Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[Robinhood46]

Georg,
Yes we can agree, as i thought we were saying the same thing in different ways.

I agree on the different speed, the internal system must therefore be faster than the outer wheel, because it is the driver.

I'm definitely convinced of the need for a speed diference, but not too sure that faster is a must.
I have built a couple of wheels in the past which had the weights rotating slower than the wheel and they were not successfull. The first was a failure because of the quality of the build, (a crappy prototype to see what was going on) the second was a perfectioned version which worked as desired but no net gain, and no hope of getting one.
The weights were fixed to the central axle on independant arms which interconnected between each other. More correctly, they interconnect with their neighbours, who interconnected with their's. As with the Buzzsaw, the weights could not "pass" each other.
I did modify the second wheel to rotate in the opposite direction, which allowed the weights to fall faster than the wheel, this didn't increase my enthousiasme. I had already, more or less, convinced myself that weights hanging from the center is not the answer, so i wasn't very motivated.

It is true that we need the swing, but not backwards and forwards, only forwards.
Therefore I tried to block the reswing with my blocking device.
But that type of movement is hard to control.
So the free swing of the masses is limitated, they can only roll,swing,move in one direction.

I haven't yet been able to build anything to see if only swinging backward or only swinging forward is favourable. Only swinging backward is achieved with long arms that extend below the center and only swinging forward with short arms that pass over the center. this is where a third system "may" make the difference.
1 the wheel
2 the swinging, one way or the other, weights
3 the main weights moved by the swinging weights to create the moving COM.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that both would work.

If you have managed then to limitate the movement, then you need the start energy.
The start energy you will get when you set the internal system under stress from gravity.
So we have then a preloaded internal system.
The preload is also essential.

I think the energy is coming from movement, so the wheel is not in need of being preloaded.
The unidirectional wheel, i think, was configured so as the swinging weights were unable to swing freely and find there natural balance, kind of the one way swinging with no going back, which would not allow the wheel to find balance, even when stopped. The biderectional wheel, worked with the same principal, only without the no return device for each weight. Once the wheel is stopped the individuel weights were able to swing back naturally and find equilibrium.
For me the bidirectional wheel is not under stress from gravity when stationary, if my understanding of what you mean by being under stress is correct.
RH

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,

Here you see the swinging of an octagon on the ground.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5aAFY0YByY

So I have activated the swinging with my hand and you see it oscillate for a while until it stops.

I can put it in the wheel and then I have a big pendulum.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFkVf8uIRfQ

This is a version which is not preloaded.
We need an additional force passed to us from gravity.
A force which will tip the internal construction over.

So I searched for this additional force, we can do it with a T-pendulum.
A T-pendulum can produce the force to let the internal construction fell over.
With this the construction is under stress from gravity, we have the additional force.

[Tarsier79]

That is an impressive sized build!

Ha ha James Laangards video came up automatically next.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,

here some construction details of the T-pendulum.

The T-pendulum can be used to shift the octagon.
The octagon is a part of the inner system.
So the T-Pendulum is a helper and supports the octagon to fall over.

[Robinhood46]

Georg,
I like the idea, but i think that even with a pendulum on both faces of the wheel, synchronized between themselves, you will not get them to swing fast enough to keep up with the need to "push over" the octagon.
I would have thought that 9 or 10, (depending on the difference between the size of the octagon and the size of the hamster cage), smaller pendulums would be more likely.
By having a smaller pendulum that goes around with the wheel at each point that the octagon falls, you would be able to have a constant pressure being applied to the octagon to encourage it to move over.
Would the reduction in distance from the center, because of the octagon restricting the swinging, just balance out the gain created by the octagon, when it does move?
My thoughts are still that if the mechanism that you use, to push the octagon over, is in itself a mechanism that is balanced with regard the wheel, it will not run.
My thoughts are that two wrongs don't make a right.
I do still think it is possible that two wrongs fighting it out between themselves could make a right, but i haven't been able to achieve this, and it is basically what many have been trying to do for centuries. This is why i came to the conclusion that we need to change something. Seperating the weights from the wheel is, in my opinion, the change that is needed.
That being said, the octagon, is doing exactly that. The octagon is seperated from the wheel/frame, which is why i found it so promising.
I sincerely hope you succeed where i have failed.
If my present attempt (which is progressing very slowly) with the weights swinging forward progressing around the wheel in only one direction, doesn't work, i will then try incorperating a central shape (mass) of some description to be moved laterally by the swinging weights.
If, what i believe to be two rights still doesn't work, then i can assume that the total of all my right thoughts added together result in a whopping great wrong.
If i look on the bright side, not only have i been kept busy during this pandemic, but i have also learnt how to turn photos 90° and make amazing videos. So all is not lost.
RH

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,
you wrote:

That being said, the octagon, is doing exactly that. The octagon is seperated from the wheel/frame, which is why i found it so promising.

Here this additional component is missing, to set the system itself under stress from gravity.
you can do it with many different constructions.
for as an example the attatched drawing.

The octagon is compressing the spring, because the distance at 12 o'clock from the center of the wheel to the inner part of the octagon is the smallest.

