Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Robinhood,
Quelles sont les liaisons entre le support des gros poids et le levier rouge orange?

Hi Robinhood,
What are the connections between the weight carrier and the red orange lever?

[Robinhood46]

The heavy weights can swivel on the red arm, and the grey lever, when it opens at 3 o'clock ish, causes the swivelling of the heavy weights.
The bottom weight goes to the top and the red lever climbs up a rung of the ladder.
Nothing is to scale, it is simply to show the movement in the third dimension.

[Robinhood46]

I have managed to find a way of getting a simulation, of the desired movement.
I did need to modify the weighted arm, so as to have a single weight, as apposed to an arm with a weight each end.
We can see that the whole mechanism hovers on the descending side. Also that the weight finds itself at a different position in relation to the wheel with each step the arm steps back.
The 24 sections of the wheel give 15° between each step, that the arm moves back when it hovers on the way down. If we can imagine the previous image with the weighted arm, we can see that if the swivel of the arm steps back 15°, the weight will step back 30°, because it is leapfrogging the weight which is the other end of the arm. This would imply that the weights are against one face of the wheel and they are rotated vertically using the missing dimension of Algodon't, and the thickness of the wheel is determined by the length of the weighted rod, because it will find itself horizontal, parallel to the central axle, halfway through it's travels.
Another interesting thing is the similarity to what JC has just published with regard his findings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J1sxHYVA9J8&t=39s

[Tarsier79]

Hi RH. I see the problem with the lighter weight...In gravity, the COM falls, then sits poorly around 7:00.

Advancing or retarding around the wheel has to mean something, or perform a specific function... IE, to leave more weight on the downgoing side, or to reduce the weight on the lifting side. Ultimately, the ideal way to do this would be to lift weight both sides, which would also lead to an OB: Which then negates the need for the weight to shift around the wheel.

Perhaps you have another take on it?

[Robinhood46]

The sitting poorly at 7.00 is only occurring because of the way Algodoo makes things far more complicated than they have to be. In the real world the light weight would be hanging around at 6.00, waiting for the wheel to catch up with it. It would still be a negative aspect, but a lot less negative than in the simulation.
My take on the advancing or retarding of the mass, in relation to the wheel, is the effect it has on the duration of time the weights add, or subtract energy from the wheel. By causing the weight to "climb up a rung of the ladder" every rotation, on the downward side, you still have all the forces of the heavy and the light weight being applied to the wheel, but for a longer duration. In a way it is a bit like extending the length of the downward side, but not the upward. If the heavy weight is stepped back 10 CM (for example) this means the wheel has to rotate an additional 10 CM for the weight to find itself at BDC. The distance travelled is greater than the ascending side, without the need to shift the weight further from the centre.
As we know, or at least many of us think, the wheel really wasn't very powerful. The difference between the increased duration of the heavy and light weight on the descending side - the light weight falling back at 6 = hardly anything. Multiply that by as many crossbars as you can get in it, and it will pump some water or raise some bricks.
What i find interesting is that if the answer is to be found somewhere around here, it certainly would cover, not only a lot of the clues Bessler mentions, and why he didn't want anyone to see it, but also the remarks of it's simplicity and the surprise that nobody had already thought of it, and how a carpenters lad can build one.
I can't get a sim to function correctly, which is why i knocked the last simulation up, just to show the desired effect. The difference between the light weight and the heavy weight, is primordial for it to achieve anything, Algodoo forces the addition of weight where it really doesn't want to be, and where it wouldn't need to be in the real world. I don't know if WM2D has the same problem with overlapping or passing through objects when they are small or they interact at high speeds, or have a lot of torque, but Algodoo can't cope with it. Saying that, adjusting the frequency to 60htz has made it perform a little better by reducing some of the hiccups.
It's a shame it's winter, because my wheel is outside where it's bloody freezing, and i don't have any electricity either, until the sun rises a bit higher in the sky.

[nebollinger]

What I see in mt138 drawing is a balance of up and down forces and left and right balance as in a seesaw.

http://www.orffyre.com/mt121-143.html

When you combine these you get a small force being able to shift the balance and use it to make a seesaw go up and down.
Norman

[Fletcher]

Hey Norman .. you've been around discussion forums for a while - why don't you start your own topic and thread on your theory - then we can discuss it in one place and in context ..

cheers ..

[gravitationallychallenged]

What I see in mt138 drawing is a balance of up and down forces and left and right balance as in a seesaw.

http://www.orffyre.com/mt121-143.html

When you combine these you get a small force being able to shift the balance and use it to make a seesaw go up and down.
Norman

Norman, you are thinking along the same lines as myself! Bessler made a comment about modifying the hammer toy configuration in order to make it useful.

What if we were to arrange the hammers (weighted) levers so they were at the ends of the poles and shift them, simultaneously, towards and away from the axle? What if we arranged the levers so the upside (of rotation) lever swung inwards, under its hinge, towards the axle and the downside (of rotation) lever swung upwards, over its pivot, towards the rim? What if we dropped some heavier weights near the center (axle of the wheel) of the mechanism to force the levers to swing rapidly, uphill, before the mechanism rotated to become parallel with the ground? Wouldn't we achieve at least 45 degrees of overbalance and torque induced rotation after every 180 degrees of rotation of the wheel?

