Symmetrically Balanced Systems – are they able to develop useable torque ?

[LustInBlack]

Wheeler: Good, we are on the same wavelength then !


One thing to remember here, is that, during weight fall on the right side of the wheel, there is counter-torque produced by the weights on the other side, that applied to my previous design when I tried to make the weight fall for too long ...

The falling time should be reduced to the absolute requirement.

In this case, since the weights on the left would be near center, then, maybe that's no more a problem .

One thing we should not forget : "... they add up more and more levers, until the thing locked up ..."

Wheeler is right, less is better...

[Michael]

LustInBlack,
You can't justifyably make the statement that eight weights is a part of all the elements, there was never any statement made as to how many weights there were in the wheel, except the statement, there were many pieces of lead, and we also know the wheel was very heavy and the weights shown were small.

Sorry to hijack your thread Fletcher, back to your topic.

[Wheeler]

Woo OK
I thought for a moment you were going to hit the red nuke button!

So are you saying that fall of weight may have enough energy to slightly push 9 O-clock?
Seems like it can be done with slight force from fall side.

[Wheeler]

Sorry Fletcher
I hope you will continue with your theory.

[LustInBlack]

Ok, maybe there is more or less than 8 weights that's sure ... But we are shooting in the dark here.. we may never know for sure.. But according to witness there were 8 bangs .. .

Also, weights were supposed to work in pairs, in this case, it's true too .


Wheeler : I believe there is useable energy when falling to shift the weight at 9 o'clock ..

Let's take for example MT18 and pull on the spring at 9'oclock ..


Maybe we should start another thread on this .. .

[Wheeler]

LustInBlack

I think that you should start a topic on this.

It may or may not give you answers, but it will solve something.

I can hardly keep up with my own testing, and my job for 15 hrs a day, so I may miss some of your posts, but I will try to stay with it.

[LustInBlack]

Alright, I start a new thread called : "Falling Linearly"

[Fletcher]

:7)

[Fletcher]

Ok .. no starters on this perplexing question about whether useable (able to be applied) torque can only be created by the _movement_ of an individual mechÂ’s components, resulting in a shift of the wheels combined CoG, which then must cycle or orbit, verses, a mech with a constantly orientated CoG, being able to produce & apply torque or not ?

Yet, imo, this is fundamental question. IÂ’m simply questioning the assumption held by us all that things must move inside a wheel to create OOB.

Every design I’ve ever seen relies on something moving within the wheel to ultimately create an imbalance in that wheel. As a mech morphs, its CoG shifts by virtue of that necessary movement – this impacts on the combined CoG of the wheel as a whole, causing it to translate, the hope being that the combined CoG will orbit to its start position (position of highest potential) again.

Because gravity is the prime moving agent & it is a conservative force, then after losses are taken into account the wheel keels, never again achieving its starting potential. This appears to be inescapable, that is, unless it can get some help.

This discussion is simply the “black box” approach to solving the problem that Tinhead posted about some months ago. Forget the mechs detail. It’s not actually important for this exercise. Just ask what conditions or functions must the magical black box be able to do or meet to make the wheel continuously OOB.

We all do this instinctively with varying degrees of success but as yet no one has come up with a workable design Â… so Â… it probably means one of our basic assumptions or tenets is incorrect or incomplete. A good place to start might be questioning whether shifting CoGÂ’s are necessary (as we assume) & if you take the alternative view, can we conceive of a design that never drops its CoG, therefore never keels, or perhaps a design that can change between one state & the other at will or with a little encouragement.

FYA, attached is a crude drawing of a thermal wheel design that uses heated rubber bands to create a constantly oriented CoG & OOB wheel.

[Michael]

I've said this before but here goes again. What about a design that uses a center of gravity drop to cause the wheel to turn though the application of torque on one side, but then releases the dropped center of gravity on the other, basically like a typical water wheel, and the dropped form is brought up to restart in a way that doesn't affect the wheel. Symmetry is broken, and then reformed.

[Fletcher]

snip .. and the dropped form is brought up to restart in a way that doesn't affect the wheel.

There's the rub in your statement Michael. Many look under just that same rock but it relies on that single & not insignificant condition being able to be met. Normal leverage principles doesn't appear to hold an answer. I'm all ears as to how you think this might be achieved :)

[Michael]

Hmmm I see what you are saying now, I didn't get it because the center of gravities for each mechanism (elastic bands) are in fact changing but the center of gravity for the whole doesn't, hence what your first illustrations were all about I am assuming.

[Fletcher]

My previous illustrations were to show the 'black box' approach. If we could achieve a mech that held the CoG (singularly & collectively) 'high & wide' rather than 'low & wide' like the thermal wheel, wouldn't that produce continuous rotation just like the thermal wheel ?

Applied torque is what turns a wheel, at least that's what we all assume, else we wouldn't pursue all these OOB designs using levers & translocation of weights etc.

