Grease power

[preoccupied]

Regardless of how many weights you have if you have an amount you are overbalancing the wheel by I think it requires 3 spins to reach maximum force to reset the device. It's f/a=m or force of mass acceleration. Oh wait a second that is not what I put in my ms painting. I wrote it wrong in my text in the picture, I had put f/m=a. Oops.

[preoccupied]

The force input by acceleration of mechanism
a1*m4=f, 1=a
1a*m4=f, f/a=m then /2=2
2a/1a*m4=8f, f/a=m =4
4a/2a*m4=8f, f/a=m =4

So you add the first acceleration to the second acceleration and then in relation to the force of the mass and the new input you take the ratio of the accelerations. This makes sense to me because it might work in a more complex equation if greater ratios are needed. If the input is the same every time like in this mechanism just about then it should be like this. This should be a calculation for a shift in weight without calculating the method to cause the weight to shift. In the actual running of the wheel recharging the spring will cause the wheel to slow down some but if you spin it equivalent of 3 times without slowing it down, it should have the maximum force per shifting weight to recharge the spring. I think so. What do you guys think?

edit: I also made a mistake in this ms painting in my text, doh!

I think that with 3 masses/weights instead of 4 it would be like this
a1*m3=f, 1=a
1a*m3=f, f/a=m then /1.5 (half the number of weights)=2
2a/1a*m3=6f, 6/1.5 =4
4a/2a*m3=6f

So if there is 10 weights
a1*m10=f, 1=a
1a*m10=f, f/a=m then /5 = 2
2a/1a*m10=f, then /5 = 4
4a/2a*m10=f, then /5 = 4

Maybe it's fair to say that I'm trying to believe that by the 3rd spin you have double force of mass acceleration. I'm obviously trying to fit the equation to what I believe.

[preoccupied]

Pulleys pull the weight out from a horizontal lever. Reminds me of James Lingaards obsession but with a swastika.

[preoccupied]

The gears are at a 3:1 ratio but the leverage is closer to 4:1. This means it should reset the weights much earlier and it's still 0.65 overbalanced in this picture drawn and if it resets early which it should it should remain overbalanced the entire turns.

This design might begin building soon. I need to buy more duct tape and I think that I can make the pulleys with cardboard and floss. I have pop sickle sticks! and I know where to get more pop sickle sticks. I think my Elmer's glue and pop sickle sticks are key for the long levers. Please stop me. I want to know what i did wrong in the design before I start building!

[preoccupied]

I was being a little ambiguous with my weight amounts. So I played with the drawing more and made it pretty beefy. Please view the ms painting to see all of the numbers. the purple weight is 3 and the weight on the 4x as long lever is 1. It should reset early and it's overbalanced when reset. I just looked at what I drew and I don't know why it said 3.24 on the bottom left in red. It's supposed to say 2.55. I must have had a brain fart.

[preoccupied]

If the gear ratio is 2:1 and the weight is 3 then the 4 and 16 length levers would equate to 32 and 4*3=12. The weight would shift earlier at around before a 22.5 degree turn and this would better. The weights overbalance would be about 0.275.

I can also consider making the gear ratio 3:1. If I do that then it's 1.5*16=24 and 4*3=12. Okay that would reload at 22.5 about that more likely. Then the overbalance would be more at 0.98. I actually originally drew 3:1 gear ratio for this purpose but I switched to 4:1 for no reason because it looked beefier. 3*.75=2.25. and 3*.5=1.5 and 3*1=1. The 3:1 ratio is 2.25 a better ratio. 0.75, 0.5 and 1 are about the distance of the weight when it shifts to the left at the different ratios 4:1, 3:1 and 2:1. (unless I'm calculating wrong!)... If I use a 3:1 ratio it will move 0.75 to the left about and it will have more overbalance and it will reset at 22.5 degree turn. That is the wheel that I will build.

Any questions or comments? Or am I going to be ignored for a while?

EDIT
I meant to multiply by 3 a second time when I did the calculation. So what would be a good ratio is around 2.25 because 2.25*4*3=27 and 16*1.875=30 so it will start to reload before 45 degrees hits making the over balance continuous. Because of my miscalculations I made it seem better than it was. Thank you all for allowing me to participate. I think this is a good idea. So my new gear ratio is 2.25:1. Probably. Lets see it would be able to reach about 0.56 overbalance with 2.25:1 gear ratio. Hurray. For he is a jolly good fellow. For he is a Jolly good fellow. That double checked his math (using calculators). Man I would not be able to function without trig calc and ms calculator right now.

