My concept gravity wheel ...

[Steve C]

I made a series of pictures to try and explain my idea. I'm sure one of you clever types can inform me why it won't work :)

Page 1 : http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/4540/page1wi.png
Page 2 : http://img853.imageshack.us/img853/1121/page2u.png
Page 3 : http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/8940/page3c.png
Page 4 : http://img835.imageshack.us/img835/285/page4t.png
Page 5 : http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2699/page5go.png
Page 6 : http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/5695/page6z.png

Some things that maybe I havn't made clear in those pictures -
- The arms should never come into contact with each other, to ensure that the balls weight (energy) is all directed onto only one spot on the main wheel.
- The inner wheel itself will have to be able to house a ball. Maybe some kind of rails along the inner and outer parts of this would be ok, to stop the ball falling out!
- The arms would have to be really strong since they connect to the main wheels rim and extend away towards the centre (to help form the inner wheel). The weight of the ball would probably influence what they are made of.

Let me know what you guys think :)

[jim_mich]

Steve C,

Somewhere you have picked up a mis-conception. Where and how you attach the arms to the wheel makes no difference because the arms are rigidly fixed to the wheel. Your wheel will act the same as if the inner wheel segments were attached directly to the wheel without using any arms. Using an arm does not cause the force to travel outward as shown by your red arrows and does not rotate the wheel as shown by your green arrows.

[eccentrically1]

The ball is going to drop down from where it is onto the arm that's pointing at about 4:30 then just roll to the rim and stop. The cup on that arm won't be in position to catch the ball, if the ball made it through the space in between the arms.

[murilo]

Steve,
wow!
Congratulations for your design!
A fresh idea, at the end, where you try to transfer the potential to out of the keeling position to perimeter!
You think of 'ball' but I think of 'cylinder' or even a eccentric cylinder with few large 'teeth', in order to reach also arms at 4h or 3:30h.
Not easy to build 'cause the arms must 'float' or 'rest' over cylinder, but still worthy for a model.
Best!
M

[jim_mich]

Steve C's idea can be tested very easily. First you need a wheel or simply a wooden ruler with a hole in the center, anything that will rotate around an axis. Drill two bolt holes on opposite edges of the wheel or at the ends of the ruler. Raid the kids toy-box for a marble. Raid the coat closet for a couple metal coat hangers. You will need pliers and wire cutters. Cut a piece of straight coat hanger and bend a loop at one end just big enough for the marble to rest in it. Bend a loop at the other end small enough to be about equal to the drilled holes. Bolt the two coat hanger wires to the wheel and bend then to hold the marble below the wheel center. They are the arms. Only two are needed so that the wheel balances. Now place the marble in its holder loop below the wheel axis. The whole assembly will be stable. Remove the marble and the wheel might rotate slightly due to it not being balanced. Replace the marble back on its holder loop and the wheel will just rest there. Rotating the wheel either way will raise the marble upward and if rotated far enough the marble will roll off its holder.

If you used a wheel instead of a ruler then you could add more wires and the marble could roll from holder to holder as you manually rotate the wheel. A bit of cardboard as a guide might keep the marble from falling on the floor. But rest assured, the wheel will not self-rotate.

[Bill_Mothershead]

Very good pictures. Good description of idea.

I am going to assume that the heavy duty wire "arms"
don't bend or deform much (they are NOT springs.)

In that case, all the forces are STATIC, ie. there is
nothing moving (swinging around or deforming) where the
forces are applied. It is as though all the components
of the design were glued to the surface of the wheel.
That also includes the ball/weight which seems to just
roll around in an enclosure, always remaining just below
the axle. Everything is in balance.

If you want to invent an unbalance wheel, think up a
way to get the weights to move outward/away from
the axle on the descending side of the wheel and
move inward/closer to the axle on the ascending side.
Make the movement of the weights be powered by
overall configuration/movement of the wheel.

[KAS]

Steve,

I like your design. It is a fresh Idea that I think hasn't been discussed before.

I am afraid however that Jim is right. IMO, It makes no difference where the attached arms are in relation to the ball weight, it is where the weight is that is important.

Because the arms are attached to the wheel, the body of the wheel will ignore any stresses placed on one particular arm in favour of an overall mass; And as the ball is placed just below centre, the wheel will act as if the ball was pinned to the wheel in this position. This means it will keel.

Even if it were possible, the weight of the ball will lower the cradle it sits on making it difficult to move up hill to the next cradle.

It makes a good discussion topic however. Thanks for posting it.

Kas

[Steve C]

Thanks for the replies guys. This is why I should have paid more attention in physics lessons at school!
I will try and refine my over-complicated hamster wheel into something that might actually move :D