Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,
a spring with a weight on each end will be compressed and released when you turn it under influence of gravity.

1. quadrant, weight going up, spring is compressed
2. quadrant, weight going down, spring is released
3. quardant, weight is ging down, spring is stretched
4. quadrant, weight is released to start position

So you have no advantage from this construction when you turn masses on an fix axle.

From Theory to praxis:

You have to set the complete construction under stress from gravity.
I have drawn you some images for understanding.
first you have a rigrid connection between the two weights
in the second picture we have already stored energy which cn be located in the spring.
in the third picture the three upper weights compress the down spring most.

I have drawn it for you in an well balanced situation.
any action on the outer wheel will cause the internal construction to tumble, creating torque.
The complete center off mass is shifted sidewards. (red circle)

So we have energy in the springs from all weights above.
A dynamic system

[Robinhood46]

Georg;
I've tried many different variations of moving different shaped "configurations of weights" with all the weird and wonderfull things i could imagine to assist the movement, springs were most definitely on the list. I had no joy, i do hope you do better than i did.
The reason i am sharing my present thoughts is because i feel that walking "shapes" around a wheel has been pretty well covered, with no success. Swinging weights which walk around the wheel from their swinging hasn't been covered in my opinion, because i have seen very limited evidence of tries.
Everything you like about moving an octagan within a wheel is all fully understandable, the problem, i think is that there is no swinging involved. Swinging is key if we believe what Bessler said. Swinging an octagon, or any other shape, doesn't work either, because it is the whole central mass that needs moving and not individuel masses at a specific time and place.
The hinged window frame you shared, or something similar of a different shape, may be a way of controlling the swinging of individuel masses during rotation, although i am not too convinced it would allow the masses to take the needed path during each individuel mass's transfer from one place to the other.
RH

[Robinhood46]

I still haven't got around to making the much needed movable pegs to get a better understanding of how things would actually work once rotational mouvement is involved.
My thoughts that CF was more of a hinderence than help, may well need throwing out of the window. CF will definitely advance the timing of the heavy weights moving out and back on the down side, but by how much?
When the arms swing at 6, the heavy weight comes up and back once it has lost it's momentum, so CF, i would have thought, plays no role. The coming back would not exist in space, only moving inward more slowly.
The path of the small weights is basically the same as my earlier post. The path of each of the heavy weights is in photo N°3 below. This is the path in relation to the wheel and will be slightly different in space, obviously because of rotation.
I need to play with many variations of each and every aspect before i can even consider making a serious build with the much dreaded movable pegs.

[daxwc]

You know what I like most RH46 is that your back board looks like a pin cushion. I imagine you are learning even though it probably doesn’t feel that way.

[Robinhood46]

The last attempt of my new idea had only 8 sections, which couldn't take enough weighted arms to do anything interesting. When lockdown is over, i will be able to go to my favourite toyshop for some new bits and bobs.
The pin cushion in the photo was my last attempt, from a while back, at trying to do it with laterally moving different shaped central masses.
The problem with second hand pin cushions is that you have to put holes where you can and not where you want. I'm not allowed out to play until the 11 th of may, so i will make the most of my time to find the best options for all the variables between now and then. At least, that's the plan.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,
you are looking for the swinging of the masses and like to control that.
That was also my approach.

Here you see the version swinging of a cylindrical weight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nHfD5TCDsT8

Such type of swingings are hard to control.

To increase the high of the swinging masses I switched the design to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNygez_Qn8E

You see that all the swingings are going back and forth, they act as pendulums.
To prevent a swinging back and forth you have to block the movment in one direction.
This I have achived with the construction of the blocking device.

The swinging was still to complex to control it. Its an engineering task, not mine.

Therefore I changed back to my octagon walker from some years ago and found also the blocking mechanism.
It was only the diameter of the cylindrical weights.
When the diameter is like the inline skaters, then the octagon rolls in my Hamster cage.
Then the torque is eliminated.

