Basic 4 Weighted Wheel Concept

[johnny874]

   @All,
This is something I have built before. It was 5 feet in diameter.
I have taken the time to understand the math behind it.
Is it possible ? Maybe. With this concept, gravity does all the work.
By this, I mean that when a weight moves, it is gravity moving it without
the use of levers or other mechanical devices.
By using math, the distance the weights actually travel from top center
to bottom center and vice versa can be known. The basic premise is that
the longer path will be further from the center of the wheel. What this
allows for is leverage to be considered. In a rotating wheel, leverage and torque are similar principles.
Torque is what allows for acceleration. And of course, torque is then converted into momentum.
What understanding math allows someone to do is to find where in the design is the
optimum balance, or in this case, imbalance.
Most likely, a design such as this would rotate slowly. Still, even a slow continuous
rotation would be a success, wouldn't it ?

                                                                                  Jim

edited to add; with a basic design like this, it is where a person can have a lot of fun playing with math. The reason for this is because it is not so difficult to find a positive difference 

[Cloxxki]

I'm afraid there's another dimension here.
The vector of the weight at any given moment. This differs from that of the wheels at the weight's current location, because the weight travels a different path. Good luck with that math, I can't do it.
At any point between its ultimate slot positions, the weight are administering a differnt force on the wheel than its current location would suggest. Let alone when hitting the slot's stop.
The longer the relative length of the slots, and the free-er the movement of the weight, the bigger the effect I try to explain.

[johnny874]

I'm afraid there's another dimension here.
The vector of the weight at any given moment. This differs from that of the wheels at the weight's current location, because the weight travels a different path. Good luck with that math, I can't do it.
At any point between its ultimate slot positions, the weight are administering a differnt force on the wheel than its current location would suggest. Let alone when hitting the slot's stop.
The longer the relative length of the slots, and the free-er the movement of the weight, the bigger the effect I try to explain.

    Cloxxki,
  I found an easy way to do the math 
By using 45 degrees as a base angle, I can pick a point where I want the weight to move outward.
When I decide how much over balance I want, I can find the angle of the CoG. This allows me to follow the true path of the weight.
With this design, the weights can not have more inertia than gravity. If inertia is more than 1 G, then the weight moving past bottom center can not move towards center. This will cause loss of momentum.
I think this is what you were talking about when you mentioned vectors and longer slots, right ? The more over balance, the more inertia, less momentum.
There is something else to consider that agrees with that. In the picture, the longer the slots, the less time there is over balance. Height / distance travelled equals time. And with gravity, time allows for acceleration. And this is what would develop momentum.

                                                                                          Jim

[PhiChaser]

Have you tried using the 'Golden Ratio' in some of your 'hypotheticals'? Funny numbers like PHI (and powers of PHI...) have a way of showing up a lot in nature (natural math!). Something to play around with anyways.
Have you tried the same idea using curved slots?
PC

[johnny874]

Have you tried using the 'Golden Ratio' in some of your 'hypotheticals'? Funny numbers like PHI (and powers of PHI...) have a way of showing up a lot in nature (natural math!). Something to play around with anyways.
Have you tried the same idea using curved slots?
PC

   PC,
  I have tried using different slots. It didn't seem to gain anything.
One thing I did realise is that if there is a slight drop off, inertia
can be over come. This would start a weight rolling in the desired direction.
With the examole I gave, if the inner CoG is 10cm's @ 45 degrees with 3 cm's
of over balance, then the outer CoG is 10.07 cm's at an angle of 35 degrees.
I use 1R Phi =circ for 180 degrees or one side of the wheel. The basic hypothesis
is that if the average distance from center is greater on the over balanced side,
then it will allow for acelleration.
I think what is missed is that if a wheel is balanced, it will need the minimum
energy to spin. Also, since f = ma, the more it weighs, the more net force it
will need to be able to spin.

                                                                      Jim

edited to add distance to 35 degree reference point.