Build a simple test jig.
If I am seeing correct, you are relying on what could be replaced with a simple weighted lever to push another weighted lever over. If this is the case, it won't work. The curved lever that falls is being lifted on the wrong side of the wheel before it pushes the short lever out.
Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference
Moderator: scott
-
Robinhood46
- Devotee
- Posts: 1683
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 am
- Location: Lot, France
re: Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference
Tarsier,
The path of the small weights on the curved arms is,
Starting at 12, it travels to 7.30ish swings back to 6, and then continues to 12.
All the small weights take this identical path. All the small weights are continuously evenly spaced around the wheel, with this overlap from 6 to 7.30 ish.
The COG's position/movement, concerning only the small weights (and the lightweight arms) created by this overlapping is negative, this is true. The COG, of the small weights only, is moving from 6 to 7.30 ish. The work needed to force the wheel to turn is the force needed to lift one small weight from 6 to 7.30 ish + the difference between the curved arms position from center.
The work needed to do this comes to a grand total of, not a bloody lot. The wheels i have built show this clearly. This can be shown by a real sim, by someone who knows how to use it, ie not me, because i don't.
So, one set of weights and their distribution and mechanical actions totals to a negative force of not a great deal.
The bigger weights, also evenly spaced, are fixed to the wheel/frame and their paths show clearly a positive force being applied to the wheel.
The question is;
Is the total force being applied to the wheel by the accumulation of all the big weights, being further from the center, enough to lift one small weight from 6 to 7.30 ish + move a big weight horizantally?
I think the answer to this is yes.
The wheel only needs to rotate 42.35° before it is back to it's initial position. Therefore if the offset big weights apply enough force, to turn the 42.35°, it will continue doing so until something breaks.
The path of the small weights on the curved arms is,
Starting at 12, it travels to 7.30ish swings back to 6, and then continues to 12.
All the small weights take this identical path. All the small weights are continuously evenly spaced around the wheel, with this overlap from 6 to 7.30 ish.
The COG's position/movement, concerning only the small weights (and the lightweight arms) created by this overlapping is negative, this is true. The COG, of the small weights only, is moving from 6 to 7.30 ish. The work needed to force the wheel to turn is the force needed to lift one small weight from 6 to 7.30 ish + the difference between the curved arms position from center.
The work needed to do this comes to a grand total of, not a bloody lot. The wheels i have built show this clearly. This can be shown by a real sim, by someone who knows how to use it, ie not me, because i don't.
So, one set of weights and their distribution and mechanical actions totals to a negative force of not a great deal.
The bigger weights, also evenly spaced, are fixed to the wheel/frame and their paths show clearly a positive force being applied to the wheel.
The question is;
Is the total force being applied to the wheel by the accumulation of all the big weights, being further from the center, enough to lift one small weight from 6 to 7.30 ish + move a big weight horizantally?
I think the answer to this is yes.
The wheel only needs to rotate 42.35° before it is back to it's initial position. Therefore if the offset big weights apply enough force, to turn the 42.35°, it will continue doing so until something breaks.
re: Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference
That the mechanism lifts is an optical illusion.
The weight of those curved-arms are able to push the next weighted lever upwards by swinging downwards.
The top-sde of the curved-arm starts moving when around 11:00 and stops when around 1:30.
Also, because the bottom-side swings from 7:15 back downto 5:45 that part needs to be lifted again.
The actual numbers on the Center-of-Mass show it more direct.
It's a bit hard to see without measuring so I make a preliminary guess where the CoM is located (inside the curves).
The CoM of those curved-arms move from 10:15 to 3:00.
Without that transition it spends 55° degrees less on the ascending side, but 90° degrees less on the descending side.
While that lever-weight is lifted it also moves forward in the direction of rotation: I guess around 10° is lost on the descending side.
At around 8:00 this lever-weight drops back by gravity towards the rim: so it spends 10° more on the ascending side.
Simply said: The gained leverage of the lift is 'compensated' by around 20° less rotation.
Those 'degrees' do not quantify the torques with definitive numbers but shows what needs to be looked at: The most numbers are about losses.
That... or just build it - because it's a nice design.
The weight of those curved-arms are able to push the next weighted lever upwards by swinging downwards.
The top-sde of the curved-arm starts moving when around 11:00 and stops when around 1:30.
Also, because the bottom-side swings from 7:15 back downto 5:45 that part needs to be lifted again.
The actual numbers on the Center-of-Mass show it more direct.
It's a bit hard to see without measuring so I make a preliminary guess where the CoM is located (inside the curves).
The CoM of those curved-arms move from 10:15 to 3:00.
