Complete Overbalance Wheels

[Oxygon]

I was wondering...

My research into possible PMM designs goes back 10 years plus, I wanted to know if anyone here knows of designs relating to a "complete overbalance"?

What I means is "If we have weights on one side of the wheel, the others would be completely in the center..."

I haven't seen anything like my own designs...

[Jonathan]

I can't think of any specifically. But many, many designs, like the one in your avatar, can be easily altered to do that. It really isn't that different from having a wheel exactly like your avatar, only in such a design the output and input energies both increase by 2mgr joules per rotation (as compared to a design like your avatar), where r is the smaller of the two radii.

[Oxygon]

I can't think of any specifically. But many, many designs, like the one in your avatar, can be easily altered to do that. It really isn't that different from having a wheel exactly like your avatar, only in such a design the output and input energies both increase by 2mgr joules per rotation (as compared to a design like your avatar), where r is the smaller of the two radii.

Well it increases output, as for the increase in "input"... We are talking about a perpetual motion machine here, I think its fairly sure it would have too accomodate the extra effort...

Plus there's less to offset the imbalance...

[Jonathan]

That was my point, that a mechanism could be made so that the machine would provide that input, and then it wouldn't run because its output had increased by the same amount. So there's nothing better with complete rather than partial overbalance, except possibly in the engineering details, depending on the working principle.

[Oxygon]

"a mechanism could be made so that the machine would provide that input, and then it wouldn't run because its output had increased by the same amount"

... What? if I change the movements (provided I had a working design to begin with), the variation of these "beginning/inner and end/outer" motions would directly effect the output... how this would this stall the system?

the key is to design a machine which does accomplish this...

[Jonathan]

Of course you're correct, if the machine worked in the first place. But then we're getting ahead of ourselves.

[alfilmx]

One question for Oxigon. Do you have a device working? I have read tommy k and Georg Künstler and Techstuf they already have one device working

[Oxygon]

to answer your question...

No, I cannot say I have a working device becuase I have not tested the machine/s as a whole...

the "components" have all, tested true according to their design, independant of a assembled (Whole Machine) test...

As with the "letting go..." thread in which I outlined a design which I believe would work if assembled...

The outer wieghts will seek equilibrium with gravity... the inner weights will also... since the inner weights distance from the axis never varies the outer weights determine the imbalance... imo... I have tested the design as components and all data leads to success...

I would like to mention that this is not my only idea... And the "Complete Overbalance" in which I refer is an alternative version... composed of independant components as well...

My interest in a "complete overbalance wheel" is that it must be the best we can do... So we should look into this design...

[Jonathan]

That is not correct, if the inner weights move inside straight cylinders, they will be farther from the axis when they are at the ends of the cylinder than when they are in the center. And then (even if the paths they followed were curved so that their radius really doesn't change) they end up less than 180 degrees apart, making the wheel bottom heavy.

[Oxygon]

That is not correct, if the inner weights move inside straight cylinders, they will be farther from the axis when they are at the ends of the cylinder than when they are in the center. And then (even if the paths they followed were curved so that their radius really doesn't change) they end up less than 180 degrees apart, making the wheel bottom heavy.

What? this leads me to believe that you never understood the idea to begin with...

the variance in minute, if one is to take the calculative center of mass of all the inner weights and compare that to the center of the wheel... one would see that their is little difference in that variance compared to the outer weights displacement.

Each "set" component operates above and below the horizontal on opposing sides, this displacement is more than the variance of the inner weights combined "center of mass" on the wheel... The outer "weights" seek the horizontal/balance and when it is found... the inner weight of the next set finds its switching angle, changing its counterparts position to "out"... this proccess is perpetuated.

there are no cylinders...?

the variance to the axis of the wheel occurs during the mid point of the switching" proccess... again this minute displacement is nothing compared to the lever effect from the outer weights shift... to a farther point out...

this "bottom heavy" excuse you seem to keep bringing up is a failure of previous machines and is outdone by the weight shift at the horizontal...

I cannot detial this any further, if you continue to hold you opinion flawless... let it be so... I do not believe the objections you mention hold true to the workability of this design...

[Jonathan]

I was imagining the wheel shown was a cross-section, so that the rectangular weights and the rectangular slots they move in were all circular as seen from another angle. Then it is a short leap to call the weights pistons and the slots cylinders, and then another short leap from this to a hydraulic version. This line of thought should indicate to you how little the specifics of a design matter sometimes.
I didn't realize you still had such strong feelings about this device, you seem awefully defensive. IIRC, Jim did math on this device and got a a little overbalance, and we concluded that it may work, but it wouldn't be practical. But if I'm not mistaken, the math Jim does amounts to a partial sum of an infinite series, that will sometimes (often in nontrivial designs) have a little left over one way or another.
I could do the calculus and I'm quite sure it'd say it doesn't work (then again I haven't done it (properly) yet). If I were you I'd want this resolved to a degree sharper than opinion, but the math might be a pain so I'm not going to do it if you're not interested. But if you are let me know.

[Oxygon]

My opinion is strong because I have tested the components and they operate at angles above and below the horizontal... the outer weights will seek the horizontal... as they do they draw the next components into the previous angles... and so on, and so forth...

The component tests tell me it'd work...

the inner wieghts influence can be reduce significantly by the lengthening the proximity between the inner and outer weight set components...

[Jonathan]

Ah ha! I got the impression you thought this, and now I know:

the inner wieghts influence can be reduce significantly by the lengthening the proximity between the inner and outer weight set components...

At one time or another I've made this same mistake, but it's not true! The torque from the outer weights depends on the difference between their radii. One ounce at 6in and one at 5in (on the other side) results in one in-oz of torque. One ounce at 6ft and one ounce at 5ft 11in results in one in-oz of torque, just the same. You'll notice that one length increased by 12, while the other increased by 14.2, the different scaling done to make the difference between them stay constant. I keep that difference constant because given the relevant specifics of the inner weights, how high they can lift the outer weights is constant, in this case 1in radially at some angle. If that quote from you were true, PM would be quite easy. It was partially because of this flawed concept that I miscalculated Environ's wheel's properties.

[Jonathan]

I almost forgot, that since this came back up, I reread that "letting go..." thread, and since you had objections to the strings I used in my preivous models, I made an all lever version, and it didn't work.

[Oxygon]

how high they can lift the outer weights is constant, in this case 1in radially at some angle. If that quote from you were true, PM would be quite easy...

I understand you mostly... But a imbalance is an imbalance is an imbalance...imo

I'll beit the differences here are minute in nature... I care not to argue about it... I dont have the time or money to build one... My design of "connected weights" to the exclusion of all other tech is my sole justification for the workability of the "letting go..." wheel... given the independant component tests...

I have come to the reasoning that I am wrong before only to decide I am not wrong again... So I will just end there...

until built, who cares... ;P