Coincidentally, Bessler wrote that his earlier wheels made scratching noises that sounded like poles rubbing against each other. His later wheels didn't make those noises. Perhaps shifting poles were replaced with cables and pulleys to reduce clearance problems and frictional losses. Witnesses heard 8 impacts per revolution coming from the downside of his wheels. Four pairs of weights would produce 8 impacts. Staggered mechanisms swinging side by side within his narrow wheels would have required very close clearances. Bessler wrote that if his wheel was given a sneaky shove from the side it would have come grinding to a halt. That would coincide with the configuration I described. -Jim

[nebollinger]

Gravitywheel could you explain your idea a little more.

What I envision is a rope or belt on two pulleys so that one goes up and the other goes down such that one moves toward the axle where its rotational leverage is less and the other moves away from the axle increasing its leverage such that a small force makes that movement resulting in a larger force. The one weight would only move half way to the axle allowing the other one moving to the circumference of the arc.

So when vertical the movement unbalances very little work is required...

Norman

[nebollinger]

The real problem is where does that small force come from?
I have not figured that part out yet.

Norman

[agor95]

What I see in mt138 drawing is a balance of up and down forces and left and right balance as in a seesaw.

Note.

Instructions

Create a new browser tab and navigate to the MT images in the W.G.Murtry thread in the Off Topic Forum.
Search for MT image you want. Right click on the image and select copy link.
Then go back to your post and pasted it after your descriptive text.

Finish by selecting the full text of the link and clicking the picture icon.
This should put image tags on either end of the link line.

[Robinhood46]

I think i got this image from JC's site.
I have often tried to incorporate the Rs into my attempts and always failed to get any meaningful results. As we all know, we mustn't give up too easily, because if the solution was easy to find, it would have been found long ago. It is difficult to find the balance between getting stuck in a rut that leads us in the wrong direction, and abandoning the direction the rut is taking us, before we are able to establish that it is, effectively, taking us in the wrong direction.
This is probably why we keep coming back to previously failed attempts, every time we find a new detail.

My recent thoughts are that the R's might allow us to explain the thickness of the wheel, the knocks heard on the descending side of the wheel, by the witnesses, as well as the scraping sound on the ascending side. It could also, maybe, explain the unidirectional wheels and bidirectional wheels, using the same mechanisms, as apposed to the theory, which i find very hard to believe, of two independent mechanisms, one doing the magic and the other held in place doing nothing, other than getting out of the way, and increasing the mass.

I am not able to use Algodoo, because of the need for the third dimension, so I'll have a go explaining my thoughts.

Each R is a representation of the same mechanism, it isn't two Rs that are face to face, it's one R that swaps its orientation.
With a couple of pieces of rigid wire, we can easily replicate what's going on.
One piece of wire is curved to form the shape of a C, which is the top part of the R.
The other piece, which is the leg (or whatever that part of the R is) needs to be made with a loop, so as to allow it be connected to the C but slide along the C.
We can clearly see that we can create both of the Rs, with the one mechanism.

Now, where things get interesting and a bit complicated, is how to make this happen during the rotation of the wheel?
If we create the R, on the right hand side of the image, and assume clockwise rotation. We can see the R descending, keeping it's R shape all the way to the bottom, and it is only when the R starts rising on the ascending side that we can watch the "leg" of the R, slide along the length of the C, causing the sound heard by the witnesses. We then observe the other R in the image, with it's opposing orientation.

I think up until now, this is easy enough to see, and understand, unless you haven't bothered bending a couple of pieces of wire to try and understand.
So far, we have seen the Rs in both positions, as well as the passage from 3 through 6, to 9, in a clockwise rotation ( R -> я ). This could be shown in Algodoo without too much difficulty.
It is the passage from 9, through 12, to 3, where Algodoo can't show it, because of the missing dimension.

This is where the thickness of the wheel comes into play.
For the R to go from left orientation to right orientation ( я -> R ), we need the third dimension. This is why the thickness of the wheel becomes a determining factor, or the movement of the R becomes a determining factor for the thickness of the wheel, depending on which way you wish to look at it.
As the "leg" of the R crosses the 12 o'clock line, the light weight at the end of the leg, falls, causing the knocking sounds heard, and the "C" part of the R raises the heavy weight, by swinging the "C" in the missing dimension, hence it determines the necessary thickness of the wheel, for this to happen.

To what extent does this correspond to the children swinging heavy clubs over broken columns?
Did the children not need to turn around or swivel "if they have enough space", or something like that?

[Tarsier79]

I think a simple diagram, maybe in paint or similar might describe your idea better than words can...at least for me.

[Robinhood46]

So far, we have seen the Rs in both positions, as well as the passage from 3 through 6, to 9, in a clockwise rotation ( R -> я ). This could be shown in Algodoo without too much difficulty.
It is the passage from 9, through 12, to 3, where Algodoo can't show it, because of the missing dimension.

As i said, it can be shown in Algodoo without too much difficulty.
I let the wheel turn until, the "leg" of the R, reaches the top, where it needs to do the bit that needs the missing dimension.

Before we can discuss any eventual mechanisms to create the movements, we need to know what the movements are we need to create.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZMxSLjbugo

[Tarsier79]

Nice work. I don't think there is too much left unsaid there... It is pretty easy to see what happens. The long lever always falls whenever it can. It always is lifted in the worst position, when it gets to 10, it will flop over. I don't see any reason for it to want to return to the start position.

Ultimately, I agree that there needs to be a "fundamental difference". Ultimately, the fundamental difference is that more weight has to be lifted than dropped...or any other form or appearance of OU...