Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[triplock]

Daxwc,

Relax, don't be sooo serious. Let me help you to help me to help you :)

What can be designed out is the flail transference. Do this, and the action will be a lot more fluid and with less loss.

Anyway, add the next thing that needs to go on.

Chris

[daxwc]

I am going to wait for Fletcher to give his final push on RBGS, breaking symmetry and feedback system. It is his baby. No use all the conjecture if I don’t understand everything he wishes to consider. I mean what else would a good apostle do; other than to become a great apostle? Hmm… for thirty pieces of silver one could become Judas Iscariot 8P … Just giving you options ;)



PS, Sorry, it is too late to claim the Messiah spot you ruined that in Gill’s thread. 8)))

[triplock]

Daxwc,

Stop being so pious. We are all entitled to a view point, no matter the subject matter. I'm not here to massage someone else's shoulders or ego. I am that pessimistic elephant in the room.

30 pieces of silver ? Won't do it for less than 60 :)

Anyway, I'll show a variant of the translation mech. shortly.

Chris

[Fletcher]

LOL fellas - things have moved on nicely since last night - I'll just try to answer your questions here in this post before I go to the next level.

dax, it looks like you found that the center gear of the 5 gear mech is stationary i.e. it is a stator - it is anchored by being pinned to the upstand, or in a wheel with a turning axle it would need a very massive artificial horizon to keep it stationary, as I showed in previous diagrams - think of MT13.

BTW - plenty of v bar A's (pantographs) all the way thru MT.

In my drawings I use just half the system you show i.e. a stator & 2 gears, & a counterweight the other side - I did this to isolate the essential system & functions (also the sim can play up with too many gears sometimes) - of course, you can have a double ended RBGS - the principle is just the same i.e. mass balanced or more correctly IMO torque balanced, even though the CG & CoM are not at the COR.

Anyways, assuming all 3 gears are the same radius (therefore same circumference) & if the intermediate gear turns one direction by X degrees the chain or belt gearing will turn the end gear the same degrees or distance in the opposite direction - this means the horizontal beam will stay horizontal in any spar position (actually it will stay at any angle you originally set it to) - the important thing is that it neutralizes torque (torque equalization) - in effect the lhs mass is felt at the counterweight arm, & the rhs mass is felt at the 3rd gear arm - since they are the same mass at the same effective arm then there is zero torque.

Energy isn't created out of nowhere I think dax - that's why I ran thru some scenario's earlier in the thread - ATEOTD if a pure mechanical PMM is possible it will open a scientific can of worms most probably.

.......................

Chris - I don't pull the rack/driver back in - it increases radius twice per rotation - first after 12 o'cl (N.B. when the horizontal beam & the spar angle is 90 degrees or greater) & second after 6 o'cl - the back & forwards movement of the sliding mass is a switch analogue - if you use springs as you have shown the upgoing transition is delayed until about 9 o'cl because the spring stops its free movement.

.......................

Visitors arrived.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Chris,

Because the short arms do not change angles, how do you drive the piston weight in and out, the only way I can see is to use gearing or crank on the short arms and long arms pivots, cranks would be better. The swing hitting the tree can be fixed using two axles. There is to much torque loaded pivot for my liking.

When I see levers and 360 degree angle change pivots I always think stick a generator on them and drive a motor to turn the wheel.

[triplock]

Trevor,

The reciprocation of the piston heads are as a result of the changing radius of them in relation to the RB cor. This, in turn, pulses the centripetal force acting on the laterally sliding weights from a positive value. from a negative t. The spring extension and compression is a measure of the variance in force (which is borne out of the over lap of rim and RB orbits )..

The purpose of this sim was to show that the point of translation to the outer rim could coincide with the maximum CF of the RB displaced weight.
This, in turn, allows for a reduction in counter force once that job is done because the radial distance is being reduced as a consequence of the balanced RB.

The point of my interjection in this topic was to show or highlight my methodology to design which, in some ways, is polar opposite to Fletcher's. Both are beneficial.

Fletcher, I make this one statement. To over-come height for width, neutralise Potential / Kinetic energy exchange.

Come on Daxwc. Put your ideas, as well, on the table and lets debate it out..

Chris

[daxwc]

Fletcher I am of the opinion the wheel will not run unless you get the RBGS to turn clockwise with a different system then you are now (or counter clockwise as I mentioned). The RBGS wheel will not just turn with the wheel after levering the outer rim… it just will never pick up speed to use the CF because it is balanced and because when it is unbalanced it is torqueing counter clockwise. You can’t sim it and two partial sim doesn’t convince me; just my opinion prove me wrong 8)...

Triplock: “

Fletcher, I make this one statement. To over-come height for width, neutralise Potential / Kinetic energy exchange.�

Not sure if Fletcher realises this, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt, he has ready beaten the mechanical disadvantage (height for width) with the RBGS. In his present design no weight is ever picked up or allowed to drop; gravity doesn’t turn anything.

