Gravity wheels with a fundamental difference

[thx4]

https://youtu.be/Rya5KSu1jvw
To follow the discussion, indeed when the V is turned over we are in slight acceleration, and in principle the heavier weight has more inertia, but in my case it stops anyway ... I have good quality bearings lol.

A++

[Robinhood46]

The COM of the whole thing is at 6 o'oclock, when the weights are at 9 and 3 (Depart de la video).
It is easier to move a weight laterally than to raise it. Moving a weight laterally raises the COM.
The position of the COM is what turns a wheel, not the position of the masses. Obviously the position of the masses is a determining factor as to where the COM is.

[Tarsier79]

It is easier to move a weight laterally than to raise it. Moving a weight laterally raises the COM.

Lifting the weight raises the COM. If you put an actuator to lift the com(by lifting at an earlier time on this mechanism on each arm, it would rotate.

[Robinhood46]

It is easier to move a weight laterally than to raise it. Moving a weight laterally raises the COM.

If you look at the starting position of THX4's video, one weight is at 9 and the other is at 3. The COM is at 6, if this wasn't the case the arm would not be stationary in this position. It could happen by chance that the weights stop at 9 and 3 if they were perfectly aligned (180°), but this isn't the case, they are offset. Either the heavy weight would be at 6 or the light weight, if one of them had an advantage, neither of them have an advantage, they are balanced. This is why they are stationary at 10 minutes to 9 and 10 minutes past 3. The slight offset from 180° puts the COM of the entire arm, between the two weights, on the side with the shortest distance between them. One side 185° and the other side 175°. The COM is at 6 and very close to the axle. Shift either of the weights to the right, horizontally, and the COM will be raised, to the right. The COM will be at 3, or very close to 3 because the weights will no longer be in balance and one would have an advantage.

[agor95]

easier to move a weight laterally

Lets go with that and see were we end up.

Could you have a weight with a sail to move it laterally. On a windy day of course.

Wind turbines are made of sails all nicely balanced.

Could we combine the two?

So the arms have weights that could sail towards the hub. When an arm gets close to horizontal.

The wind would only need to deal with friction not mass when horizontal.

However the larger the masses the greater the power output.

Regards

[Robinhood46]

I don't think there is anything to be gained by having sails on the weights.
"However the larger the masses the greater the power output."
I'm pretty convinced that Bessler was grinning to himself when he said "greed is the root of all evil", because he new that everyone was being greedy trying to create power.
We need to create movement, not power.
I don't think there were any elephants dancing around in his wheel, or if there were, they were only wiggling their bottoms, they weren't zigzagging around all over the place.
The plump horses weren't really going anywhere, they were "wandering around aimlessly". I don't even think they were wiggling their bottoms, mayby just fixed to the arms as counterweights.

[Tarsier79]

Thats Odd, for some reason I thought we were talking about this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezxNEXc9MdI

But looking back, I think we were supposed to be talking about this:

I still think you are translating the weight and the COM. Inaccuracies in the build make the weights sag one way.
Anyway, I still stand by my above comments. Translating weights has been tried for centuries. It does nothing positive that it doesn't negatively affect also.

[Robinhood46]

Inaccuracies in the build make the weights sag one way.

Inaccuracies could cause this, but in the case of THX4's video, inaccuracies aren't the cause of this effect.it was intentional.
The inaccuracies of Algodoo bearings is the reason he made this demonstration.
The tiny movement of the heavy weight is what determines if it runs (Algodoo), There are four options.
1, It doesn't run in any direction.
2, It runs CCW but not CW.
3, It runs CW but not CCW.
4, it runs in both directions.
For each different situation the movement of the weight is very small. The video i posted earlier is situation N°4. The question THX4 and i are asking ourselves is, how come it is possible to finely tune the setup, to achieve a controlled advantage of the defective bearings? Which is why i asked the question, is Algodoo showing us something we don't want to see?
I think we have two options.
Algodoo bearings being crap, is definitely the reason it runs, end of discussion. Is this because there is nothing to see, or because we don't want to see it?
Algodoo bearings have a default, that can be exploited to not only have a runner, but a runner in either direction or both. Can we somehow replicate the default of Algodoo bearings?
The axle having sections, holes and adjustable bolts, may, be a way of replicating defective Algodoo bearings.

[agor95]

What I was under the belief we were having a serious conversation on

elephants dancing around in his wheel ... they were only wiggling their bottoms

Looking back the conversation of this thread for 3 pages was devices that do not go around in circles.

To stop being odd my M. Turbine addresses this thread requirement that if sprayed the arms would follow different paths. Therefore not going around in circles.

The main big analysis done by many members, a hard barrier, is leverage of a weight & arm.
A wheel is just a many compound pendulums. And pendulums have all the barriers on lack of movement. Work has to be done to change their path. That is energy lost in the end.

As to the recent presentations, that are appreciated, they appear to not address this threads original post contexts.

Note. That last post by the thread owner has given a solution. A more round solution to the wind turbine [W. Turbine] design.

P.S. For that I would like to flatulate him on his imagination. ;)

Regards

[agor95]

Hi Tarsier

The second image appears to be balanced with a degree of flexing of the rod.

So we have two effects inertia and spring deformation. I would like to see three.

Regards

[Robinhood46]

As to the recent presentations, that are appreciated, they appear to not address this threads original post contexts.

It is true that the recent posts don't incorporate the difference which i believe to be so important.
Not only am i not sure that the difference is vital, I'm also open to ideas which don't have it.
The recent posts, which you correctly pointed out don't have the difference, are still in need of a mechanism to achieve the desired movement of the weights or arms. The connection between the wheel and the arm(s) may need or not need the difference.
We need to work out what the weights need to do, and where they need to do it, before we can concentrate on how we are going to make it happen. My logic tells me we will not make it happen without the difference, but it could be complete nonsense.

[agor95]

My general feeling about this thread is a desire to find away out of the loop.
That being circular motion but the ability to articulate or imagine such an escape is hard.

Regards

[Robinhood46]

The loop is still there because the systems are both, or all, rotating around the same point. It is the interaction between the systems which i see as opening the system. Each system is either out of balance, or being forced out of balance, by the other system and the different rotational speed of the systems.

[agor95]

I believe that explains the process.

All the Best

[Robinhood46]

The AP drawing was my starting point for this attempt.
The distance from the point of the white sections to the centre, is the radius divided by 5.5. This is where i placed the green swivel points (i then needed to take them a fraction closer, for ease of adjustment, but this is irrelevant to the general aspect).
The weights are being shifted out way too early on the ascending side, springs could be being put under tension at this position to only raise the weight at the desired position, 12.00. Or an additional mechanism which offsets the weights position.
The movement can be increased, or additional weights can be added. The central hub of the three arms, is behaving in the manner we all seek, it generally stays over to one side. If the central connection of the three arms was to weigh double the weight of the lighter weight at the end of each of the arms, we would have 1 falling for 4 raising . 2 x the other small weights + the heavy weight. If we take the heavy weight to be the fat horse, it would be taking the desired path. By adding additional mechanisms (2) we would have 9 knocks per revolution and three plump horses wandering aimlessly.
https://youtu.be/ikTRF80uIpY