The Wheel is solved in a New Norwegian Patent

[daxwc]

Sparkshade:
I'm going to actually stop working on this now, I have enough proof that it doesn't work as it should,

Don’t throw out those levers. They are countertorque nullifiers. They send the counter torque towards the main axle if activated by a throw rod. They are also lock/neutral in any position without the spring.

Again nice work. How many did you make?

[sparkshade]

Hi Sam - don’t be confused, the reasons it’s not better with more pendulums is that - if change the number of pendulums the equilibrium (of this wheel with three pendulums) disappears and you get equilibrium positions!
- Two pendulums make two equilibrium position
- four pendulums make four equilibrium positions
- and so on, so you can’t make the flywheel to one big pendulum - and you need one big pendulum to change the direction of the potential energy in this way.
This wheel is always in equilibrium - in any position as long as the pendulum hangs freely.
If you lock one pendulum to the wheel you -CREATE- an equilibrium position.
This wheel is not overbalanced (heavy on one side).

EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD, stop repeating that.

Stop dodging the question, where is your proof? You simply decided that any counter-torque won't have an effect on your idea, which is just naive.

[sparkshade]

Sparkshade:
I'm going to actually stop working on this now, I have enough proof that it doesn't work as it should,

Don’t throw out those levers. They are countertorque nullifiers. They send the counter torque towards the main axle if activated by a throw rod. They are also lock/neutral in any position without the spring.

Again nice work. How many did you make?

Yeah I have used them before in simulation actually. I have to modify the design to not use a spring and activate on the descending side, if I pursue this. Right now I'm waiting for the grenouille to provide some proof.

I made a couple of them but the way they activate is not snappy enough, the spring is just a problem. Also looking at the one-way wheel, I don't see how the dual pendulum would kick the main wheel in the same way.

[sparkshade]

The grenouille: And. - no it’s not just theoretical.

PROVE IT, stop yapping.

[Frog]

Ditto to Spark - crisp and clean lever assembly .. what did you use for the spring, it works well ?

..............

Nice work - love it

if the weight follows a track it loses the momentum on the axis of the flywheel, it can’t work.

But the sim is :-*

Hi Frog - thanks for the reply ..

I have to admit that I'm a bit stuck visualizing what you are meaning above ..

fwiw in the sim track scenario I built the system COM/COG spends too much time on the right hand side of the vertical line beneath the axle ( in 1 revolution it spends time on the left and the right ) - and additionally there is plenty of energy wastage as heat etc to impacts as the disks hits their respective track 'stops' which is lost energy from the system which is not replaced with this arrangement .. this means that while net torque is zero per revolution the energy losses to impacts ( n.b. slides are frictionless ) quickly dampens the disk rpm and it slows quickly ..

My thoughts when building it were that the pivoting track with disk would be a close approximation for your dual geared pendulums - in that in your geared arrangement at just before 9 o'cl they open and move out to a greater radius and close again - their combined COM just shifting radially from the inner radius to the outer in a similar fashion to the track disks ( I thought ) - then the dual pends would also collide wasting impact energy in the same manner as the tracked example sim .. also that it would be affected by lag and Cf's as per my sim ..

OK, so if all other things being approximately equal between your dual pendulum arrangement and my track disk sim then if I understand you correctly you have identified that the dual pends opening and closing and their combined COM changing radius is the advantage over my track disk scenario - in that you are suggesting that the act of geared together opening and closing keeps them in constant contact with the disk and torque on the axle i.e. continues to impart momentum while shifting to the disk even while changing radius etc ..

I would argue that the track and disk shifting COM sim scenario also stays in contact with the disk and also continues its torque and momentum contribution to the wheel - at this stage I can't visualize an obvious advantage for the geared pendulums to provide that extra bit of torque at the axle which would cause the wheel to continue to accelerate and gain rpm instead of losing it as per my sim ..

If you can clarify further what you believe is happening at 9 o'cl to give that extra torque it would help all of us begin to better understand what you were describing above !

cheers -f

Sorry - if the weight is in contact with something outside the wheel the weight rests on the it is in contact with so it’s not only on the wheel - the weight is distributed between the wheel and the track.
Thank you for inputs, it’s great 👍

[sparkshade]

Sorry - if the weight is in contact with something outside the wheel the weight rests on the it is in contact with so it’s not only on the wheel - the weight is distributed between the wheel and the track.
Thank you for inputs, it’s great 👍

PROVE IT!

[Sam Peppiatt]

Frog,
If every thing you say is true; why not start the 'reset' a lot sooner, say 1:00 or even 2:00. Then, the gravity that you don't like, would have a lot more time to drive the wheel--------------------Sam

Another thing, if gravity has nothing to do with it; just energy in energy out, energy out will always be less.

