THE wheel fatal flaw that no one notice

[Leafy]

If you have an OB wheel with 4 mechanisms, it will use OB to gain kinetic energy for the wheel and the wheel use this kinetic energy to flip the reset. Next reset is 90 degrees.

If you increase the mechanism to 8. Same thing will happens except there is less kinetic energy and more OB. Next reset 45 degrees.

If you increase it to 360 mechanisms. It is now an almost pure OB. Only OB is a factor to lift weight, no kinetic energy. Next reset 1 degree.

B wheel is pure OB. Else lack of positioning cause it to stop. A true 360 starting.

[Fletcher]

Hi Leafy ..

Can you tell us what is wrong with Somerset's very efficient design in the attachment below ? Why it isn't a runner ?

Galileo's experiments on balls running down an inclined plane were very conclusive I would have thought ! It does not matter what the mass is or what the slope (path) is, assuming a frictionless environment, each ball will gain the same velocity for the same vertical height lost - IOW's ... GPE (mgh) lost = KE (m0.5v^2) gained .. whether the path is straight line or curved. And it gains GPE and loses KE proportionally on the ascent, until it has zero KE at its starting height (as it started with). => that's the essence of conservative gravity acceleration (force).

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

Let me change context a little on what I've been promoting in the last couple of days. Perhaps it will jog a penny loose for some.

For the moment I'll dispense with describing B's. runners as gaining in momentum, or energy for that matter. It might muddy the waters. Let's just say they gained movement. It's a little less confrontational and you don't have to think about where the energy came from - just the excess-movement.

Here's what B. said himself at the beginning or AP.

PM-AAMS ? hardcopy

Johann E. E. Bessler, 1717 - "Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

My proposition is that there is a B. mechanical assembly inside of each runner wheel that rotates around with the OB Wheel format as it gains in "movement" after it is released (one-way wheels). I'll call it the Prime-Mover. This assembly is the cause of the "excess-movement" and is why the wheel cannot obtain equilibrium (which they seek according to his words above). Clearly they do seek the ubiquitous equilibrium position (it is physically there and acknowledged - like in ALL OB wheels) but cannot stop at it (find it) because it gets a timely forward impetus / impulse. One or other weight MUST apply its weight to the side of the axle causing it to rotate and have an excess of "movement" in the direction of rotation. IOW's .. an extra-torque is applied in the direction of rotation.

Firstly .. it is my strong conviction that the B. mechanical assembly / apparatus (Prime Mover) is what the Toy's Page is all about, and ONLY ABOUT. And the Toy's Page does not show any other sort of OB wheel not covered in the rest of MT.

Secondly .. that the above opening passage in AP is also describing ONLY the Prime Mover, and not a weight-shifting OB wheel format.

** Find the Prime-Mover mechanics that will allow weight-shifting OB wheel 'excess-movement' to spontaneously generate and apply itself and you will have a true runner.

The Prime-Mover and the Weight-Shifting OB Wheel are two different and separate mechanical entities, IMO !

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

[Tarsier79]

I can answer that in a number of ways. Firstly, I believe there is no surviving drawing of the Somerset wheel, and that the somerset wheel had some differences. There are accounts of the somerset wheel displayed and working I believe... but you know how Chinese whispers work.

Below I have attached 2 images of the wheel. The left is the current suspension point.... Which is actually positively OB and should in theory work if OB is all that was reqjuired.

The second image on the right is a perfect OB.... Surely if you could get the weights to hang from the attached points as shown it would rotate....

You all know my view on horizontal displacement.

[Leafy]

Not sure I see through the drawing but my argument is you need inertia acceleration for G wheel. Pure static is reject by default unless some impossible possibility.

I think I know the culprit of this extra energy.

