Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[daxwc]

I just wanted to touch on something quick Fletcher and hopefully don’t derail your thread. I wanted to point out the similarities between your design and one of my concepts. Going back to thread…
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... er=user_id

The water and the displacement is a type of balance. I realised if I could rotate the pan of water with baffles and holes (limit water movement) then I could get CF to move the saucer across the surface of the pan then run it a ground and unbalance it and create torque. It was shelved till I found a suitable mechanism to keep the pan level and on face while still letting it continue torqueing.

[Fletcher]

Yep, I remember that pic of the pan & floating plate in that thread - it is a type of balance also, obviously, because of Archimedes Flotation Principle.

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

I am reminded of what many of us have said from time to time over the years - the last one I remember being JC.

Paraphrased: Even if I saw a PMM I'm not sure I would recognize it.

I'm sure we'd eventually recognize a machine turning in front of us, that we could examine at our leisure, for as long as we want, where nothing was hidden - we'd have to accept the proof in front of us, even if we didn't know exactly why it kept turning - we'd be able to determine the basic mechanics & mechanical principles, & probably still shake our head.

But if I'd only seen a drawing & a description of a concept of the same machine, I'm certain I'd be even less likely by a factor of 10 to recognize it's potential.

All PMM concepts start with potential - nearly all are discarded on closer scrutiny due to lack of real potential - a very few warrant actual investigation & experimentation - statistically speaking, none will ever work or have any potential - yet, we are persistent.

[daanopperman]

Hi daxwc .

Rack and pinions can be made from bicycle chain and any size sprocket to fit that chain . secure any length to a ridget rack and run the sprocket linear over the chain.

[daxwc]

Great Idea Daan, just tack weld the RS40 chain down and various sprockets can be bought or salvage a 10 speed gears of a bicycle… hmm..
Thanks very much Daan for taking time to post a solution.

[FunWithGravity2]

Fletcher,

Thank you for a great thread, and for the spirit behind it. Im going to take a few weeks away from BW as the holidays are approaching and family is far more important than the interplay here. I will be thinking of your concept during that time and if given the chance try some "newtonian" weight type experiments on the pivot of the rack whilst the flail is moving outward to see what effects that has balance.



Take care,
Cheers
Dave

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

Could you help me to understand your design, could you show me the measures you have in place to stop the gears jamming when the weights are latched to the flail, and how the weights catch up the time lost and their change in angle when leaving the latch? I only ask because this was why I gave up on the Idea of using the RBGs for out of balance wheels.

I have been saying for many years now, that Besslers wheel could have been driven by out of balance force, not out of balance weight, and the important's of keeping the wheel in near balance to achieve this.

Gravity assisted torque forces stored and then transfer to the drive system is the answer.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher,

Thank you for a great thread, and for the spirit behind it. Im going to take a few weeks away from BW as the holidays are approaching and family is far more important than the interplay here. I will be thinking of your concept during that time and if given the chance try some "newtonian" weight type experiments on the pivot of the rack whilst the flail is moving outward to see what effects that has balance.

Take care,
Cheers
Dave

I totally understand Dave & Dax & don't hold either of you to anything in the 'heat of the moment' - & I certainly understand other priorities in life taking precedence over tinkering in a shed - perhaps like it did for me, the more I thought about the basic concept the more it grew on me & grew on me, & that is what will happen for you & others as the ideas presented in this thread further ferment & the dough rises - of course, I would be interested in any experiments you should do, & if it doesn't work it doesn't work, but if it does ...

I will add one extra comment - Bessler said (paraphrased) that a few ounces here or there made not a jot of difference - & I think this statement applies to Franks thread & design as well.

I've put forward a proposal for a Motion Wheel, because it is weight balanced - if it were not made exactly (i.e. perfectly balanced) then one end or other of the cross bar would be heavier than the other - then gravity would assist the turning at one position but take away the same on the opposite side etc etc - this IMO is the situation when a few ounces here or there don't matter - because the principle that allows the wheel to gather momentum & accelerate does not rely on a weight imbalance, it's a superior force well able to overcome some irregular weight distribution - & if it were weight imbalanced it has no NET effect anyway other than being able to position the system for a self start, rather than a push start - now, that does sound familiar.


