mhee
1. Using two 10 pound sliding weights, one that is below the axle and slides from hub toward rim at the 10:00 position, and one above the axle that slides from between the hub and rim to nearer the hub I can trigger a 20 pound weight to flip from below the rim to above the rim.
2. When the entire mechanism is in the horizontal position, the side with the 20 pound weight and the ten pound weights, because of their position relative to the fulcrum, cause the wheel to tip slightly in their direction, which indicates overbalance on that side.
3. This overbalance is not enough to cause significant rotation in the wheel. I don't believe adding a second mechanism on the other side of the axle would cause any more significant rotation , but since the current mechanism is below the axle and a second one will be above the axle, that is a possibility. I am almost finished with the construction of the second mechanism, so I will go ahead and finish it, but I don't have very high hopes. I DO however want to complete the experiment to remove all doubt from my mind. I certainly don't want to wake up in the night months from now wondering: "What if...."
Thank you to all those who gave me input on this. I think I learned a lot and definitely will take some important knowledge away from this experiment. I did post another video on YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/user/11Turion?feature=mhee
re: Shifting mass to achieve overbalance.
11 Turion,
You have private mail in your box!I'm working on restricting that movement as much as possible and still getting the weight to flip. This, I think, is exactly what rlortie was suggesting I do, and it just took a while for that to sink in.