If the design needs to be changed to a gravity wheel he still has beaten it as he still gets all the slider movement free to help transfer mass in a mechanical advantage. This one I think is actually easier to design and I think there is a way to move mass laterally while being fairly balanced in PE and not having to pick much mass up.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

Energy isn't created out of nowhere I think dax - that's why I ran thru some scenario's earlier in the thread - ATEOTD if a pure mechanical PMM is possible it will open a scientific can of worms most probably.

Well, it will blow the doors off Conservation of Energy as we know it. What the hell is ATEOTD? Sounds like a brand name of hemorrhoid cream.

[Dunesbury]

At the end of the day.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, I make this one statement. To over-come height for width, neutralise Potential / Kinetic energy exchange.

Not sure if Fletcher realises this, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt, he has ready beaten the mechanical disadvantage (height for width) with the RBGS. In his present design no weight is ever picked up or allowed to drop; gravity doesn’t turn anything.

If the design needs to be changed to a gravity wheel he still has beaten it as he still gets all the slider movement free to help transfer mass in a mechanical advantage. This one I think is actually easier to design and I think there is a way to move mass laterally while being fairly balanced in PE and not having to pick much mass up.

Ahhh yes dax - I was aware - in fact it was the reason I looked into RBGS's & horizontal movements - retro-fitting 'things Bessler', as you read from me today, came second, & we all know how easily we can fool ourselves from a set of generic clues.

ATEOTD means At The End OF The Dog.

[Dunesbury]

We all know what is at the end of the dog :D

[Fletcher]

Ok, will have to snap this out - a bit under the pump here - may have to come back to it later & fill some bits in, though I'll try to be thorough first time around.

The deeper importance of the Roberval Balance Gearing System - where I believe a symmetry break may lie hiding, in plain sight.

First off - we are by now all familiar with the RBGS - we can appreciate that it is first & foremost a torque equalizing mechanism - that hopefully needs no further explanation.

It is this torque equalizing property that leads directly to what I believe is its second & more important property - that being that it can mitigate Rotational Inertia.

To explain this I have to cast back to Dwayne's & mine discussion earlier in the thread - there I discussed the proposition that one explanation for a purely mechanical PPM that could self sustain & do work, it would have to acquire momentum & KE, from somewhere - that might be possible if a better, more efficient method of momentum transfer between objects could be found than the accepted.

The examples we used were the hangar & battery experiments & the sims analogues built - I proposed that say a 2kg mass at 1 meter radius moving at 10m/s tangential speed (10 units of velocity, 20 units of linear momentum, & 100 units of KE) could be released & due momentum (inertia) it would transition to 2m radius - when it arrived at the rim it would have 5m/s velocity in direction of rotation, 10kgm/s tangential momentum, & 25 J's KE - IOW's it lost 3/4 its KE to right angle rim impact, half it velocity & half its linear momentum [i.e. CoAM] - the argument was that this could be resolved by geometry of right angle triangles into component vectors of velocity & momentum - this was not new having been covered by zoelra & wubbly - my argument was that if we could sum the component vectors consecutively rather than concurrently then we could increase the forward component of speed at the rim from maximum 10m/s to 13.67m/s (by adding 5m/s+8.67m/s) with a corresponding increase in momentum & KE - Dwayne disagreed & thought that the best we could hope for was a maximum of the original 10m/s velocity etc etc - IOW's no increase in momentum & KE.

Part of that discussion was about whether CoAM Law would be broken if the lost component of the transition was used to accelerate the system so that previously lost energy was recovered & used.

......................

Dang .. gotta go - BBWIC.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

It is this torque equalizing property that leads directly to what I believe is its second & more important property - that being that it can mitigate Rotational Inertia.

I would agree with that if you think where the mass is felt at in the RBGS and where it actually could be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rolli ... nertia.gif

[daxwc]

Actually the oppisite should be also be true, that you should be able to increase MOI with a setup of weights inwards on the RBSG also.

[triplock]

Daxwc
I agree with you when you say that Fletcher's design should / could be changed to a gravity wheel. The key , and I know this to be a fact, is to utilize gravity but with a system that negates height for width.

Once my latest two patents reach the publication stage that point will be underlined. Described within those docs are the systems required . Rotation is a by product of that system mesh within. there is nothing magical or anything that runs contrary to the Conservation Laws.

Fletcher, I actually do not understand a word of your last post, which is my fault not yours. I translate it as meaning the outside rim is whipped by the RB mounted flail.


The thing is I still do not see any restoration of PE once the Rotational force has been imparted. Are you sure that the torque imparted to the rim is sufficient to move the RB , move the lateral mass (over come friction ) and get the flail up to speed and repeat ?

Believe me I appreciate the existence of PE neutrality within your mech, but is this sufficient negation to allow for a continuous positive torque outcome . ?

Like with your posts, you probably don't understand mine either :-D

Chris