Mayday! Mayday!!!

[raj]

Dear Path_Finder,

From the very beginning of this thread, I find your commitments here very PRAISEworthy.

Raj

[cloud camper]

Hi Raj! I really liked your original design with the 1/1 and 2/1 wheel with the knuckled joint supporting the overbalanced weight but when I modeled the mechanism in WM2D, I discovered it really behaves just like MT6,7, and 8.

The problem with this concept as is easily understood by analyzing these MT's is that while a weight is translating horizontally to the OB position, it is providing NO TORQUE to the wheel.

We can think of this as a lever that is not allowed to descend. From the study of statics and dynamics we know that a lever that is not allowed to descend is not providing useable torque to any wheel structure. It is simply suspended or cantilevered in space at a set height with a fixed Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE).

If we analyze MT6, we see that all those weights translating horizontally out to the OB position are creating levers, but that they don't become levers (and thus provide torque) until they are actually allowed to fall.

The unfortunate fact associated with this is that during the time period the weights are translating horizontally out to the OB position, the entire wheel becomes REVERSE TORQUE BIASED since the outgoing weights are not producing any torque yet the upgoing weights have been providing continuous torque to the wheel in the wrong direction. The OB weight can only provide torque to the wheel when it is mechanically allowed to descend (converting GPE to RKE).

In your design (and MT6,7, and 8) the outgoing weight is MECHANICALLY PREVENTED from descending until it reaches the OB position where it is allowed to fall and then generate torque.

When the outgoing weight does reach the OB position and is allowed to fall, then and only then is it producing useful torque to the wheel. But by
this time, the wheel has come to a stop (keels) because the upgoing weights have all been producing continuous torque in the wrong direction.

This is the same reason why MT 6, 7, 8 DO NOT WORK.

I believe this is the reason JB used a weight swapping mechanism to solve the problem (weights go on swapping positions all the time). This mechanism would swap weights in and out of the wheel to replace the weights that were temporarily producing no torque, keeping the wheel from becoming reverse torque biased and thus allowing overbalancing to work.

But I believe that you Raj, are the person with the creativity to come up with this weight swapping mechanism!

[raj]

Dear CC,

My sincere thank for your wm2d analysis.

My design is JUST a mental conception. It cannot provide any proof of workability. The chance of it working in one in a trillion trillion plus.

That should not stop us from continuing with our mental search of what has been regarded as scientifically impossible as at now.

My best regards to you.

Raj

[raj]

I have attempted a concept testing of my new design using Physion software. Unfortunately, I could draw two wheels geared at 1:1 ratio, one smaller wheel inside the other, using this software.

However, I managed to carry out a test, using two seesaws geared such that both seesaws turn at the same speed.
The result is surprising

A very short video link-

https://youtube.com/watch?v=FhIeQl7MGio

[raj]

While attempting to build a physical concept testing model of my new above design, I have, inadvertently discovered a new facet of this design that renders it even more promising.

I shall let you know, as soon as I have work out this news change in the design.

Raj

[johannesbender]

always a pleasure dealing with your concepts
and idea's raj you are a fantastic member ,I
look forward to it.

[raj]

Without much ado, here it is:

A wheel(1) and weights(4) swinging on flexible elbowed spokes(3) on hub(2) on horizontal axle.

The combined weight of wheel(1) and weights(4) keep them swinging on fully outstretched elbowed spoke at the 6 o'clock position every 45 degrees turn of wheel and hub, while all other spokes are forced to flex inwards accordingly, due to their positions inside the wheel, making fewer weights(4) moving faster on the ascending side and more weights(4) moving slower on the descending side, thereby providing and sustaining continuous NET TORQUE on the descending side for rotation.

I FEEL this is my best design ever.

Raj

[path_finder]

Dear raj,
Il I understand well, the hub rotates at the same speed than the main wheel.
In that case, how do you fix the hub ABOVE the A main axis?
If there is a drum inside the main wheel (red circle) where the main wheel is suspended, the speed of the hub will be TWICE the main speed.
IMHO somewhere an extra part is missing.

[raj]

Dear Path_Finder,
There's NO extra part missing.

Think of this wheel design as that of an ordinary bicycle wheel. with, instead of fixed spokes between the hub and the rim, we have flexible/elbowed spokes connected to the hub and the rim and weights on the elbowed joints of the spokes.

Now imagine the hub on a horizontal axle on stand. You will agree with me that, because the spokes are flexible/elbowed, the rim and the weights will tend to fall downwards from the effect of gravity, and thus the all the spokes will flex inwards according to their position inside the wheel, except the spoke at the six o'clock, which will straighten vertically, under the load of the rim and the weights.

Under the conditions explained above, the wheel will be on an overbalanced state, because the weights will provide net positive torque on the descending side.

Raj

[path_finder]

Dear Raj,
You forget an important point: the center of the hub rotates too, in accordance with the rotation of the main wheel.
After a half turn, I am afraid the situation will be changed, like here:

[raj]

Oh no, my dear friend, it won't rotate to an upside down position.

The overall positions of the wheel rim, the hub and the weights SHOULD reset every 45 degrees turn.

As per my drawing the wheel has a net clockwise torque, As the wheel turn slowly, degree by degree, clockwise, the outstretched spoke holding the load(rim and weights) at the 6 o'clock position, will slowly begin to flex until, after after 45 degrees turn, this spoke will take the place of the flexed/elbowed spoke at the 7 o'clock position and the flexed/elbowed spoke at the 5 o'clock position will gradually straighten until it takes on the load from the former spoke, whereby the rim of the wheel keeps hanging swinging from the hub on the next outstretching spoke.

The rotary motion of the rim, weights and spokes will automatically rotate the hub at the same speed.

The spokes and the weights will keep changing places from one to the next positions throughout the rotation.

Raj

[raj]

The following drawings shows how the spokes and weights swap places from one to the next positions through 45 degrees turn, while hub and the rim turn.

Raj

[rlortie]

raj,

Pay heed to your rod lengths labeled #3 in your first .jpg. They have a tendency to vary in length.

Ralph

[raj]

Thanks a lot, Ralph.

All the spokes are of same length, but as the wheel rotates, their connected distances from hub to the rim would change automatically until they stretch their full length at the 6 o'clock under the pressure of the full weight of the wheel (rim, spokes and weights) fleetingly resting/hanging/swinging there.

I always try to explain exactly as I see it. There is good possibility that I am wrong in my vision.

Raj

[path_finder]

Dear Raj,
I still think you missed some parts.
It is required to limit the rotation of the arms, as in the human elbow.
The drawing below shows how to do the job.
A mandatory for your final design. Nevertheless I still continue to be suspicious on the described motion and the effective unbalance.