Cracking the nut with Archimedes principal?

[LustInBlack]

I feel so bad for Raj for not trying to understand what triplock has been saying all along this thread..

Best of luck tho.

[triplock]

I'm afraid that Raj is lost in the clouds for the moment. Only hindsight will lift the cumulonimbus.

Chris

[raj]

May I, first of all, wish you ALL, dear forum members, a Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year 2015.

Thanks a lot LustInBlack and Chris. It's nice to see your continued interest and concern in my current concept.

The pictures were taken some days before, and I thought then that it would be right to post them.

The drawing was done only a few minutes ago, and it wasn't meant to posting in here initially, but only as my own answer to myself about torques involved in my AGW design.

I had read LustInBlack comment earlier this morning, but now having read Chris comment, I feel I shall try some feedback.

What you will gather from the pictures is that my wheel does not necessarily need a circular rim, but just spokes, eight of them at 45 degrees intervals.

The next two pictures show how the Nuts/weights hang, swing/roll upwards past the 12 and 6 o'clock positions

The drawing was done to check on the nuts/weghts changing position through 180 degrees rotation.

There are two sets of eight nuts/weights , each set occupying/changing to separately three different orbits .

Forgive me for all the scribbles. These figures are torque calculations I did for my own benefits.
But It would be nice if you could follow my workings.

My current finding is that there will be Net unidirectional counter-clockwise torque by the 16 nuts/weights between 8 to 15 percent continuously.

The most paramount question I have to answer NOW, is this:
Will this net positive continuous torque by the weights be completely neutralised by FRICTION??? so to keep AGW is keel position???

As far As I can see, friction will be at the axle and on the ascending side by the swinging/rolling spring-like nuts, upwards on the tubular (not screws as previously thought), guided by small hooks.

Probably now you will find how far I am lost in the thickening clouds, that I can't stop but move on.

Raj

[LustInBlack]

You don't seem to realize that whichever way you choose to shift your weights, that gravity field is conservative.


The only way for a solution that I see.. is if somehow, another force interaction could counter balance the shifting of mass AND permit reset of said shifter mechanism. I don't see this in your wheel.

[raj]

Dots do easy come easy go, I dare say.

C'est la vie!!!

[raj]

What does this modern expression ' THINKING out of the box' really means?

I do not believe that it means : ' just follow the beaten track'.

I think it means more : ' Dare to go where no one has gone before'.

In my thoughts, of course. If I get lost, no problem to coming back, to base.

[LustInBlack]

You are going exactly where everyone has gone before.

[triplock]

Raj,

As LiB said, I'm afraid that, in this instance, you are not thinking outside of the box.

There is a predictability of your approach that will only lead to dead end after dead end. How do I know this ? It is the same way I used to think until the absolute nature of the Conservation of Energy Laws within a closed loop hit me a while back.

If you get enjoyment out of what your doing, then its great. Beyond that, your current design has absolutely no chance of working, irrespective of 'improvements'. To say otherwise would be to lie.

Chris

PS That aside, Merry Xmas mate

Chris ;)