Fluid movement within most hydraulic systems is at the expense of a lot of drag. If the pistons are moving then that also means that the fluid is moving. If the fluid moves randomly no net force wull occur. If the fluid moves in a circular path it will drag the mechanism with it. A system of valves can accomplish this. Wether this can be used to create pm or not is debatable.
I agree that hydrodynamic drag will lower the efficiency of any sort of hydraulic system that is required to make rapid shifts its CG in order to maintain a chronic imbalance. But, there are ways of reducing this drag and, even if it was present, it would only tend to limit the maximum rotational velocity that such a device could achieve and not, necessarily, prevent continuous motion.
Anyway, I've been think about some of the concepts Fletcher presented and came up with the attached design.
ken
Attachments
Here's something simple that came to mind...
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Thanks ken ... I'll take a closer look when time allows.
Ways that I've taken a cursory look at modifying the pressure environment are ...
1. Inserting pneumatics into the sequence to create a partial vacuum on the opposite side of the piston/bellows face i.e. create the vacuum & atmospheric pressure elsewhere provides the muscle to move the fluid mass to a position of advantage, much like a lift pump action in a water well (this is similar too ovyyus's ideas of using a thermal gradient).
2. Changing the SHAPE or orientation of the piston surface.
Fluids can only exert force perpendicular/normal/right angles to a surface i.e. they have no 'shearing moment' (cannot apply a force at an angle), thus change the orientation or shape of the face & you may be able to alter the force development.
3. Inserting valves into the system to 'trap' fluid so it can't communicate & transfer its pressure to the molecules next to it. This is similar to changing the shape of the piston surface i.e. a flat ... I ... or a curved ... C .... half sphere or .... < ... cone shape.
4. Creating a curved slotted track forcing the parallelogram to follow a prescribed path. A flattened ... <> ... parallelogram has different leverage characteristics at its attachment points depending on its shape, so there may be a way to take the force from pressure & leverage it differently ?
The following is an introduction to a hypothetical mechanism that seems might display unusual characteristics & may help us in our quest to better understand BesslersÂ’ mechanisms operational & design parameters.
Before I go into the details I'm going to give a brief explanation over a series of posts (not enough time to make one paper) of the rationale behind the thoughts that lead to this hypothetical mech arrangement, which hopefully you will reflect & comment on as we go.
As many of you are aware I favour a gravity ‘assisted’ approach to finding a workable mechanism. By this I mean using an environmental force or factor to overcome the resetting shortcomings inherent in pure weights & levers scenarios, when using the conservative force of gravity, alone.
N.B. every system designed so far has torque symmetry, which leads to chronic keeling & failure to replenish itself i.e. the common OOB design, which trades vertical height for width, found in many guises.
The answer would seem to fall between either Â…
1. an unusual & little known force of physics (such as jim_mich's discussion of rotating spinning objects) providing an advantage, or ..
2. somehow, Bessler overcame the resetting difficulties of an OOB design using ordinary well-known examples & physics, but not thought to be applied in the manner in which he used them.
The next question that I raise is one that I started discussing with Ken some time ago. If an individual mech could be designed, which combined with others in a wheel environment, gave constant or variable OOB (i.e. a shifted CoG) that never lead to keeling, could we break the symmetry relationship that always seems to exist ?
To come up with such a mech we usually we think of parallelograms & balance beam arrangements like MT143 & Dr. Desaguliers balancing apparatus. The shortcomings of these being that although you can create a balancing beam (where weights are displaced unequally) the torque is ever present & applied down thru the handle you hold into your wrist or thru the connection to the earth via its stand or attachment. That's why they are notoriously difficult to use in a wheel environment (i.e. attached to a pivot/axle so they act like a pendulum) _yet_ Bessler indicates that they hold promise in the toy page.
So my question to the discussion group is ..
1. must a mechs CoG Â…MOVEÂ… i.e. oscillate, circulate, swing in an arc etc during its replenishment cycle. Logic & intuition would seem to suggest that something must move in order to create torque, but is that always true ?
2. can the mechs CoG remain _stationary_ (i.e. in orientation to its stub axle attachment) & still apply torque by virtue of a displaced CoG alone, if it could be done ?
Below are some crude attachments to show the general scenario I am proposing.
The next instalment will follow as time allows.
Attachments
CoG constant - doesn't cycle or orbit.