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


Trevor .. just read your post & will answer as best I can later - things to do.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

It seem to me that I cannot understand your design because you have put the wrong label on it, all this talk of CF, and the coat hanger experiment is BS, what you have here is a gravity driven device, and you should call it what it is.

The RBGs is to me a winding counter balance, and I use them to drive generators, although the outer gears do not seem to move there is a 360 degree angle change between the outer gears and there mounting frame, you was on the right tract at the start of this thread then you seemed to lose your way.

I will put your device in a nut shell.

There is no need for switching because of the 360 degree angle change so you can use this to drive a weight inward and outward from the axis along a slider, via a crank, or gear and chain, or other means. Because the weights are on the slider and not directly on the gears means that on the horizontal bar there is good torque but on the vertical bar the weights need to be lifted, so there is no advantage. To try and switch the balance will give you additional problems but would also have a weight lift for the reset.

The way I use the RBGs with my Geo Genny designs, there is no overall change in height of the weights, only a constant shift in the center of gravity, so I only use the RBGs to move equal and opposite weights to counter balance the negative shift in the center of gravity.

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher,

Could you help me to understand your design, could you show me the measures you have in place to stop the gears jamming when the weights are latched to the flail, and how the weights catch up the time lost and their change in angle when leaving the latch?

Trevor .. I think we are at cross purposes - I don't know what you are imagining about my design - I will try & step it out simply.

The gears don't jam when the weights are latched to the flail !

The RBGS is just a unique type of lever - it has a stator gear at axle which doesn't revolve - it has a mid gear which turns one way - it has an outer gear which turns the other way (these can be direct meshed or chain connected etc)- the gear ratios are such that the outer gear never changes its orientation.

Attached to the outer gear is a beam or platform for the rack to attach to (slide along) - because the outer gear doesn't change orientation then neither does the beam - so if it is set to horizontal then the rack or slider if you prefer can move first right, then left - the rack is not connected to the RBGS gears in any way - their purpose is to just hold the platform horizontal.

When rotating the rack experiences inertial forces - if it is latched to the platform then it cannot moves outwards - it is held by Centripetal forces - if the latch is released the rack is no longer path constrained - it can now move out under momentum to a greater radius, IOW's move outwards along the horizontal platform.

However, the rack is part of a rack & pinion mechanism - so as it attempts to move outwards (after latch release) it forces the pinion to rotate - to the pinion is attached a flail - the flail is pivoted in the middle at its connection to the pinion (or any sub assembly) so the flail is only a balanced mechanism to transmit a push force on the rim stop - the flail has a small wheel at its end that contacts the rim stop board to reduce frictional losses.

The rack has inertia & momentum when unlatched - it moves outwards - it turns the pinion which rotates the flail which applies force to the rim stop - later the rack moves back the other way due inertia & momentum & this action reverses the flail rotation so that it resets to its vertical alignment - this is the reset, & the rack is latched again.

This is a Motion Wheel design utilising a continuous lever changing the CG of the wheel analogue - it is not a Gravity Wheel design per se, because it needs motion to generate inertial forces of the rack - the lever feels a change in CG when the flail is in contact with the rim stop, which causes torque & rotation - when not in contact the system is in balance & coasting - if there are multiple mechs inside a wheel then it is possible to have one mech driving at all times (continual imbalance) otherwise the drive is pulsed with periods of coasting.

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher,

It seem to me that I cannot understand your design because you have put the wrong label on it, all this talk of CF, and the coat hanger experiment is BS, what you have here is a gravity driven device, and you should call it what it is. The hangar & batteries experiment was to discuss CoAM - & introduce the concept of inertial forces being redirected - if you have a device that accumulates momentum & energy i.e. accelerates, then you need to explain where the energy came from - the hangar & batteries experiment was also to introduce the concept of consecutively adding vector components resulting in additional momemtum than can traditionally be achieved or explained - it was one explanation of possible energy & momentum gain for a self sustaining wheel.

I disagree, see above post.

The RBGs is to me a winding counter balance, and I use them to drive generators, although the outer gears do not seem to move there is a 360 degree angle change between the outer gears and there mounting frame, you was on the right tract at the start of this thread then you seemed to lose your way.

I will put your device in a nut shell.