Without that transition it spends 55° degrees less on the ascending side, but 90° degrees less on the descending side.
While that lever-weight is lifted it also moves forward in the direction of rotation: I guess around 10° is lost on the descending side.
At around 8:00 this lever-weight drops back by gravity towards the rim: so it spends 10° more on the ascending side.
Simply said: The gained leverage of the lift is 'compensated' by around 20° less rotation.
Those 'degrees' do not quantify the torques with definitive numbers but shows what needs to be looked at: The most numbers are about losses.
That... or just build it - because it's a nice design.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-
Robinhood46
- Devotee
- Posts: 1683
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 am
- Location: Lot, France
re: Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference
ME,
I do think it is worth building a physical wheel.
But, as you point out, there are are few things that i think would be best perfectioned / optimised, before attempting the build.
In my view, the effects of the curved arms is the least important, because proportionally speaking they have little mass. Their shape and the needed transfer of force allows them to be reasonably lightweight.
The smaller weights, not shown, on each end of the curved arms needs to be calculatd to cause the movement of the bigger weights, to be the most optimal with regard cost and gain.
The moving forward of the heavy weights, when being lifted, is effectively not optimal. This is mainly due to me being to lazy to make the sim more complicated. I am at present making, or at least trying to make, a better sim, that has the additional pivot points, so as to be able to place the bigger weights in a better position relative to the curved arms and get rid of the advancement during the lift.
By doing this, it may be simpler to have the heavy weights on one leg of a letter "A", and, instead of the "little moving levers" just extend one of the curves beyond the pivot and apply it to the other leg of the "A". The disadvantage of this is reducing the length of the curved arms and increasing the distance they need to be raised to effectively raise the bigger weights.
In the video i have left the unmoved bigger weights held in their position nearer the center (descending side). They could be left free to "fall out" naturally, or be nudged out by the last few degrees of movement of the curved arms.
Bottom line is that i am still a few sims away from starting a physical build.
I do think it is worth building a physical wheel.
But, as you point out, there are are few things that i think would be best perfectioned / optimised, before attempting the build.
In my view, the effects of the curved arms is the least important, because proportionally speaking they have little mass. Their shape and the needed transfer of force allows them to be reasonably lightweight.
The smaller weights, not shown, on each end of the curved arms needs to be calculatd to cause the movement of the bigger weights, to be the most optimal with regard cost and gain.
The moving forward of the heavy weights, when being lifted, is effectively not optimal. This is mainly due to me being to lazy to make the sim more complicated. I am at present making, or at least trying to make, a better sim, that has the additional pivot points, so as to be able to place the bigger weights in a better position relative to the curved arms and get rid of the advancement during the lift.
By doing this, it may be simpler to have the heavy weights on one leg of a letter "A", and, instead of the "little moving levers" just extend one of the curves beyond the pivot and apply it to the other leg of the "A". The disadvantage of this is reducing the length of the curved arms and increasing the distance they need to be raised to effectively raise the bigger weights.
In the video i have left the unmoved bigger weights held in their position nearer the center (descending side). They could be left free to "fall out" naturally, or be nudged out by the last few degrees of movement of the curved arms.
Bottom line is that i am still a few sims away from starting a physical build.
re: Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference
The curve shape does not matter and its lightweightness is outdone by those added smaller weight. Likely fixed in symmetric locations on the curves. This simply results in an object that still has that certain Center-of-Mass in the Center of that curved shape.In my view, the effects of the curved arms is the least important, because proportionally speaking]they have little mass. Their shape and the needed transfer of force allows them to be reasonably lightweight.
The smaller weights, not shown, on each end of the curved arms needs to be calculatd to cause the movement of the bigger weights, to be the most optimal with regard cost and gain.
In fact, you can just put one single weight in that CoM position and add rigid beams to the places you want leverage and/or pivots - same difference, same effect.
For something completely different, but as a practical example on curved levers, search online for "bicycle curved crankshaft". Those are a complete waste of money and material.
Leverage with a rigid connection is only about the force perpendicular on the moment arm (= the distance from the pivot point).
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-
Robinhood46
- Devotee
- Posts: 1683
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 am
- Location: Lot, France
re: Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference
Whichever way we wish to look at the effects of the curved arms, small weights and lengths of levers, we agree that a certain amount of work is needed to get them to do, what i am hoping to achieve. The work needed is non negligible but at the same time not huge either. Any action involved in changing the trajectory of a mass has a cost energetic. The objective is to get the cost below the gain (invest some to make a profit).
If we can get the accumulated gain from all the lifted weights to outweigh the cost of lifting one, we have a runner.
If we can get the accumulated gain from all the lifted weights to outweigh the cost of lifting one, we have a runner.
