Marquess of Worcester

[Tarsier79]

Sam. The number of weights above or below a horizontal line is of no consequence. I know there are some that believe it is. The main factor is is a single weight/mechanism provides more positive torque during its entire rotation. It does not in this case either.

[justsomeone]

I totally agree with Tarsier. If you have a wheel than maintains its com at 4:30, it will continue to rotate!

[Tarsier79]

Cheers Justsomeone. It is odd the different conclusions we come to based on our experience, even though a lot of us have experimented with or examined many of the same mechanisms.

I think 3 lobes is a good simplification of this mechanism except for the hanging weights. The faster you spin it, the more they will swing out to the side. If you wanted them to hang straight down, you would need more mechanisms and a slower rotational speed...

[Sam Peppiatt]

Well I'm going to stick to my guns.

It's not going to work! But don't take my word for it. Build it and see. And good luck with getting all 80 ropes all the right length------------------------------------Sam

[agor95]

Hello All

You know we are all agreeing about the status of the Marquis Wheel.

Studying this device together is a platform for us too grow a common understanding in general about the subject.

This also benefits other readers of the topic who are less experienced.

Of cause 3 units made up of [2 screws, 1 piece of string and a nut weight] could be attached to a wooden disc wheel. You don't need any of the frame.

Just a dusty old wooden disc base board from another experiment.

Look on the bright side a person can do 3 units to 5 and then 8 units very quickly; in a flash.

P.S. Trying to do the impossible does generate creativity.

Regards

[agor95]

Well I'm going to stick to my guns.

I understand your point the more weight below the axle the less hope in getting the wheel to turn for any length of time.

Positive torque is quite useful in lifting weights so the more the better.

P.S. Keep on searching

Regards

[agor95]

I trust some members appreciate the symbolism present in the design.

It could be sold as jewellery. A talisman against hopeless causes.

All the Best

[Georg Künstler]

weights below the axle must not mean that the forces are below the axle.

So we can have a condition where the weights are hanging down below the turning axle and the forces on a rope are in the upper area of the wheel.

It is a top heavy construction where the weights are below the turning axle.

Also what you can detect is that the suspension point is wandering in x,y coordinates.

One suspension point is wandering to the center the other is wandering away from the center.

[agor95]

weights below the axle must not mean that the forces are below the axle.

I am looking at the forces using this rule that may need improving.

A free to move weight hanging from an anchor point is the same a the weight being at the anchor point. In other words treat the anchor point as the weight.

Were a weight is connected to the frame follow the weight's C.O.M. vertically to the horizontal axle line and mark it's distance from the pivot point.

Also follow vertically the anchor points to the horizontal axle line and mark it's distance.

As the weights are the same size just add the distances on the left and minus the distances on the right for an instantaneous torque reading.
Were weights are in Kilogrammes and the distance is in Meters.

The above is a static rule not one that has any dynamic interaction.

Saying that I treat gravity as a dynamic vertical interaction - but that is me.

P.S. You see this rule is affected by lateral movements.
The potential energy is affected by vertically position.
The dynamic change in the vertical does affect this lateral rule above.

Note. It's another topic but your picture does show a weights conflict.

Regards

[agor95]

Hello All

I have put in the red and green anchor points and a green rod to one of the cyan weights. You should see two other cyan weights resting in their respective boxes.

If you follow the rules posted above we have (-1.2, 0.76 & 0.5875 distance from the axle). However 1.2 is positive torque and 1.3475 negative combined torque.

All the Best

[agor95]

Hello All

I have been looking at the design considering what needs to be done to improve things. Going a little cross eyed [usa: Boss eyed].

So you can join in here is a stereo scene.

Regards

[WaltzCee]

The design has acceleration when the mass/bob lifts up off its rest spot to the point of suspension yet what of it? That acceleration is instantaneous. I've had bobs moving a bit past 5K mph in simulation.

What principle would you say this design embodies, agor?

[WaltzCee]

at the moment the bob begins to move, its mass moves to the point of suspension.

It's hard to figure the time yet on a 1 meter radius wheel the mass moves up 107.143 mm and to the left 3.572 mm.

Bob is hooking!

When one considers the wheel is moving against gravity, ole Bob is moving at escape velocity plus some.

that is up in a flash!

not a novel idea though.

. .. .. .

[WaltzCee]

and to the left 3.572 mm.

correct that to right.

I approximated where the masses were.

[agor95]

Hello All

Here is the last 3d Stereo image of the 3 compartment Marquis Wheel.

I believe we all agree this simple version is better for analysis than a 40 compartment original. Also we all agree this simple version has problems.

We should look at a more complex design like an 8 compartment version.

Regards