If the rolling is blocked, then you have torque.
This will happen with small cylindrical weights.
They are blocked for rolling, because they are sitting between two dowels.
Showed already on the board

The complete internal construction is swinging, with torque in one direction.

[Robinhood46]

Excellent builds Georg.
When i say "the need for swinging" i mean the need for the masses to be hanging from a pivot, on an arm of some discription or a rope. The videos are showing the weights taking the same path as if they were being swung like a pendulem but they are not. they are rolling. For a weight to roll from 7 o'clock to 4 o'clock it must roll through 6 and 5. A swinging weight will take a more direct path. The arc drawn from the rim at 11.30 through 7 and 4 is a shorter distance than the arc drawn from the centre of the wheel through 4 and 7. A rolling weight travels the same distance in both directions, a swinging weight does not.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,
in this thread you asked for

Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

You see that a pendulum swings back and forth and you also try to manipulate
this swinging to get the advantage.

But here I will remember Besslers words, nothing is hanging from the axle.
Therefore I first try to roll and swing the cylinders.
The complete carrier of the cylinders is rolling on the dowels, and therefore the cylindres are swinging.
The carrier rolls from dowel to dowel, therebye swinging.

That Bessler has used such a dowel construction you can see in the Merseburg wheel. I have counted 80 dowels, so I have made also a construction with 80 dowels.

Your construction is a construction with an middle axl. All is going around on this central axl.
The forces always sum up, left and right to zero, no way.
A balance system.

My construction is standing in the wheel, so all masses are above the turning point, the foot at the bottom, I have marked it in the picture.
Even with two feet on the ground it is a Well balanced system.

When you turn the hamster cage some degrees, the internal construction will fall over. You have a tilt swing.
An impact on the downgoing side.
But not the impact is driving the wheel, it is the shifted offset of COM sidewards.
Now you have torque.
All weights are moving and are going around.
Its a wheel and not a wheel, "weils Felgen und auch keine hat".

For simplification I have drawn 4 weights, in my construction I use 8.

I have also attached, going to the rim, going to the center for your imagination.

[Robinhood46]

Georg,

Hi Robinhood46,
in this thread you asked for
Quote:
Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

This is true. It is also true that what you are sharing, does have the fundamental difference i am refering to. A weight is, effectively, progressing radially around the wheel. The weight doesn't have a fixed axle and it is not fixed to a specific section of the wheel. All of this falls nicely into everything i am saying with regard the fundamental difference.
The problem, i have found, through many many attempts at different variations is that it doesn't work. I am fully aware that i may be completely wrong and it is possible to achieve our common goal with this method. I have tried my hardest to explain why i think it cannot work.
I have shared all my thoughts as to why i found, when i tried to do exactly what you are trying to do that it doesn't work.
If you would share your thoughts as to why my present attempt doesn't work, from your own experience when you spent months and years trying to do exactly what i am now trying, this would be very helpfull and much apreciated.
Trying to convince me that your theory is the answer is completely pointless. I am fully aware of the validity of your theory. I totally agree with your theory. I also think your theory is the answer. We both think the theory is great. We are both very enthousiastic as to the theory being a very good way of achieving our goal.
You think the theory can be materialised using your method and i think it cannot.
If you wish to believe that i have missed something that will allow it to work, this is fine. We all need to understand things ourselves, in our own way. Are you going to find the missing link i didn't? I sincerely hope so. With all the excellent builds you have made, you have a better chance than those who just discuss theories and math.
Sharing your thoughts on what i am doing would be much apreciated, my thoughts on what you are doing i have shared.
Best regards RH

[Robinhood46]

Things are starting to look very good.
Photo N° 1 Shows the heavy weight (4 pound maybe) after it has been lifted at 6 o'clock by the small weight moving out at the end of the arm (1 pound maybe). At this point the swivelling is done at the "movable peg" nearest the center of the wheel.
Photo N° 2 Shows the heavy weight swinging forward and up, which is being done by the small weight swinging. At this point the swivelling is done at the "movable peg" furthest away from the center.
The heavy weight is 50 mm further from the center on its way down than on its way up. The weight is lifted relatively fast at 6 and at 12 it lifts progressively through to 1 o'clock. Obviously once movement is involved theings will change.