-
Robinhood46
- Devotee
- Posts: 1683
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 am
- Location: Lot, France
re: Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference
If i could add sound to this video, we would hear "about" 8 thuds as the weights are pushed against the rim, on the descending side. We would also hear metal scraping on the ascending, the arms moving across the spring loaded curved arms.
The force needed to raise the weight and compress the spring, increases the effort needed to achieve this, hence the smaller weights raising further before falling back. The leverage involved is not negligible but where exactly would they "hover"? this would depend on many factors.
The arms are not curved on this video, which means there cannot be a central axle, because they need to swing past it. This is not the case with the small weights on the two curved arms. Either is doable.
This method is somewhat similar to Mt13 in pricipal. Instead of the weighted mass forcing each weight to raise, there is a suspended mass, which evolves at a different rate than the wheel raising the weight. This makes me wonder if the need for the heavy weights to progress around the rim is not a must too.
Mt13 doesn't work, why should this?
One of my earlier videos, an animation made with a physical build, showed the same principal with shorter arms, the arms were swinging above the center. This had much less leverage, but could be used to raise weights all the same.
Now that i am a master of algadoo and film making (a sarcastic form of self derision), i'll have a go at combining the two, especially now i can get springs to finally do what i want them to.
If only i could just grasp how to, not get everything fly off in all directions when i hit play, i would be nominated for an oscar!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=139xnpVWMNs
The force needed to raise the weight and compress the spring, increases the effort needed to achieve this, hence the smaller weights raising further before falling back. The leverage involved is not negligible but where exactly would they "hover"? this would depend on many factors.
The arms are not curved on this video, which means there cannot be a central axle, because they need to swing past it. This is not the case with the small weights on the two curved arms. Either is doable.
This method is somewhat similar to Mt13 in pricipal. Instead of the weighted mass forcing each weight to raise, there is a suspended mass, which evolves at a different rate than the wheel raising the weight. This makes me wonder if the need for the heavy weights to progress around the rim is not a must too.
Mt13 doesn't work, why should this?
One of my earlier videos, an animation made with a physical build, showed the same principal with shorter arms, the arms were swinging above the center. This had much less leverage, but could be used to raise weights all the same.
Now that i am a master of algadoo and film making (a sarcastic form of self derision), i'll have a go at combining the two, especially now i can get springs to finally do what i want them to.
If only i could just grasp how to, not get everything fly off in all directions when i hit play, i would be nominated for an oscar!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=139xnpVWMNs
-
johannesbender
- Addict
- Posts: 2438
- Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:29 pm
- Location: not important
re: Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference
" If only i could just grasp how to, not get everything fly off in all directions when i hit play, i would be nominated for an oscar!"
collision intersections will usually cause that, when physic bodies intersect eachother , they will try to push apart and other chaos.
you have to choose which objects are allowed to collide with eachother , some applications use layers , some use other methods , although collision solving is a precision related thing but if you start a simulation with things already colliding there is no way that precision can help .
constraints forces that grow beyond what the application can solve, can also cause some wild chaos , but constraints are more a precision related thing .
collision intersections will usually cause that, when physic bodies intersect eachother , they will try to push apart and other chaos.
you have to choose which objects are allowed to collide with eachother , some applications use layers , some use other methods , although collision solving is a precision related thing but if you start a simulation with things already colliding there is no way that precision can help .
constraints forces that grow beyond what the application can solve, can also cause some wild chaos , but constraints are more a precision related thing .
Its all relative.
-
Robinhood46
- Devotee
- Posts: 1683
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 am
- Location: Lot, France
re: Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference
When i make a simple example, to try and get the hang of it, it all works fine. There are enough collision layers to play around with all the different parts that interact. When i start trying to make something more serious, things just don't go as planned.
I've tried crossing my fingers and this does work sometimes, but i was rather hoping i would find a more reliable solution. I haven't tried hitting the bloody thing with a hammer yet, this is because a reliable source told me that it is unlikely to solve the problem and could even cause additional problems. Not being a computer wizard i just have to take his word on this.
I've tried crossing my fingers and this does work sometimes, but i was rather hoping i would find a more reliable solution. I haven't tried hitting the bloody thing with a hammer yet, this is because a reliable source told me that it is unlikely to solve the problem and could even cause additional problems. Not being a computer wizard i just have to take his word on this.
-
johannesbender
- Addict
- Posts: 2438
- Joined: Thu Apr 18, 2013 3:29 pm
- Location: not important
re: Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference
the key to solving any computer related problem , is to replace what is broken , although sometimes it requires you break it first then replace it , the hammer approach does work sometimes.