[Frog]

Frog,
If every thing you say is true; why not start the 'reset' a lot sooner, say 1:00 or even 2:00. Then, the gravity that you don't like, would have a lot more time to drive the wheel--------------------Sam

Another thing, if gravity has nothing to do with it; just energy in energy out, energy out will always be less.

You have right - you can start the process sooner, but not too soon.
The gravity’s reaction is on a displacement that is done by another work, so you must first do any work with kinetic energy - that is what gravity reacts on.
About energy in is always less - than it right when it comes to kinetic energy because it has a value, potential energy doesn’t.
It just looks like gravity does the work - but it doesn’t, it reacts on previous work.
Thank you for your input and feedback.

[sparkshade]

Frog,
If every thing you say is true; why not start the 'reset' a lot sooner, say 1:00 or even 2:00. Then, the gravity that you don't like, would have a lot more time to drive the wheel--------------------Sam

Another thing, if gravity has nothing to do with it; just energy in energy out, energy out will always be less.

You have right - you can start the process sooner, but not too soon.
The gravity’s reaction is on a displacement that is done by another work, so you must first do any work with kinetic energy - that is what gravity reacts on.
About energy in is always less - than it right when it comes to kinetic energy because it has a value, potential energy doesn’t.
It just looks like gravity does the work - but it doesn’t, it reacts on previous work.
Thank you for your input and feedback.

Can't wait for your proof Frode.

[Tarsier79]

Thank for your input - it helps me to understand what people don’t understand.

Gravity OB is why your wheel won't work. Your device doesn't act with or due to kinetic energy. After OB kills the movement of your wheel, there is no KE. Your double pendulum never will reach 9:00, CCW or CW. Even if it did reach 9:00, the movement of the double pendulum shifts the COM horizontally, directly away from (or towards) the axle. This doesn't add to rotation (except for the OB, which is the only thing that unbalances your wheel.)

[Sam Peppiatt]

Frog,
I disagree with you but; you have to believe in, what you are doing no one else will---------------------Sam

[MrTim]

MrTim: The topic title increased my heart rate temporarily, but once I saw that it had nothing in common with my own designs, I calmed down... ;-)

Why are you Norwegian too 8P

No, but I've got a Swedish branch way down on the family tree somewhere... ;-)

[Fletcher]

Just having a quick catch-up on the thread progress ..

Hey dax .. I think you may have asked about the double geared pends and this jogged my memory ..

This is a sim study I did many years ago - I dusted it off this morning and tidied it up a bit ..

We all know if they are orientated vertical or horizontal there is no tendency to open or close because each pend will lose the same GPE, so they don't move ..

What may be sometimes overlooked is that a circle at 30 degrees from horizontal is the half vertical height distance ( not 45 degs ) - rim distances to North and East are different - as the animation and sim shows the pends will move by themselves to lose NET GPE in most positions if frictionless like in this sim study etc ..

That's because like a Roberval Balance ( Ramelli Geared Balance ) they can't move unless one side can lose more GPE than the other i.e. lose net PE - if there is a potential to lose more than the other they will move ..

Anyways, thought you might find it interesting and appropriate for this thread on double geared pends .. n.b. the sims all begin moving at different times - this is a sim thing that I don't have an answer for as the gears have no frictions that I'm aware of but it just might be slight inaccuracies in copying across .. the green dampers between the bobs is deactivated and their middle positions indicate the COM between the bobs while in motion ( a visual cue ) etc ..

..................



..................

[Fletcher]

Mornin Frog .. there's no way to sugar coat it and I don't want to bang on more than necessary ..

Basically here's what we have all found both in sim-world and real-world builds of this type ..

I've started the sim/animation in the most favourable position for positive torque ( see the system COM/COG black and white icon beneath the axle to left hand side ) - the system COM travel downwards and across to the right hand side of the axle where it dwells too long ..

The sim can not travel 120 degrees of rotation to reset the configuration and build rpm as you hoped, regardless of whether the dual pends are better able to give an impetus to the axle as you described earlier ..

>> I suggest you are going to have to provide some 'proof' of what you are proposing is a runner configuration before any of us can progress it any further with you .. words ain't gonna turn into a prince unfortunately ..

best -f

...................



...................

[sparkshade]

Mornin Frog .. there's no way to sugar coat it and I don't want to bang on more than necessary ..

...................



...................

Hmm you need to have the double pendulums free to rotate on the ascending side, you have a lever on them.

>> I suggest you are going to have to provide some 'proof' of what you are proposing is a runner configuration before any of us can progress it any further with you .. words ain't gonna turn into a prince unfortunately ..

I don't understand why this is so hard to get, some maths, something tangible. Or the due diligence was just not done.