Consider two balls collides each other horizontally. During collision both ball felt a force for a short duration of time govern by:

Force x time = mass x change in velocity
Or Ft=mv

Now what if instead of collide horizontally, it collides vertically in the direction of gravity? Does gravity push them? Yes, for that short duration gravity add force

[F(collision) + F(gravity)] x time = mass x change in velocity
Or. (F+f)t = mv

This is very significant change in kinetic energy except both balls experience it and the duration very short. So it cancelled out.

To exploit the extra force of gravity, only one mass subject to gravity and the other one stay horizontal or of different angle. Second, we must expand the time of collision to maximize profit. A rebound mechanism is a collision mechanism with expansion of time.

[Fletcher]

Here's the one I'm familiar with Tarsier - I think from the museum of unworkable devices but I could be wrong about that.

It shows the suspension points and pockets nicely.

[Tarsier79]

http://perpetualmotion21.blogspot.com/2 ... wheel.html

Here is an interesting read on the M. of W.

[Leafy]

Hi Fletcher,

The design is balanced because although the weights lies outer diameter on bottom right quadrant, they have closer radius because the weight shift forward.

The top left quadrant has inner diameter, but they shift backward so it has further radius.

This is a design that trade height for width and width for height at the same time.

[johannesbender]

I found that a change in radius such that no energy expends in that process , can produce a gain in acceleration and force of the mass , sufficient in amount for the distance that has to be traveled (depending on the radius change) , to dump over past its starting height in to the next cycle.

However I also found that , during that process, there is no gain in system KE , nor in mass velocity , nor in mass momentum , nor in mass KE , i cannot speak for after the process when there is a closed path/ reset because I haven't tested that far.

Results for 2 1kg masses changing radius while swinging under no other force except gravity , and air resistance on, were

Before
mass F 1.312 kgf
mass A 12.868 m/s^2
mass V 3.541 m/s
mass M 3.541 kg-m-s
mass KE 6.269
KE system 13.134 kwh

After
mass F 2.481 kgf
mass A 24.331 m/s^2
mass V 2.693 m/s
mass M 2.693 kg-m-s
mass KE 3.677
KE system 13.134 kwh

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher,

The design is balanced because although the weights lies outer diameter on bottom right quadrant, they have closer radius because the weight shift forward.

The top left quadrant has inner diameter, but they shift backward so it has further radius.

This is a design that trade height for width and width for height at the same time.

Hi L .. Yes, it is a great example of the age-old trading width for height problem.

Here's how I would analyze it.

First .. establish in my mind that it is a static representation i.e. no dynamics (moving) in play. Therefore the masses are not affected by other forces outside of gravity i.e. no Centripetal forces (centrifical/centrifugal IOW's inertia in a straight line of velocity).

Next I would draw it in graph paper with a grid background (here I've used my program because it's quicker for me). Size (dimensions) and weight (mass) is unimportant because all we are interested in that gravity acceleration is constant and vertical. However I made the wheel radius 2 meters giving a diameter close to 14 feet, and 40 masses at 20 kgs each (close to 50 lbs each).

Then I would draw X (yellow) and Y (red) datum lines thru the Center Of Rotation (COR - axle). These are horizontal and vertical respectively because gravity is vertical.

Next I would draw in lines from each mass to both the X and Y datum lines. These are called "Turning Moments" for horizontal distance (blue). And then measure them accurately and add them up, positive one side and negative the other. Same for the location from the horizontal datum line (purple). Subtract left and right sides to net out, same from above and below the horizontal yellow line.

This gives the physical position of the average of the masses at a single location. Put a line joining horizontal average position to the average vertical position and mark the middle position of that line. That's where the system COM/COG is located. If not balanced (COG/COM directly below the axle) then it will be off to one side or another, but still below the axle horizontal line.

In my attachments the program automatically calculates the Turning Moments and gives the position of the COM/COG (black and white circle icon). In the 40 weights example (Somerset - MOW) it is balanced for all intents and purposes. Later I reduced the numbers by a factor of 5 to 8 to show how to draw it out in a simple example. Then we see the system COM/COG is biased to one side (provides a torque) and rotation will occur until it is directly below the axle. IOW's it takes up a position of least/lowest GPE. N.B. the full 40 weight wheel as shown is near enough to balanced by comparison.