Its all relative.
-
Robinhood46
- Devotee
- Posts: 1683
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 am
- Location: Lot, France
re: Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference
What do computers and gravity wheels have in common?
They often don't do what you think they should.
I added the springs to a previous model and didn't get the result i was hoping for.
I think something along those lines would be more promising with the model where they swing across without stopping near the center for a full rotation. Just the weights at each end of the sticks taking it in turns to swing.
For what it's worth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63gZcBgx838
They often don't do what you think they should.
I added the springs to a previous model and didn't get the result i was hoping for.
I think something along those lines would be more promising with the model where they swing across without stopping near the center for a full rotation. Just the weights at each end of the sticks taking it in turns to swing.
For what it's worth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63gZcBgx838
-
Robinhood46
- Devotee
- Posts: 1683
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 am
- Location: Lot, France
re: Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference
I don't seem to ba able to achieve anything more promising than my original thoughts.
Now that i have a new badge to sew on my cub scout jumper sleeve, ( Algadoo ), and i'm getting nearer to that oscar nominee, here is an animation of the whole thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VmoJPtQMi8
One could definitely say that half the wheel is empty and half is full. The knocks per revolution are good, weights working in pairs, swapping roles/places, the weights are naturally swinging.
The offset isn't huge, but it is there. We know that the wheel didn't create tons of power and Bessler often spoke of our greed, (which could have been refering to energetic greed within the wheel).
The difference i have been trying to explain, between a walking octagon, which George is so keen on, (and i agree with him) and each individuel weight "creating" the same effect, can be seen clearly on this version. At least i think it can.
The weights use the seesaw effect with a ratio of 3:1 (in the animation) 4:1 is probably better. The springs are a must and maybe some kind of connection with cords between the weights could gain a few degrees for the initial swing on the ascending side? This would create a mechanism similar to the woodchooppers, only alternating woodchoppers moving each other as opposed to a mutual lever.
If JC doesn't have any joy with his build, i'll have a go at building something like this.
Now that i have a new badge to sew on my cub scout jumper sleeve, ( Algadoo ), and i'm getting nearer to that oscar nominee, here is an animation of the whole thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VmoJPtQMi8
One could definitely say that half the wheel is empty and half is full. The knocks per revolution are good, weights working in pairs, swapping roles/places, the weights are naturally swinging.
The offset isn't huge, but it is there. We know that the wheel didn't create tons of power and Bessler often spoke of our greed, (which could have been refering to energetic greed within the wheel).
The difference i have been trying to explain, between a walking octagon, which George is so keen on, (and i agree with him) and each individuel weight "creating" the same effect, can be seen clearly on this version. At least i think it can.
The weights use the seesaw effect with a ratio of 3:1 (in the animation) 4:1 is probably better. The springs are a must and maybe some kind of connection with cords between the weights could gain a few degrees for the initial swing on the ascending side? This would create a mechanism similar to the woodchooppers, only alternating woodchoppers moving each other as opposed to a mutual lever.
If JC doesn't have any joy with his build, i'll have a go at building something like this.
- Attachments
-
-
Robinhood46
- Devotee
- Posts: 1683
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 am
- Location: Lot, France
re: Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference
A slightly different version of the same principal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLrGrgcZm7s
How late can they be lifted realistically?
Would delaying the start of the swing be favourable?
Maybe a small and big weight on each arm and not two the same?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLrGrgcZm7s
How late can they be lifted realistically?
Would delaying the start of the swing be favourable?
Maybe a small and big weight on each arm and not two the same?
- Attachments
-
-
Robinhood46
- Devotee
- Posts: 1683
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:22 am
- Location: Lot, France
re: Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference
This is with the bigger weights closer to the center.
The bigger weights have a nice path, they are not only further on the way down than on the way up, they also spend more time on the way down. The different swivel points cause the weights to go backwards a few degrees coming down (relative to the rotation of the wheel).
While the swinging is going on, the effects this has on the wheel depends on where they are connected to it. The wheel forces both weights to rise on the ascending side and the weights force the wheel to rotate on the descending side. This happens at different distances from the center. Nearer up and further down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNFzXE-_WkE
The bigger weights have a nice path, they are not only further on the way down than on the way up, they also spend more time on the way down. The different swivel points cause the weights to go backwards a few degrees coming down (relative to the rotation of the wheel).
While the swinging is going on, the effects this has on the wheel depends on where they are connected to it. The wheel forces both weights to rise on the ascending side and the weights force the wheel to rotate on the descending side. This happens at different distances from the center. Nearer up and further down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNFzXE-_WkE
re: Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference
Now that's a tidy sim RH :7)