Mayday! Mayday!!!

[Tarsier79]

Raj. Depending on the mechanism, weight position may not be the only factor. My previous advice on building two opposite weights still stands.

Observing just opposite weights, in an OB wheel:

At some point, you extend one weight compared to the other, and produce a torque. This torque is not produced as you might believe, by the extended weight, but by the extended weight losing more height for the same rotation. Now, to reset, you have to lift the lower weight faster, to regain equilibrium, otherwise all your weights end up at the bottom. Following this method, you should be able to see from your drawing where the torque will act against you( whenever the weight is lifted more than its opposite drops).

When you install all the weights, you may not be able to pinpoint the problem due to all the "noise".

I can extrapolate further later if you like, but it may not be pretty.

Add. I Built a design myself that had OB 100% of the time, and posted it. Like most, it worked just as well in both directions.

[raj]

Ralph and Tarsier79,

I thank you both for your kind advices.

I am now ready to prove to YOU, ALL Forum members, that my current gravity wheel design is going to be a runner, THEORITICALLY.

I am not a builder, have little material choice, no adequate tools, inexperience in woodwork and metal work, but I am vowed to complete my gravity wheel concept testing prototype, no matter how long it will take me to do it.

My theoritical PROOF starts NOW.

Tell me loud and clear why you disagree as and when I make a proof statement.

PROOF (Part 1):

Picture One shows a circular wheel on horizontal axle.

Picture two shows the same wheel with a rotable pulley with a fix weight at its lowest par tand with its axle fix on the rim of the wheel.
N.B: pulley and axle of wheel are of same diameter.

Picture three shows pulley and axle of wheel geared by a CROSS belt in 1:1 ratio.
N.B: (a) pulley and axle will turn at the same speed and always in the same direction.

[raj]

Proof (part 2)

Picture four shows eight pulleys at 45 degrees intervals on rim of wheel, each geared to axle in a 1:1 ratio.
N.B. All eight pulleys and wheel will rotate at the same speed and direction.

Picture five shows rigid vertical levers fix on each pulleys.
N.B: the rigid levers will STAY VERTICAL no matter how far and how long the wheel rotates.

[raj]

Proof (part 3):

Picture 6 shows my current COMPLETE design.

The arrangement of my swinging weights are exactly as in my previous drawings.

N.B:
EXCEPT: the rigid arm holding the weights are NOWl connected to the rim of the ONLY and MAIN wheel and the flexible string pulling up the weights closer to the axle on the ascending side is NOW connected to the rigid levers fix to the pulleys and rotating but ALWAYS keeping their upright vertical position.

Please calculate the torque acting on this wheel presentation for yourself, if you care.

I'll come back with my proof later.

Thanks for your time and efforts.

Ram

[Silvertiger]

"Proof" and "theoretically" is a contradiction of terms, for one. For another, your wheel will still conserve energy, and therefore all torques will cancel out. For every torque, there will always be an opposing torque of exactly the same magnitude. It's like playing tug of war with a clone of yourself and playing tic-tac-toe. Equal energies are exchanged and therefore conserved. The pulleys with the pin-bars are no exception, for they exert torque as well in relation to there own axes of rotation. Keep it simple - if you cannot rotate your wheel with ONE mechanical "set" arranged on ONE crossbar, then it will not rotate with more than one.

[raj]

Silvertiger I appreciate your views.

Pythagoras theorem is proven theoritically by drawings.

No building is required.

Raj

[Mark]

Hi, raj,

PROOF (Part 1):

Picture One shows a circular wheel on horizontal axle.

Please clarify for me;
Do the "circular wheel" and the "horizontal axle" turn together as one unit, or, is it a wheel turning freely on a stationary axle?

N.B. - Please, carefully reconsider whether the pulleys will turn or not [relative to the wheel, not the observer].
And if they do turn, in which direction [same as the axle, or opposite].

[raj]

Thank you, my dear Mark.

Yes, the wheel and the axle turn as ONE piece.

When the wheel turns, all the pulleys will move upwards on the ascending side and downwards on the descending side because their axles are fixed to the rim of the wheel.
But at the same time that the pulleys move up and down on the rim of the wheel turning in one direction, the pulleys themselves will turn in counter direction because the weights on their lowest part will move to the lowest point.

The 1:1 gearing arrangement by cross belt allowed the counter-directions of the wheel and the pulleys, making it possible for the levers to stay in their vertical positions at all times.

Raj

[ME]

In other words: it is always balanced ?

[raj]

Yes, my dear Marcello.

The pulleys with their weights and levers DO NOT contribute to any change in overall torque on the wheel.

In other words, without the installation and addition of the swinging weights previously shown on my other drawings, the wheel will be balanced.

BUT when our previous swinging weights are installed and added in this new wheel configuration, these swinging weights on rigid arms connected to the rim, will provide positive torque on the descending side and the weights on the flexible strings on the ascending side, will pull downwards on the levers, forcing the connected pulleys to turn in the SAME descending direction of the wheel, because of the cross gearing effect.

Thus weights on the ascending will tend to help the wheel turning in its descending side direction, and reduce completely negative torque effect on the ascending side.

I, sincerely, hope that my explanations are reasonably clear to be understood.

Raj

[ME]

I, sincerely, hope that my explanations are reasonably clear to be understood

I can't tell right now. I'm still disappointed, sad and lightly depressed because any design I've made so far is basically a counterproductive lever. So please don't mind my current pessimistic state when I detect a probable geared roberval mechanism. But when you talk about swinging weights, my world gets a little bit brighter. I would simply say: convince yourself it works by building that thing, you've shown you can.

Marchello E.

[Mark]

Okay. Thanks, Raj.

Maybe I've misunderstood what you've shown and explained?

Drawing 3:


1) The wheel axle, the wheel and the pulley axle rotate as one piece.

There is no relative movement between any of the three components. Their rotational positions all stay on the same radial line. There is nothing to drive the belt. The pulley cannot rotate on it's axle because it is held by the belt [crossed or not].

2) To make the pulleys rotate as you are expecting them to, would require the wheel to be mounted on a bearing and for it's axle to be kept stationary.
To make the levers hold their vertical position would require the belt NOT be crossed. Crossing the connection creates counter-rotation.

Get a rubber band, and a couple of pencils or pens, and you'll see what I mean.

[raj]

Thank you, Mark!

You've made a very valid point.

Raj

[Mark]

You're welcome, Raj.

I would be glad to see you give this design a thorough re-think and a fresh presentation.

It's an interesting variation of MT27. I have always wanted to see a discussion about where it's "weights suspended and supported from two points, and the 'free-movement' vs. stopped against the rim or axle" design would fit in the "pinned vs. unpinned" definition of applied torque.

:)

[raj]

Mark!

You are right in thinking about swinging weights.

All my attempts in wheel designings have concentrated in swinging weights.

I have read somewhere of Bessler mentioning about 'TRAPEZE ?'
From the little I know about 'trapeze', the artist swings from rope to rope, using one arm to another arm to switch body position.

In my current design, the belts and gearing system could be just superfluous.

Getting rid of the belts and gearing system should not alter the motions of the weights as per the design.

Raj