Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[Robinhood46]

I made this to try and get a better grasp of what is happening with more bars, and to try and see some options for this question of "about" 8 thumps per revolution, which has always intrigued me. You certainly would have difficulty establishing the number of weights if you couldn't se them if something along these lines was going on. I have a job counting them and i can see what's going on.
I think it would be a nightmare to coordinate the swinging, if not impossible. Smooth bars would be able to do this, but only if they just have holes at the ends to recieve retractable pegs for the swinging.
Maybe something along these lines could give us the "someone up at 12 o'clock" to lift the weights?
The mechanisme itself is the same as Georg's rocking octagon. It's always a few degrees behind. Just as with the rocking shapes i think there is something there.
Only time will tell.
https://kapwi.ng/c/goiUqa4e

[agor95]

You can always implement this with the bars falling the other way around.

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 4430#54430

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,
nice animation, and yes you see it correct, it it always behind.

Therefore I have changed my construction.
I have preloaded my construction with gravity energy.
My internal constructions are now under stress from gravity.


I have passed you the picture already from the collapsing window frame.
Each corner is carrying a cylindrical weight.
Bessler's window, a self starting version.
A forward falling, tilting construction.
4 cylinders and an old window frame in a hamster cage.
The CoM is always on the downgoing side creating asymetric torque.

You see Besslers words also, acting in pairs, one is going to the rim, the other to the center, they are coupled, all is going around, etc.

And of course I am not an expert, because I have no running wheel.

[Robinhood46]

You can always implement this with the bars falling the other way around.

The progressing of the weights radially, which i have recently decided to be an essential factor to finding the solution, can be done in a multitude of ways.
I find swinging back more promising than falling forward. I think that if the swinging back weights, like in the last animation, were to do some kind of work, the amont of work needed to be done would simply be adjusted by the height at which the wheight would be raised to by the rotation of the wheel. The further the wheel raises the weight to be swung, the more force it will have to do the work. An auto adjust as such. Control and sychronisation, i think are very important, and i think this would be easier with swinging weights back than falling them forward.
Could a combination of light wieghts swinging back that cause heavy weights to fall forward be doable?

Georg,

and yes you see it correct, it it always behind.

I have already shared my thoughts as to what i find wrong with a tilting octagon. My thoughts that whatever you use to force the octagon to advance it's tilting, wouldn't need the octagon because it would be enough to create PM without it, may well be complete nonsense.
The swinging arms are not doing a great deal to the rotation of the wheel. The wheel rotates and each arm takes it's turn to hang off it's pivot and wait for the next pivot to catch up with it and force it to continue it's journey. The leverage near the pivot of the arm is certainly enough to create the lateral movement of the top horizantal bar of your flexible window frame. The effect of the "nearly" horizantal movement of the weights on each corner of the top bar would have a positive effect on the wheel for a period a lot greater than the negative effect of the swinging back of the arm. Two square windows offset by 45 degrees would be wonderfull. By having the correct number of pivot points and the correct number of long arms, there would always be one to push the weights over.
The two offset tilted windows should be more than enough to rotate the wheel and raise the arm high enough to swing back. Once this has happened, as i have been saying with regard Stevins explaination of why PM is impossible, the wheel would be in the exact same configuration as before it started rotating. By starting from an unbalanced situation and moving forward into an identical unbalanced situation the wheel can do nothing other than go around.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,

You wrote:

By having the correct number of pivot points and the correct number of long arms, there would always be one to push the weights over.

The construction has only one pivot point, and that is at the bottom of the hamster cage.
So all the masses, weights are above the pivot point.
The self starting version uses 4 weights,
The bi-directional 8.

You look at a window frame as a square, I too.
But I deform the window frame with the upper weights to a
crooked parallelogram. I have not to do anything, it is out of balance.
The window frame is a well balanced construction, until it is deformed.

You must only allow that the window frame has a little space to move and change to a parallelogram.

[Robinhood46]

Georg,

The construction has only one pivot point, and that is at the bottom of the hamster cage.

I must admit to not clearly understand what you mean.
I think we need to come to some kind of understanding as to what we actually "mean" when we refer to certain things.
When i look at your sketch, i see 2 pivot points. Both bottom corners of the window. These two pivot points will always be roughly in this position in space, at every moment the window is deformed. They will not be on the same place with regard the wheel, because the wheel will have turned and a different corner will be in the same place as the one before and this will be a third pivot point. Depending on the size difference between the wheel and the window, the number of pivot points around the hamster cage will vary.
We need to agree on what meaning we give "a pivot point".
I see it as a point on the wheel where some pivoting will be going on sometime during the functioning of the wheel.
Because the wheel is rotating and the window frame is moving radially with regard the wheel the point(s) in space where the pivoting is hapenning will be totally different to the number of "pivot points" on the wheel.
Maybe "sections" or "increments" would be preferable?