Each sector / division has both positive and negative torque positions each side of a balanced position. It's often why it is said that just one weight, or one weight and a counter-weight opposite for example, or two opposing mechs etc, is all you need to prove a concept, if you can get it to replenish GPE etc - adding more weights and sectors doesn't change the basic physical relationships and outcome, in mine and others opinions.

All The Best.

[Leafy]

Here is a propose mechanism that should able to use less energy to reset.

The right mass equals the left mass in weight. The natural stretch of the rubber band is 1 unit length.

When reset the left mass should gain 3.4 GPE

The right mass should spend 2.4 GPE to reset

[Fletcher]

...

[Leafy]

It does not use normal leverage to lift. The ball on the right is drop down and bounce back by the rubber band. It use the kinetic energy + its weight to lift.

[Fletcher]

A couple of comments and observations Leafy ..

The mass (bob) on the right (rhs) is effectively a pendulum attached by a rubber band. That could also be a spring. Either way their function is to store and release elastic potential energy (EPE) and the mass causes them to hang straight down via the pivot connection to the angled lever which is also pivoted.

The thing with elastic potential devices is that whilst they can store and release EPE they have to be "charged" i.e. extended or contracted, in this case by the weight of the mass stretching the rubber band as shown. And this is not for free. What they can give in mechanical energy (move early or lift etc) they also take away when thy have to be charged (positional delays / lag). IOW's there is no advantage overall in the torque they provide to a wheel. That's the dilemma of a spring in such circumstances. What they give in one position is taken away in another and its not even an equal amount. There are frictional, stress, and heat losses which rob the system of some of its "energy".

When things act like a pendulum as you've shown and we want to calculate the system COM then in the case of the rhs mass we use its pivot point as point of application. This applies for all suspended pendulums - the mass acts at the pivot. Regardless of whether it is attached by any compression or extension EPE device. So whether is stretches the rubber band or not (rod analogy) the COM of the rhs mass for practical purposes is calculated at the pivot point.

Therefore all you can do is draw the device up at various increments of rotation and work out what the device practical COM is from the pivot to the lhs mass and find the point half way along that line (assumes the angled lever is virtually massless for the exercise).

Then calculate its positive and negative torque contributions at these incremented positions. And see if the summed torque is asymmetric i.e. a net torque in one direction. Or you can use a program like Algodoo to do this for you.

What you appear to be investigating is being able to lift a mass to a higher GPE than GPE lost cost of that lift. This I believe is one of the reoccurring 'disconnects' I talk about regularly. In order to get greater height gain than height lost (for the same mass etc) you would have to design a device that breaks Archimedes Law of Levers [ALOL - f1 x d2 = f2 x d1]. And Law of Levers is predicated on a constant 'g' acceleration (because it's weight force and f = m x a), which is conservative precisely because it is constant (at earths surface).

As for everyone attempting to fool ALOL I wish you the best of luck, but it's not for me.

My reasoning is that ALOL is an unimpeachable Law, IMO. And as so, for a runner to gain movement / momentum, with complete internal masses GPE restoration within the closed cycle runner, then as far as I can see there is only one avenue to that end in a gravity-only environment. The introduction of excess-momentum (via surplus torque impulse) to the runner from the Prime-Mover design and actions. If the runner has excess-movement then all internal masses (Prime-Mover et al) will automatically be restored into position of full potential and all GPE's replenished, and ALOL will never be violated, or ever need to be violated.

Best as always ..

[Leafy]

Law of Lever is static.

What result would yield using static in dynamic situation?

No one has to do sim. The result usually favor superior argument by the unbiased mind. If I’m wrong, it is so.

[Fletcher]

I'll let others have a crack at that lol ..