Rotated 45 degress _ CoG relative position constant.
Fletcher,
The only thing I would disagree with at the moment is the comment saying that Bessler says the parallelograms hold promise as indicated on the toy page because he didn't say that. What he actually said was something held some promise on the toy page. What I've noticed is everyone always centers on the most detailed drawings of that page, they sometimes talk about the top, and always seem to ignore the rest, which shows a linkage of levers, but more than that, the two drawings show the value of the many. The main problem is people automatically gravitate to mechanics instead of considering that the linked items and , as well as, the jack that shows the ever decreasing linkage a maximum length to a minimum, are revealing a principle that works because of the many.
That may be so Michael & I also believe a combination of elements is likely. It may ultimately be that there is a hidden parallelogram at work in the up coming discussion but it is not anchored or visible in the usual sense, as will be seen, hence why I introduced the concept to the discussion early.
Personaly, I think that the parallelogram is a simplification of the Jack Arm (scissor arm) ..
If you take just one section of that jack, when in action, let's say, stretching or shrinking, the arm sections looks like a parallelogram (with pivots on all the arms)...
Now, what the hammers have to do with it .. . Maybe Bessler is saying that a falling weight possess more power ..
Falling weights on the right side of a clockwise turning wheel .
These weights push on Something .. then, they are lifted again to the top of the wheel ..
The mecanism to lift, must have something to do with the jack arm . .
By kicking a side of the lower arm pivot with a falling weight, you can send another weight that resides on the top of that jack to the top . . .
Something like that .. .
Just ideas sent into the air .. .
Edit : Hmm, maybe a stretching arm pushing a weight at the extremity, which in turn, pushes another weight.. then resets on the lifting side of a wheel . .. . hmmmm...
Wheeler .. take it as CW rotation. The main point is that the CoG does not sink & rise as the wheel rotates thru segments but remains stable in its relative position.
Could such a mech be designed that always had a 'high & wide' CoG ? If it could, must it then always apply torque to the axle so that it turns continuously ?
An ordinary parallelogram arrangement can change the actual local CoG but the torque thru the stand or fixed attachment is still there, turning it into a pendulum, because its not anchored in space in any way !
OK I see something in this thread that is going into the direction that seems powerful.
I do not understand it totally, but it carries much promise.
Something is brewing here.
Fletcher your words of
high & wide' CoG may hold an important key.
the CoG does not sink & rise as the wheel rotates thru segments but remains stable in its relative position.
This makes good sense. If the cog is naturally not sinking or rising, torque should be the product.
Falling weights on the right side of a clockwise turning wheel
Without knowing what you have experimented with, have you discarded the transference of energy. Like in the pool room ball?
Seems like fall of all the ball can act like a tall mall or hammer.
If this hammer slammer can clammer with scissor sisters, would motion Mac make the wack smack?
Maybe swing and bang creates slightly more energy! Put the system of scissor with it and maybe the change will be transferred without loss?
My "immersion" principle, which feels to me and some others like a good idea.. Well, maybe that is the key. . . .
The falling weight on the right side of the wheel is hammering the cisor arm (Let's call that, the linear arm) .. That linear arm will push a lever, that will compress the weight at 9 o'clock. There is a spring tho, it will depend on the force of that spring . . .
All the elements are there : Knocking weight, 8 weights, the spring, the lever, the shifted CoG etc etc . .. .
Falling weights on the right side of a clockwise turning wheel
Seems like fall of all the ball can act like a tall mall or hammer.
If this hammer slammer can clammer with scissor sisters, would motion Mac make the wack smack?
Wheeler : What !? .. 8]
You seemed a bit sarcastic, but yeah I think so ..
Lustinblack
I see I may have an understanding of what you are thinking.
It looks like in your most resent post, you may have multipal friction zones.
I think you hit the 8 Ball with your idea, but the bearings as shown by my red circles add up to the amount of each total friction loss. Is this something you have considered?
Wheeler, you may be right with friction, but I didn't meant that the design posted was functional, it was a sketch of what I thought at the moment .
Anyways, less arms, or maybe just a big parallelogram or anything that can transfer the falling weight force in a linear movement that moves the other weight near the center .. Maybe no spring too ..
There is room for improvement, that's sure ..
The 8-ball will be the last one to fall, there are still other balls on the game..