The window frame has the same problem as the rocking octagon and the weights swinging back in my last animation. They are "always behind". The advantage the window has over the octagon is that the whole mass is not in need of moving to advance the displacement of the COM of the "shape" progressing radially around the wheel. This is exactly what i have been trying to get across from the beginning of this discussion of rocking/tilting "shapes" on a hamster wheel.
Seperating the shape into two shapes independant of each other is a good idea. The effort needed to accelerate the fraction of the shape that is in need of movement makes the task easier to achieve, i think.
I was very much against a shape walking being the answer, i have said that if the shape allows us to control the desired movement of the weights, then i have no problem with this. I was thinking of using something similar to the axe choppers in the toy page to create the mouvement that can be created by the hinged window. Arms suspended from the rim would create exactly the same movement of the weights, allthough way more complicated to achieve, because the arms would need to release the weights to allow the following arm to then move it forward another section.
Something seems too simple to me for this to work. I just can't see why Bessler didn't use hinged windows instead of complicated wood choppers if what i am thinking is possible.
I hope you get to see some promising observations.
Good luck,
RH

[Robinhood46]

An additional thought.
I have no idea as to if it is of any relevance, but the movement of the rotating window that is changing shape as the wheel rotates, could be described as the movement of a horse's head.

[Robinhood46]

I tried incorperating Georg's window(s) into a wheel which allows to respect a few things that i believe to be important. I wasn't able to achieve what i was hoping for, but i did find this rather curious.
Bessler said something about finding something in nature and he also said that greed was a bad thing. I know many members believe he was talking only about greed in general, but i have often wondered if he wasn't also refering to being too greedy when trying to create too much movement.
If you devide 360° by 55 you have 6.5454545454 multiply this by 21 and you have 137.45454545.
This is the nearest you can get to finding the golden angle (which can be found in nature), without having a silly number of sections, (not to find it in nature, but to have it on a wheel).
I couldn't get a window to give me anything that would allow the golden ratio to come into play. But i was surprised to see that when i tried making a triangle to do this it needed to be a perfect equilateral triangle.
The golden angle is the perfect way to progress, is it the path with the least resistance for the COG to be taking? Is it the optimum point at which the force of the weights slowing the wheel down and the force of the weights speeding the wheel up are the most favourable for the transfer to occur?
JC has always said the number 5 is key. Does MT137 show the rotation of the wheel during the transfer?
What i do find curious also, is that once one triangle has been placed, it is impossible to place a second, third, fourth, etc without falling on an uneven distribution.
One equilateral triangle or 55 equilateral triangles are the only options for evenly distributed progression of the weights.
Is there a central mass which is an equilateral triangle (made up of the correctly spaced heavy weights) that is forced to follow the path of the golden angle by smaller weights progressing (or swinging back) around the wheel?
Here is one photo and the link to animation.
https://kapwi.ng/c/HZAPLAcg

[Wubbly]

Path_Finder has some animations where the top flops over instead of the bottom in his 2009 thread here:

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 78&start=0

[agor95]

This device was were I got my inspiration

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bR-1QiL2sMs

The key point is the bar presses down along the bottom due to CF + Gravity .

That could have been stored and release later.
Also the bar that over tops does not make contact to effect another.

These are the two additions to the above that should help this device create before 2009.

Cheers

[Robinhood46]

Wubbly,
The animation from Path Fider is the sort of thing i'm interested in at present. the thread in question didn't go very far and i'm under the impression he is no longer here since 2014. I would very much like to hear some of his thoughts.
Agor,
The toy on the video is what i see as a fine example of what cannot work, the movement that is going on between the moving parts and the wheel is doing it in both directions, The difference, which i think to be important, is the need to do the moving in only one direction. The weight's movement must be doing the work needed and resetting itself for the next cycle all with the same uni directional path. this can only be achieved by some kind of radial displacement of the weights around the wheel.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,

an rigid octagon is acting as a Pendulum
https://youtu.be/GFkVf8uIRfQ

You are right with the pivot points, there are many in the collapsing window.

For me only is one interesting, and that is the one at the bottom of the Hamster Cage.

[Robinhood46]

Each and every weight individually has little effect "directly" on the rotation of the wheel. It has a "direct" effect on what it does to the COG. The COG of the wheel is what determines if it slows down or speeds up during rotation.
If we observe the behaviour of the COG of this configuration, we will see something interesting happen to it.
The COG at 8.30 is fixed to the wheel and it rotates with it.
At 6 the COG climbs the up side of the wheel faster than the weights do.
The weight that is on the down side, which is the only one moving in relation to the wheel is slightly further from the center than all the other weights, so it also brings the COG slightly nearer to the center while it is rising faster than the weights.
So the COG is furthest from the center from 8.30 to 6 and it rotates faster than the wheel for the rest of each cycle.
This is not thinking in 360°, this would have shaken the building, the weights do not pass each other, all slots are used, all 12 weights are used, the mechanism to do the shifting would behave like a horse's head i (think), a 42 tooth sprocket would make this ratio possible, i also get the impression that it wouldn't be very effective.
The not being very effective and the shaking of the building is of little importance.
It would be very effective at shaking the foundations of the scientific community.
https://kapwi.ng/c/5hcFX01P

[Wubbly]

I would very much like to hear some of his thoughts.

Path_finder started a thread entitled: The summary of my latest studies.

It is here: https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 33&start=0

It lasted 41 pages and 4 1/2 years.

Some people put an enormous amount of effort into the quest.

Some realize they're not going to solve it and move on to do something else with their lives.

[agor95]

My thoughts is Path_finder is an excellent builder of animations and devices.

With help on the mathematics and incorporation of the Bessler's principles he will finish his quest.

All the Best