Design Based on the Uphill Roller

[Silvertiger]

For those who may not have had the opportunity to build an uphill roller in physics, it is a double-sided cone that travels, seemingly uphill, on two rails that gradually diverge away from each other. I have simply arranged this design into a circle, whereby the rails of two systems overlap each other in a circle, banking on the momentum and inertia properties to have enough kinetic energy to carry the cone over to the next rail. It's just an idea. :)

[Silvertiger]

Here's what I'm talking about, but in a circle with two tracks end to end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkt1eScOCEI

[Thomas]

Look at the video carefully. The distance of the metal roller from the table when it starts rolling is decreased at the end of the roll. It's actually rolling down hill. It's an optical illusion, but still interesting.

[Silvertiger]

Oh yeah I know that. But it's all in the engineering. The angle that widens the track can be dynamically changed as the cone travels, forcing it to go up hill while still technically trying to go downhill. To accomplish this, use either a spring or flexible material to bind the narrow end of the track (there would be a gap at the narrow end for this), and place the low and narrow end of the tracks on pivots as well. As the cone begins to roll, the force of it's own weight will increase the tension on the spring or cord and force the tracks to gradually converge along its path of travel. Problem solved.

[Fletcher]

The Center of Mass [CoM] of the cone is loosing Potential Energy [PE] & converting into Kinetic Energy [Translational & Rotational].

[Rafael Ti]

... and loosing some energy on friction by the way, even if you used two great bearings - one for each side of cone.
If it worked with cones it would firstly work with simple balls and classic /not v-shape/ round track...
Best

[Silvertiger]

Think "potential." :) I'm just thinking of the simplicity behind that "Shoot for the Moon" game and want to apply the same principles of having a dynamic track integrated into the design; a track that, by motion and weight of the cone, narrows itself along the path of travel, staying with the cone, and thus maintaining it's height. Just a thought. :)

[Silvertiger]

Here's my latest update, a vertical design utilizing this concept. I'm not sure it it would work but here it is:



Dimensions:
1. Wheel Dia: 72"
2. Wheel Width: 20"
3. Angle of Divergence, YZ-Plane: 18.9 Deg (Diverged from base gap of 6" to top gap of 18")
4. Angle of Divergence, XY-Plane: 7.5 Deg
5. Double Cone: Length 18"; Dia 12"

And here's a vid:

[James_Arne]

For those who may not have had the opportunity to build an uphill roller in physics, it is a double-sided cone that travels, seemingly uphill, on two rails that gradually diverge away from each other. I have simply arranged this design into a circle, whereby the rails of two systems overlap each other in a circle, banking on the momentum and inertia properties to have enough kinetic energy to carry the cone over to the next rail. It's just an idea. :)

Silvertiger,
What might be a thought is having one point advance radially shifting the CoG of the wheel. this could allow the wheel to lift itself at that point and then continue it's down hill roll.

James_A

edited to add; a lateral shift perpindicular to the axis of rotation might allow for a shift in the CoG of the wheel so it could lift itself.

[James_Arne]

@Silvertiger,
The drawing is kind of what I mean. With m being rotational momentum and l being linear momentum, as the wheel is being lifted at point A it will
also increase it's rotational velocity.
When the wheel is being lifted, it would be losing linear momentum which it would regain when it falls again. But if the spin of the wheel can be increased while it is being lifted, then it would not be losing energy but gaining it instead.
And who knows, it might have the best opportunity to work with point A being directly beneath the axis of rotation for the wheel.

James_A.

[James_Arne]

Here's a thought. With 2 wheels, one of course would have a larger diameter.
This would allow it to have more torque. Because of this, it could rotate a smaller wheel that is lifting a weight from from degrees before bottom center to 45 degrees after top center.
Since the smaller wheel has a smaller diamter, it should take less energy to lift it that it creates when it is moving downward on the larger wheel.
Any thoughts guys ?

James_Arne

[Silvertiger]

Begging your pardon, but what are you talking about? This is not a design that involves torque and swinging weights. Also, the drawing you referenced isn't even a wheel - the update I posted is. Please keep the focus topic-specific. I would greatly appreciate it. :)

[Tarsier79]

Although I you might expect the cone weight to rotate your wheel, rotation of the rings, will require the mass to attach itself to the rim, then fall. Think carefully about Fletchers comment, and its implications for your designs.

[Silvertiger]

I agree. It will definitely try to settle at some elevation at some off-center location. But this is what (I think) I'm trying to go for. At its starting position, seated at the base of the rims, its CoG is elevated, making it want to roll towards the diverging closed-loop path in front of it. When it does roll, it will do so until its CoG is centered along its axis of rotation. Of course, the point at which it settles will be an off-center elevation along the rims. The question I would love to have answered is that once it settles in some off-center location, will gravity succeed in bringing it back down toward the base, achieving some sort of mechanical driving oscillation, or will it at some point find equilibrium? Which will win out in the end? Its settling point or the imbalance in the rims caused by its need to settle off-center? Or neither one? I'm only hoping that what I have here is two objects constantly fighting each other over equilibrium. Moreover, would friction be the ultimate deciding referee in this case?

[nicbordeaux]

May I suggest you have a seesaw track, centrally pivotted, identical both sides of pivot? When one roller reaches the end of it's travel, you release the second roller. This does require energy input (holding one of the cones, then releasing it at the adequate moment). All sorts of variants are possible of course. NB: your cones travel from center -pivot) to end of track, and back to center, alternately). Energy would be best recovered from the actual spinning of the cones, eg the cones are dynamos).