Now we have a preloaded system from gravity.
The octagon has 3 contact points, 2 at the bottom and 1 at the top.

[Robinhood46]

Georg,
As much as i have a job believing that an octagon (or any other shape) walking/rocking, is the answer, i do think that the model in the other thread is more likely to be succesfull than the one above.
This is obviously just my opinion, and as allways, i would be extremely happy to be proven wrong.
Keep up the good work.
All the best,
RH

[Robinhood46]

If we place a weight at 12 and let it turn a wheel, when it reaches 6 it has put enough energy into the wheel to take the weight back up to 12, (less losses from all those things we know too well). If the weight was to leave the wheel at 6, the wheel still has the energy to lift the weight, which is no longer there. The energy stored in the wheel, in a perfect world, would forever be available, to lift the weight up (as long as the weight was reintroduced to the wheel at the same velocity as when it left). This isn't the case in our world, the available energy progressively decreases through time.
The photo below shows 1 lb lifting 4 lb, only it doesn't lift it in space. It lifts it in relation to the rotating frame. The video shows the swinging clearly of the weight at the bottom, (not very accurately) but it shows the principal.
Because of the swivelling around the 3 oclock region of the two weights (photo) and the swinging at the bottom (the time delay before lifting), the cycle of a rotation for a weight is 402.35°.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0wfNAwFH7M

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,

you have one system which transfers the energy from m*g*h to rotation and if you have luck from rotation back to m*g*h again.

Look at my constructions, they are under stress from gravity, so you have two sources, the energy m*g*h and the energy in the spring.

So the two energies are arranged in that way, that they will tumble, turn the wheel and still have the internal energy.
There is no droping of energy.

The internal energy of the structure is constant. Working ability is constant.

[ME]

I just repeat on this design: An object of any shape that tumbles inside a drum will lag behind rotation and will be lifted on the back-side.
It may tumble over as like your laundry in the washing machine, but it will not end up higher on the other side.
I don't see how it will not cause a braking effect.
(Demonstrated by your own video)

Or, you have this design for a while now: How about a video-presentation of the whole system?

[Robinhood46]

Here is a version of the above with 5 weights.
The seesaw effect is happening at the rim, on the downside of rotation, (pivot point). The small weights, not shown, have a path very close to a perfect circle around the center axle, they would probably "sort of hover" as opposed to falling back and rising again. Rather difficult to do with my stupid method of making animations. The heavy weights take a path, pretty much as we have been hoping for, other than the return that they need to do at the bottom. The pivot point of this swinging back is very close to the top, the lifting involved is very small, the majority of the movement is lateral.
The distance from the center gained by the big weights is reasonable, and the distribution of the weights, ignoring the one swinging back, is also good.
If we imagine the behaviour of the weights with them disappearing at 7 o'clock to reappear at 6, i think it is clear that we would have a runner.
This is obviously not possible, but would it be a good enough runner, to be able to move laterally each weight in turn, with a little bit of left over?
Ignore the little skip in the animation, it would take me hours to correct it.
This is with 5 weights on 8 points, 4 knocks per revolution, 1 every other point.
Doubling this would mean 5+5 and give the 8 knocks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKuDtKlyk_s

[Robinhood46]

Wheels aren't the only things "going around in circles", my thoughts have been doing a lot of that too.
Here is a version which has weights, not cycling every 360°.
With 5 weights (pairs of) there are 2 weights swinging in pairs. One moving nearer the center and one away. I think this is the most interesting of my many versions of weights not being limited to a fixed section of the wheel frame.
What can be gained with;
Weights of different sizes?
Springs?
Cables/strings interconnected?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gmSCeQIhl4

[Robinhood46]

This shows very clearly what i mean.
Image n°1 shows the whole set up, with 5 pairs of small weights on curved arms.
Image n°2 shows with only one pair, for clarity.
The video is also with only one pair of weights on curved arms. This allows to see the mechanism functioning, The work involved to create the exact same state as before, is less than the energy created by the state in which it was, and is again, after the movement of each individuel weight.
Each big weight during it's cycle is futher from the centre from 1 o'clock ish to 8 ish. At 8 it no longer does any work and the weight at 1 ish takes over. Can this be considered as "raising a weight in a flash"? (This is what i mean by Stevins giving us the answer).
The 17 heavy weights do not move radially, they are fixed to a specific section of the wheel/frame. With the 5 pairs of small weights this creates alternating weights to be pushed away from the center. The weights take it in turns to apply force to the axle. This creates "about" 8 knocks/thuds per revolution.
The smaller weights, which are causing the movement of the big ones, they are moving radially around the wheel, which i believe to be an absolute must.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bwqYVxgxEM

[WaltzCee]

OK - found it with a bit more perseverance.

. . .

The first time I saw it plagiarized was here.
https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/down ... er=user_id

[Robinhood46]

I don't know why i thought that image was from someone who was given an explaination from Karl, of what he saw inside. Was i mislead or did i missunderstand? It is of little importance. At least i can throw that out with a lot of the other nonsense we see on internet.

I've put together another animation of the whole setup, with the 5 pairs.
I do find it promising and i will start to build this. It will probably take me months, so with a bit of luck, someone will beat me to the post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veOzLl4b9Gg