[preoccupied]

I made my wheel design over balanced by 39 weights.

[preoccupied]

The long lever 18 length long is lifting up the bottom fallen red weight and pushing the left red weight to the side. It looks weird but it should all shift correctly I think.

So 18 to 1 triangle is 3.18 degrees. the long lever moves 2 distance, so x2 is 5.18 degrees is 0.18 degrees for 2 length lever with red weight. What is the weight of the weight? 13*0.18=2.34, 2.34+13=15.34, 15.34-18=2.66 leeway to lift levers.

It's only 2.66 Overbalanced. Is that enough?

[preoccupied]

I remember drawing this before and nobody was spying on me so nobody could steal it. Those were the days. Feels good to remember things.

[preoccupied]

So in this model or design I actually knew what I was doing. I knew that I drew this before but I wasn't being spied on. So the positions of the weights falling allows weights to shift and there is some extra force enough to lift a weight straight up helping it be overbalanced because it needs to turn 180 degrees to reset. I like it. I hope you appreciate me sharing. None of you have bothered to talk to me outside of the forum except Tarsier79 and Jim_Mich I think and maybe AB_Hammer I'm not sure. Not super friendly are you.

[eccentrically1]

I don’t think any of your drawings will work. I hesitate to criticize when it is perceived as an attack.

[preoccupied]

I don’t think any of your drawings will work. I hesitate to criticize when it is perceived as an attack.

I think that I only attacked back before to seek more useful input from others. There is barely collaboration. Nobody knows me well at all. You know I want the criticism babe. You guys are notorious right now to me for closing an idea down without talking about it much in detail and you glorify building ideas. I am 100% honest. My new drawing I like that is just prior to your post. I haven't drawn that in a while. It was years ago when I wasn't being spied on probably or had better internet security so that I wouldn't be spied on.

In my last drawing do you think that the orange weight will get very far? I'm not sure right now how effective a lever is at pushing a weight up vertically. It could be really good. Very little of the lever is being used to shift the weight sideways. So a lot of the lever can push the weight upwards. Just interesting to think about. I welcome your opinion but I want like actual satisfaction like measure me or something. Shoot down my ideas with some investigation maybe someone. Anyone really. My ideas might be stupid too stupid to do that I don't know. I have my fair share of brain farts. I think my biggest potential isn't thinking of new ideas but remembering old ideas from when I had better brain function like this last image from whenever I drew it, whenever.

I like that you even bothered to make that comment that has 87 characters in it. I am glowing with appreciation. Bring it on man. I think that I've only gotten frustrated before because the conversations weren't very rich.

[eccentrically1]

I'm not sure right now how effective a lever is at pushing a weight up vertically.

Lever effectiveness is based on the relationship between the load and effort via the fulcrum.
The mechanical advantage deal.
You know.
What you gain in force you lose in distance.
Or what you might gain in distance you lose in force.

[preoccupied]

My brain is farting like crazy.

So if you take a weight and push it against a gear vertically, the new gear becomes the new wheel. Do you multiply the length traveled by the gear by the radius from the axle different on the larger lever? I'm trying to guess based on what I believe. Isn't it like a ratio that I can multiply the distance by such as making a gear ratio to make it 1:1 and pushing the weight up as far as possible or using a heavier weight and moving it a shorter distance? I'm referring to the orange weight in my picture. So the levers that are lifting the weights are 5-6x longer than the radius of the gear pushing the weight up vertically. Do I make a gear train that set sup the weight to be lifted up 5x further than the gear would normally travel if it were 1:1? That would be short of 180 but more than 90 degrees of the normal 1:1 gear used in the picture. It would probably travel just a little bit further than I drew it in my image then.

[eccentrically1]

A wheel and axle is just a lever. A seesaw is a lever. It’s the same concept, same result.
Depending on how big your wheel or your seesaw is determines how much distance they can lift through.
The radius of a wheel over the radius of its axle is its mechanical advantage.