Basic 4 Weighted Wheel Concept

[johnny874]

   @All,
Here is a quick math break down that shows the over balanced side would travel
about 2 inches more to rotate 180 degrees.
The design allows for 10 degrees of rotation in addition to the 10 degrees of radial shift. This is why the movement upward allows for 190 degrees of movement. When the weight moves towards center, if the wheel does not rotate, the weight will tarvel and extra 10 degrees of rotation. And if the weight moves inward with 10 degrees of upward travel, then it will travel about 1 inch less moving upwards.
edited to add; the math referenced if for an inner position 10cm's from center. Over balanced position is 10cm's from center and 3cm's @45 degrees (paralell with the plane of the axle when it can move outwards).
                                                                         Jim

degrees % of rotation
115 = 63.8%
20 = 11.1%
45 = 25.0%
10.07 = 63.8 %
8.885 = 11.1 %
7.07  = 25 %
1R Phi x % = length
10.07 * 3.14 * 63.8% = 20.17
8.885 * 3.14 * 11.1% = 3.096
7.07  * 3.14 * 25.0% = 5.549
----------------------------
                      28.815

degrees % of rotation
55   30.55%
20   11.1%
115  58.33%
10.07 * 3.14 * 30.55% = 9.659
8.885 * 3.14 * 11.1%  = 3.096
7.07  * 3.14 * 63.88% = 14.18
------------------------------
                        26.9

[johnny874]

   @All,
This is the correct math   
The reason for 190 degrees of upward travel is because the weight advances 10 degrees radially when it goes ob.
While the is about a 1cm or inch short coming, that is with 30% ob. It's a start 
And if this doesn't work, that's okay. it's good practice.

degrees of rotation = percentage of rotation
115 = 63.8%
  20 = 11.1%
  45 = 25.0%
12.3  = 63.8%   12.3 * 3.14 * .638 = 24.64
11.15 = 11.1%   11.15* 3.14 * .111 =  3.88
10.0  = 25.0%   10.0 * 3.14 * .250 =  7.85
-------------------------------------------
        99.9% of 180 degrees         36.37   


55  = 30.5%   
10  =  5.5%
125 = 69.4%
12.3  = 30.5%    12.3 * 3.14 * .305 = 11.78
11.15 = 11.1%    11.15* 3.14 * .111 =  3.88
10.0  = 69.4%    10.0 * 3.14 * .694 = 21.80
--------------------------------------------
        111% of 180 degrees           37.46

and by increasing the over balance by 1 cm or inch,
the 2 sides are almost equal if the weights shift takes the same
time as the wheel rotates. An example is if the radailly advance is 10 degrees,
then falling it takes 20 degrees of rotation and being lifted it increases travel by 10 degrees.
Of course, with what I am working on, crunching numbers like this has helped me.
and of course, if the weights shift takes less than 12 degrees of rotation, then there wold be a slight ob.

112.8 = 62.6%
  24.6 = 13.6%
   45  = 25.0%
13.07 = 62.6%   13.07* 3.14 * .626 = 25.69
11.53 = 13.6%   11.53* 3.14 * .136 =  4.92
10.0  = 25.0%   10.0 * 3.14 * .250 =  7.85
-------------------------------------------
        99.9% of 180 degrees         38.49   


57.2  = 30.5%   
12.3  =  5.5%
122.8 = 68.2%
13.07 = 30.5%    13.07* 3.14 * .305 = 12.51
11.53 = 13.6%    11.53* 3.14 * .136 =  4.92
10.0  = 68.2%    10.0 * 3.14 * .682 = 21.41
--------------------------------------------
        112.3% of 180 degrees         38.84

[Low-Q]

The math is extremely simple.


If the weights will end up in the same position after one complete revolution - regardless of its initial position, the result is already given.
No output.


Vidar.

[johnny874]

The math is extremely simple.


If the weights will end up in the same position after one complete revolution - regardless of its initial position, the result is already given.
No output.


Vidar.

  Vidar,
This has helped me to get to where I am now. And what does help is knowing how power is devoloped and how a system loses energy.

                                                             Jim
                                                                        Jim

[Cloxxki]

Jim,
What I wanted to express, and you may well be onto that for long, is that with the weight moving inside their slots, their actual radial load on the wheel is different from a static one. You could say the wheel is exerting energy to throw the weight into a wider orbit. It's costing energy, because the radial speed of the weight is supposed to be increased at the same time.
There should be a gain on first glance from overbalance, but there isn't because you can't get the weight into the wider orbit AND at increased radial speed. There's not the gravity available to do that. It's just 9.8m/s² on tap like the rest of the wheel is bound to.
We need the weight to behave in a certain way. And it it would, we'd have OU right there. Unfortunately, the weight just uses up all the potential energy it's got, for the vertical loss available. The outer orbit has a kinetic energy requirement gravity cannot account for. Due to the angle of the slots, whichever angle or curve you choose.

To understand why this wheel doesn't work, might set you on a path to find the ultimate clue, or cheat it.

Until, the search is for a rock that has yet to fall, to use for gravity extraction. Or, a hole that has already been dug.
Anyone ever calculate how much energy it would give to let the surround height slide into the Grand Canyon in a controlled fashion?