But ... what if we could come up with a thermal wheel equivalent that uses another environmental factor or force to aid & abet gravity so that the wheel just simply _has_ an offset CoG at all times & never even moves towards the PQ point, hence no keel position ?

It's effective center of mass is always to the side of its center of rotation (usually the axle).

[ken_behrendt]

Fletcher...

I think your design using the heavy rim and the elastic bands is incorrect. Elastimers, I believe, actually contract when heated, so the CG of the heavy rim in your sketch should be to the right of the "axle" of the rim and the rotation should, consequently, be CW, not CCW as you show.

Last year, there was an active member here named Ed who posted some designs similar to your elastic band wheel. In his versions, the heavy rim was attached to the axle by springs. He then pushed a surface up against one side of the rim to shift its CG to one side of the axle. IIRC, I think he claimed that WM2D models of his device did produce continuous rotation!


Anyway, the recent posts on this thread bring up an interesting question. That being is it possible to get continuous rotation out of a system of rotating weights if their CG is always located to one side of a wheel's axle?

The problem is that if such a wheel was to accelerate, then one would expect the CG of its weights to drop. BUT, this is not possible since the CG for the weights, by design of their shifting mechanisms, remains fixed in space with respect to the wheel's axle.

Well, all I can say is that I have had a very few WM2D models that, for a brief interval of time, did appear to keep the CG of their rotating weights displaced to one side of the wheel's axle and they did, indeed, show acceleration during those brief intervals. So, I believe that it is most certainly possible.

The problem is to find a mechanism that will maintain the displacement of the weights' CG without giving rise to a counter torque on the wheel. I have seen many designs that, at first glance, obviously kept their CG's to one side of their axles, but all of them created a counter torque as soon as the wheel was free to move that exactly equaled the driving torque and, thereby, rendered the wheel motionless.

This was Bessler's great achievement...he found a way to maintain the displacement of his wheel's CG without creating a counter torque in the process.


ken

[Fletcher]

Fletcher... I think your design using the heavy rim and the elastic bands is incorrect. Elastimers, I believe, actually contract when heated, so the CG of the heavy rim in your sketch should be to the right of the "axle" of the rim and the rotation should, consequently, be CW, not CCW as you show.

umm .. I actually think it is correct ken .. IINM the heat source (be it a flame or lamp) causes the rubber strands next to it to contract (thicken & shorten). In so doing the rim portion to the right side must move towards the axle (which is attached to its bearing & support). At the same time the rubber strands on the left side (directly opposite the contracted strand) must thin & stretch (they have cooled to near ambient temperature) to accommodate the contraction on the other side. Obviously the rim diameter is constant but the center of rotation is continuously shifting.

Now if you look at the mass of the rubber bands in isolation then there is a very obvious right shift in CoG (of the rubber) but this is more than adequately compensated for by the _heavy_ rim now lying to the left of the vertical thru the axle. Gravity causes the rotation CCW.

Last year, there was an active member here named Ed who posted some designs similar to your elastic band wheel. In his versions, the heavy rim was attached to the axle by springs. He then pushed a surface up against one side of the rim to shift its CG to one side of the axle. IIRC, I think he claimed that WM2D models of his device did produce continuous rotation!

Yes, these types of designs have been around for years (see SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, May, 1956). I do remember Ed's post though & Michael's, reporting on thermal engine designs, b4 that. I had also physically built many years ago a similar spring & cam operated wheel to Ed's design, IIRC, with no success.

Anyway, the recent posts on this thread bring up an interesting question. That being is it possible to get continuous rotation out of a system of rotating weights if their CG is always located to one side of a wheel's axle?

The problem is that if such a wheel was to accelerate, then one would expect the CG of its weights to drop. BUT, this is not possible since the CG for the weights, by design of their shifting mechanisms, remains fixed in space with respect to the wheel's axle.

Well, all I can say is that I have had a very few WM2D models that, for a brief interval of time, did appear to keep the CG of their rotating weights displaced to one side of the wheel's axle and they did, indeed, show acceleration during those brief intervals. So, I believe that it is most certainly possible.

I do hope you are right ken & that's why I'm asking these types of questions - to get a feel for what others may think.

The problem is to find a mechanism that will maintain the displacement of the weights' CG without giving rise to a counter torque on the wheel. I have seen many designs that, at first glance, obviously kept their CG's to one side of their axles, but all of them created a counter torque as soon as the wheel was free to move that exactly equaled the driving torque and, thereby, rendered the wheel motionless.

Absolutely correct ken .. I'm a little afraid that if I can devise a system that has a high displaced CoG it will have NO driving torque but on the up side will have NO counter torque to worry about :)

This was Bessler's great achievement...he found a way to maintain the displacement of his wheel's CG without creating a counter torque in the process.

Yes .. his black box thinking was far advanced from ours. His wheels were also able to do all those astonishing things, from seemingly true OOB, that steve has noted - no small feat.

.. ken