Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[Robinhood46]

This one is pretty interesting.
The weights have a favourable path and the negative aspect of the mechanisms themselves is more evenly distributed.
There is a problem with it, in that the sequence of the weights doing the work is every 3 - 3 - 4 - 3 - 3 - 4 etc, sections, which is not good.
My intention was to have the five mechanisms, but i can't get the thing to work with more than four, and with four, the synchronisation is all over the place.
I can raise and lower the mass of the heavy weights with little effect on the motion. The problem being when risen to a certain amount the thing falls apart, as usual. The weights carry on moving in the desired manner but the momentary shifting of the forces on the components causes the sim to mess about.
The 334 problem can be overcome by changing the number of sections, which is something i am often in need of doing with many of my attempts. Each weight is hitting the rim every 10 sections, because the smaller weight is falling back a quarter, to do the lifting. Which gives the radially shifting of the masses that i am very keen to exploit.
Maybe, with the correct number of mechanisms and sections, something along the lines of the apologia wheel can be achieved.
https://youtu.be/oMcyPxH6-pk

[Robinhood46]

A slight adjustment which is interesting.
By doubling the weights on one swinging mechanism, we have pretty much the dancing of the weights that i was hoping to achieve over a year ago.
This also gives us one "crossbar"
There are a few things that need playing with, notably the timing of the two weights moving. Bessler did say that one moves in as one moves out. He also said it is easier to move a weight laterally than to lift one. Could laterally from 9 to centre as one raises at 12, be sufficient, now that the workings are more balanced?
Maybe with some ironing out of the many other creases.
https://youtu.be/a7hgwMHFT2c

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,
it is easier to let a weight swing from 9 o'clock to the center and the other away from the center to 3 o'clock at the rim.

So no lifting is necessary but you shorten and extend the lever arm length.

Torque before high.

What is interesting in your last attempts is that you lift weights on the downgoing side of the wheel.

[WaltzCee]

looking a little yin-yangish.

[Robinhood46]

Hi Georg,
The lifting of the weight on the down-going side can be more rapid than in the video. The problem is holding the pivots in place during the weights being thrown up. The force on the pivots is too much for them.
The main reason i tried this, was to try and use the pendulums in Bessler's famous drawing with the pendulums outside the wheel, that have never been seen, or recorded as being seen by the witnesses of the wheels.
When i swap the T bars (top pivot point) from the curved arms to the straight arms, a peacock's tail appears. Half of the wheel it is opening and the other half closing. The curved arms, which allow the positioning of the swivel points (the arms attached to the bottom T bar pivot) to be offset, go from their points touching, like this (), to being fanned out. This is the first time i have seen a peacock's tail effect, this realistic. The curving of the arms modifies many factors, so finding the optimal curve is not easy.
One thing i often ask myself is, "weights working in pairs" and "one crossbar is enough to make a crappy runner". Not his words exactly.
Does this mean each crossbar has weights working in pairs? or does it mean one weight each crossbar, and when there are more than one crossbar, the weights work in pairs?
It is very difficult with Bessler"s clues, to know when and when not to, apply them.
I am more inclined at present to go for, one weight per crossbar. This enables far more effective shifting of the heavier weight, for obvious reasons. A continually changing equilateral triangle, with the two light and one heavy weight, could create the radial displacement of the COM. This would not have any weights working in pairs, or create a peacock's tail etc. The clues would only appear when the number of crossbars increased.
Another observation in the video, is that the knocking which would be created by this kind of movement, is not at all the sort of movement i have been picturing.

[Robinhood46]

looking a little yin-yangish.

I agree with the use of the word little.

[WaltzCee]

I was referring to the second vid upstream.

[Robinhood46]

Ah,
I am forced to retract my last comment.
Now i disagree with the word little.

[WaltzCee]

that was somewhat funny.
Masses moving around in a wheel is a wash.

• *regardless of the vehicle/mechanism used to move them
  *regardless of the path they take

You might even disagree with those points, yet that's reality speaking. You can know the
ground you're covering is well trodden.

Until your mechanism can fill its tank with the fuel of a prime mover, you don't have a
prayer of coming in second place.

By somewhat I mean not a bit.

[Fletcher]

Yeah .. but we each keep trying to break the Law-of-Levers and conservative gravity anyway we can. With ever more ingenious devices, that are evermore efficient. Nothing is more efficient than a frictionless sim so it's a great headstart.