[Robinhood46]

This is the best i can do with available matos.
The weights have the ration 1 to 4 and function correctly. The sliding down to free the lower swivel is not a good idea, but it does allow to understand the mechanism. Maybe just holes on the wheel and movable pegs on the arms would be a good idea??
Photo N° 2 shows the swivel points, which i have drawn on the front.
N° 3 shows heavy weight in its outer position.
N° 4 and 5 show the arms against the bolts with a notch out to allow the whole thing to slide down after rotation, to disengage the lower swivel. Some bolts in the axle would be good for this, you could let your friends adjust them to aline the holes up with the move in and outable pegs.
N° 6 shows the stop to line the holes up when arms in outer position. Not much space to get the bolt through all the pegs. Maybe this is why only small chindren can swing the clubs over the brocken columns??

[Robinhood46]

Photos 1,2,3 show the walking pattern of the arms in relation to the wheel.
4,5,6 show with only the light weights.
7,8,9 show with all the weights.
The wheel is very close to being perfectly balanced at every single degree of rotation. This is difficult to fully check because i don't have movable pegs so i have to pay attention to when the arm shifts within the bit of play on the swivels. I then need to rotate a few degrees to be able to reposition the arms to assess the behaviour.
The old Mazda 3 wheel hub does have some resistance, although not a huge amount. When spun without any weights it turns for approx 40 secs. With the weights it does seem to have a tendance to turn clockwise easier than anti.
The heavy weights are 105 mm further from the center on the way down than on the way up. They give the impression of being snapped up at 6 o'clock. At 11 o'clock the heavy weights are swung forward and up, to arrive at final postion around 1.5 o'clock (7.5 mins). Obviously all of this is without any momentum. Springs, i would have thought, would be either needed or just welcome.
I'm very much looking forward to see how everything will be affected by mouvement.

[Robinhood46]

Last photos.

[Robinhood46]

Those dreaded "movable pegs" may not be ncessary after all.
Maybe this is the meaning of "broken columns".
When columns break off they rarely do it nice and flat. A horizantal plane would be a cut column, not a broken column. Broken columns generally have an angled break.
Because the arms are always approaching, and leaving, the swivel at the same point, the needed lack of resistance is always in the same direction, an angled swivel just like a broken column would allow the arms to function without movable pegs.
The arms would sway slightly sideways to slide over the tip off the swivel. Once engaged on the swivel, and the wheel rotated a few degrees, the tip of the swivel would hold the arm to allow the other end to leave the swivel. After a full rotation the angled slope, that allowed it to engage, would also allow it to disengage.
Stops can be incorperated to aline the holes with the swivels because of the alternating mouvement. The alternate swivelling at both ends would allow to free the end needed to swing from the stop that it hit to aline it.
This would imply that the weights had some lateral mouvement, or even went from one face to the other during rotation. This would also imply that a small shock (jolt) laterally given to the wheel would probably cause it to disfunction.

[Robinhood46]

This is only a first try, it works in principle. The broken columns are pvc pipes with a pvc sheet glued to the angled cut. The arms need to have the leading edges bevelled off, to allow them to engage and disengage. The orientation of the sloped tips is pretty critical for the inner columns, but doable. The outer columns less critical. The shape of the slopes can be played with to optimise and if they were lightly sprung loaded this could help too.
It may be possible to set the timing for releasing the arms by playing with the position of the sloped angles. It looks like moving the heavy weight out and up at 11 o'clock, would be very easy to control. The snapping up at 6 may need an additional control??
The stops for aligning the holes on the armrs with the columns, should be possible at the other extremity, where the light weights are. They do give the impression of wanting to stay on the tips when needed to swing the other end, but maybe a spring loaded mechanism would be in order to assure this.
Photos are just to show principle.
2,3 swinging at top of wheel.
4,5 swinging at bottom.