There is no need for switching because of the 360 degree angle change so you can use this to drive a weight inward and outward from the axis along a slider, via a crank, or gear and chain, or other means. Because the weights are on the slider and not directly on the gears means that on the horizontal bar there is good torque but on the vertical bar the weights need to be lifted, so there is no advantage. No weights need to be lifted ! To try and switch the balance will give you additional problems but would also have a weight lift for the reset. No, as explained above & all thru this thread.

The way I use the RBGs with my Geo Genny designs, there is no overall change in height of the weights, only a constant shift in the center of gravity, so I only use the RBGs to move equal and opposite weights to counter balance the negative shift in the center of gravity.

That last paragraph makes more sense to me - see last post.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

please could you show me a drawing with rotation arrows on all the moving parts of your preferred design, so I can work out the force vectors because it does not add up at the moment. What RPM do you expect to run the device at? I only ask the above because I want to see if it will work.

This is a Motion Wheel design utilising a continuous lever changing the CG of the wheel analogue - it is not a Gravity Wheel design per se, because it needs motion to generate inertial forces of the rack - the lever feels a change in CG when the flail is in contact with the rim stop, which causes torque & rotation - when not in contact the system is in balance & coasting - if there are multiple mechs inside a wheel then it is possible to have one mech driving at all times (continual imbalance) otherwise the drive is pulsed with periods of coasting.

If the main driving force comes from Gravity then it is a gravity wheel to my way of thinking.

Sorry about the confusion of my above posts, I was looking at the piston options mid way of the thread.

I think I know what you are trying to do, but still think the RBGs is the wrong mechanism.

[Fletcher]

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 320#129320

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 457#129457

Please could you show me a drawing with rotation arrows on all the moving parts of your preferred design, so I can work out the force vectors because it does not add up at the moment. See attachment below - you can extrapolate to the other positions of rotation seen in the above links. What RPM do you expect to run the device at? Unknown, there is a time lag where parts have to move into position & back again - if it rotates too fast not enough time to complete actions - I only ask the above because I want to see if it will work.

This is a Motion Wheel design utilising a continuous lever changing the CG of the wheel analogue - it is not a Gravity Wheel design per se, because it needs motion to generate inertial forces of the rack - the lever feels a change in CG when the flail is in contact with the rim stop, which causes torque & rotation - when not in contact the system is in balance & coasting - if there are multiple mechs inside a wheel then it is possible to have one mech driving at all times (continual imbalance) otherwise the drive is pulsed with periods of coasting.

If the main driving force comes from Gravity then it is a gravity wheel to my way of thinking.

Disagree - imbalance is from shifted CG - continuous rotation is from the extended time the flail exerts force on the rim stop & the vertical distance this force is applied i.e. almost 1/4 circle turn - this gives time to build momentum & KE - that's the theory.

N.B. compare this time & vertical distance to a standard weight transferring RBGS & you will see there is very little time & vertical distance to accumulate momentum & KE.

Sorry about the confusion of my above posts, I was looking at the piston options mid way of the thread. piston/switch/rack/slider/driver.

I think I know what you are trying to do, but still think the RBGs is the wrong mechanism.

Unfortunately the RBGS is essential for this idea to work - it relies on the rack being on a level platform at all times.

If you are able to use another mechanism besides the RBGS then so be it - you are an engineer after all.

[Fletcher]

Here's the vertical distance comparison.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

looking at your last drawing, it looks to me that there is no need for the flail or rack and pinion,and rim stop, it is late here though. Tracing the movement of the lever arm and weight and counter weight there could be a constant imbalance anyway. this was only a quick look and it is late, what I would do though is use two counter weights of half the weight and spread them out so when the lever pivot is at 6.00, one of the counter weights is already on the downward track and the lever weight is still on the descending side . I think it maybe build time, to see if there is enough momentum to carry it around 360 against gearing friction. Edit, with two counter weight apart there should always be more weight on the downward side. I think I may have overlooked the interplay of the levers weight on the gears though. It is worth a quick build to find out. PS the string would have to go, and the weight fixed direct to the lever.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

If you are able to use another mechanism besides the RBGS then so be it - you are an engineer after all.

But it is the sudden change of MOI that is part of the appeal of the RBGS, not just the CF of the slider Trevor. Although I am not convinced the balanced is completely broken and the MOI felt just because it is levered on.