We won't stop trying until there are no ideas left to try I guess. Me included !

[Robinhood46]

Algodoo has friction for each of the interactions between components. I only eliminate friction between components that are used to replace the third dimension. If the mechanism wouldn't exist in the real world, the additional effort to create it is unrealistic.
The springs, which are needed to make the unnecessary mechanisms function, is plenty enough excess effort already, which i don't think i can eliminate to have a more realistic appreciation of what is going on.
Bessler didn't have modern bearings, like we, and the sim world do. The scraping rubbing noise heard on the ascending side would have been the biggest source of friction in his wheel, in my opinion The rest of the movements was created by swinging. Pivots do have friction, but it would be proportionally less of a hindrance than the scraping rubbing.

If we wish to clear Bessler's name of the fraud accusation and prove that PM is not impossible, we have no choice but to keep trying.

[mastramvirdi]

Very good advise

[WaltzCee]

Yeah .. but we each keep trying to break the Law-of-Levers and
conservative gravity anyway we can. With ever more ingenious
devices, that are evermore efficient. Nothing is more efficient
than a frictionless sim so it's a great headstart.

We won't stop trying until there are no ideas left to try I guess.
Me included !

I'm still thinking about this, Fletcher. There are so many kernels imbeded
in it and I want everyone of them to rise up and reach their fullest potential.

I'll post my thoughts elsewhere so as to not interrupt the (ahem) serious
bidness being conducted here.

[Robinhood46]

We all get to choose which path we take to hopefully find the solution.
All paths are valid until we know which one we should have taken.
Hindsight is not something we can bring forward in time, and fooling ourselves that we already have it, is a big mistake, in my opinion.
Respecting others chosen path, irrespective of our own thoughts, is the best way to encourage the much needed communication.

Bessler's comment about a smaller weight falling, or swinging back and not being a problem, has always intrigued me. This is one of the reasons i have been trying with the weights spanning across the centre. These weights do go back in relation to the rotational direction. The shorter arms, which is far easier and allows a central axle to be present, swing forward and not backward. Trying to keep the small arms and have them swing backward implies them falling from 10 ish to 7 ish. (a quarter of the wheel). They then need to do a full rotation to once again fall back.
This creates a radial displacement of the smaller weights, backward. In an ideal world, the force needed to perpetuate the rotation of such a construction would be equal to the force needed to raise one weight from 7 o'clock to 10 o'clock.
With a bit of imagination, one can picture water being risen at the rim and falling back down, to the rim, a quarter of the wheel later. A continual waterfall at a cost equal to it's elevation.

To show the difficulty of creating these simulations with Algodoo, here is a video with some of the glitches that are continually causing difficulty.
The video speed is increased, not the wheel's rotation, to reduce time.
The first few times the weight goes through the mechanism as though it doesn't exist and bounces of the outer ring. Then it works wonderfully at the bottom and the top decides it doesn't want to respect any of it's constraints, and flies in. The weights then bounce all over the place until one decides that being inside is no fun, and sneaks through an imaginary hole in the rim, only to find itself whacked against the outside of the rim because it's partner hasn't imagined a hole.
This is with just one pair of weights, and playing with the masses of the weights increases the glitches.
https://youtu.be/HCw-HFo4Wfs

With 16 sections, using this kind of motion, two sets of 5 pairs are used. 5 near one face of the wheel and the other 5 near the other face. The weights take it in turns to "do", they swap places and they come to be placed together. They can be interconnected, between opposing pairs which are on opposing faces, by what could be a crossbar. The crossbar would be connected at opposing faces and free to move between the two.
Five crossbars would be present, one crossbar for one pair of each of the groups of five.

[agor95]

the difficulty of creating these simulations with Algodoo

I appreciate this difficulty; one of many.

The primary focus is to define the effect you are analyzing.

Then find ways to do an outline check which is not to much of a burden.

The act progressing to a full complex prototype with costs of time and money without that draft positive check. Well what a wast.

However committing to skill development and support tools stress testing has it's place.

With this point I try using a calculation stage and a separate presentation stage. This helps with the resources not being used at the same time.

Note.

There is a class of analysis were radial small weights movement being used to reposition large weights around the rim. Were the default rim position are balanced.

Also there are symmetries and inverted actions too study in a rotating frame.

All the Best