NOTHING More than a wheel with swinging weights...

[raj]

Hello everbody!
Here I go again with a new Gravity Wheel concept.
It looks to be the best gravity wheel concept I have come up with, so far.
Again, the drawings below, are self-explanatory.

Briefly, eight cylindrical weights(5) swinging on strings(6) inside a cylindrical drum wheel (1)are constrained to follow an ellitical path/orbit round the axle(4), by moving/rolling inside pairs of string/flexible loops (7)on radially fixed pairs of pulleys(8), fixed at 45 degrees interval inside drum wheel.

What do you think of this very simple concept?
Let us hear from you.

Raj

[raj]

Terribly sorry, I posted a PDF drawing file by mistake. Please Moderator, you can delete this file.
Here is a smaller file below.

[Bill_Mothershead]

This kind of reminds me of your previous forum topic at:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4267

The only person who replied to your topic was me,
and this is what I said then....

You might me on to something here, but I just couldn't make out
what is happening by looking at your drawings.

Which way is the wheel turning, CW or CCW?

Diagram has too many strings. Yes, every string is attached to
something, etc. Perhaps you could highlite or BOLD just
one "set" of strings to help make out what is attached to what.

I assume CW this time?

Where are the pulleys?

[AB Hammer]

Bill

This one is a bit different than the other. IMO

Alan

[DrWhat]

Thanks raj for posting.

Some arrows on the strings would help to show which way things are moving as well as different colored strings to show which are interconnected would help.

You have to always ask yourself, where are the weights being lifted up and what forces are being used to achieve this.

Nice idea so far.

Damian

[raj]

Thanks a lot, all of you.

Bill, my sincere apology for not replying to you in my previous topic. You see, I try to do some physical testing with every concept I come across. In my previous concept I found pulleys fixed outside the cylindrical wheel and not turning with the wheel to constrain weights to follow elliptical path/orbit, was NOT performing as I had thought.
That why I did not continue with the previous topic. Again, my apology for not coming back to you.

DrWhat, I am very poor at graphics. At best, I can only draw a sketch.
Yes, there are a lot of strings.
In fact, in this new concept, there are 8 weights, 8 strings, 16 pulleys and 16 flexible loops. Just too much to display in a single 2D drawing. And this is making it difficult for me to convey my idea properly to you all.

Well, below is a drawing with an attempt to explain this new concept.
N.B: the wheel is supposed to rotate clockwise, simply because the weights cause more torque on the clockwise descending side of the weights, as they move freely, swinging on their string towards the outer rim of the wheel, because the loops are slackened on that side and the weights are then constrained to move closer to the centre of the wheel on the ascending side, in an ellipyical path/orbit, as the flexible loops stretch and tighten pulling up the weights on that side.

It looks to me that this arrangement of swinging weights, pulleys and flexible loops will assure a continuous overbalanced wheel and the wheel will rotate only by the torque/force provided by the weights.

Of course, All of this looks TOO GOOD TO BE TRUE.
I look forward to have your views whether my new concept make any sense to you.
Raj

[Bill_Mothershead]

Yes, yes, the weights on the left (going up) are closer to the center.

But, in general, if you ignore weights NEAR the 12:00 & 6:00 as
having almost no torque, what do you see? Three weights going up
and only two going down.

This "quick look" is obviously NOT a fair analysis. One must actually
crunch the numbers to see what is actually happening.

Anyway, it is a good example of thinking out of the box.
It is simple enough that you might be able to tinker with it
enough to get it to work. Good job.

[raj]

Greetings to you all from sunny tropics.

As I have mentioned several times before on this forum, I am not, at present, in a position to attempt a proper built of any of my concepts.
Hopefully, by next year, I shall built test prototype/s of my gravity wheel concept/s.

However, before posting any new concept on this forum, I usually try some elementary physical testing of the basic feature/element of the concept.

My present gravity wheel concept looks very much like weights swinging/rolling on strings/ flexible loops on lever arms. These weight are providing direct torques clockwise and counter-clockwise to the wheel.
The question is: Will the CW torque be continuously more than the CCW torque?
As Bill has pointed out, if you look at my drawing, there are maybe more weights going up than coming down. I believe that it is not only the number of weights that determines torque, but equally the distance of each weight from the fulcrum of the seesaw or axle of the wheel.
There may be more weights going up than coming down continuously but if the combined distance/s of the fewer weights going down is continuously more than the combined distance/s going up, this could provide net positive torque to keep the wheel rotating.
If you study my concept drawing consciously, starting from a static position as is presented, measure the torques CCW and CW, you will find that there is a net positive CW torque, which should make the wheel rotate CW.
Now, if you can visualise the wheel rotating clockwise at the slowest speed, can you then see each weight on the flexible loops changing its position with regards to the fulcrum/axle of the wheel, coming closer to the ascending side and going further away on the descending side, while all the time, all the weights are acting directly on the fulcrum/axle of the wheel.
As such, the combined distance/s of CW weights will continue to be more than that of the CCW weights, which would mean that the net positive CW torque will be maintained, and the wheel should continue to rotate.

NOW, can you comment on my explanation above?
Thanks.
Raj

[path_finder]

Dear raj,
A first comment:

I believe that it is not only the number of weights that determines torque, but equally the distance of each weight from the fulcrum of the seesaw or axle of the wheel.

It is not only the number of the weights,
it is not only the distance from the center
it is specially the path and the kinetic energy of the mobile weights
There are here too much people thinking in 2D and in a 'static only' point of view.
What is the contribution of a moving weight for the main torque?

[nneba]

Hey,

On the subject of the weights distance from the axel, would it be a safe analogy in saying that a weight close to the outside of the wheel would be the equivalent to "low" gear in a vehicle, while a weight closer to the axel would be harder to turn but posses more torque (high gear)

nneba

[jim_mich]

nneba, Yes.

[shap-O-vert]

Really?

Given that Torque has dimensions of force times distance isn't it the exact opposite; assuming the weights are of equal mass, of course.

Ciao

shap-O-vert.

[raj]

Based on your comments above, I am forced to conclude that a simple seesaw, with a weight closer to the fulcrum (in whatever gear) and another identical weight further away from the fulcrum (in whatever gear), will not move at all, but stay balanced.

I just wonder.

But should the seesaw make however small movement, the weights movement will be controlled in parts by the path the seesaw arms will take.

Raj

[nneba]

Shap

This is a common misconception, and a fundamental flaw with overbalanced wheels.

nneba

[AB Hammer]

raj

Here is one of my quick evaluation styles on your design.

The pink line is in the strait up position or 1st position. +9 to -8/9

The purple is in the second position as if is was upright and the purple circles are estimated movement. +10 to -12

The lower shifting up will have a ramp like friction and negative torque effect.

These test show a balanced wheel when compared together each position.

Read again my e-mail to you. You also may want to download my grid for fast/stagnant evaluations as well.


Alan