Curious overbalanced wheel idea

[CuriousChris]

I just wanted to make this statement, I don't believe OU is possible. But its a good brainteaser, so I don't mind the mental exercise.

For example I just worked on a gravity / overbalance wheel. It failed of course. but it was an interesting exercise nonetheless

Heres how it worked, or would have if it did.

Everytime a weight  moves around a wheel from the zenith to the base it moves through exactly 1/2 the circumference. right!

Then to get back from the base to the zenith it must go through 1/2 circumference again. So the distance traveled on the way down is the same as the distance on the way up.

What if the weight could take a shorter trip to get to the top?

It can. To get from the base to the zenith it must only travel the diameter of the wheel which is the circumference/pi.

That's grade school stuff, but what I realised is, on the way down the weight is forming part of a lever.  Therefore on the way down the weight can be used to lever another weight and make it move up the diameter (a straight line) faster than the weight going down.

The ratio of this lever is pi/2:1 or 1.57:1. This means for every mm of travel downwards we can get weight (1) to carry another weight (2) 1.57mm upwards. If you like inches for every 1 inch down we get ~1.5 inches in upward motion, using identical weights!!!!

WOW so by looking at the wheel as a simple lever (seesaw) we can seemingly do the impossible. By building some form of chain drive we can use the downward motion of the weight which must travel a longer route to carry another similar weight up a shorter distance to the top.

I'll make this clear...
It doesn't work. I'll leave it to the reader to work out why

[johnny874]

I just wanted to make this statement, I don't believe OU is possible. But its a good brainteaser, so I don't mind the mental exercise.

For example I just worked on a gravity / overbalance wheel. It failed of course. but it was an interesting exercise nonetheless

Heres how it worked, or would have if it did.

Everytime a weight  moves around a wheel from the zenith to the base it moves through exactly 1/2 the circumference. right!

Then to get back from the base to the zenith it must go through 1/2 circumference again. So the distance traveled on the way down is the same as the distance on the way up.

What if the weight could take a shorter trip to get to the top?

It can. To get from the base to the zenith it must only travel the diameter of the wheel which is the circumference/pi.

That's grade school stuff, but what I realised is, on the way down the weight is forming part of a lever.  Therefore on the way down the weight can be used to lever another weight and make it move up the diameter (a straight line) faster than the weight going down.

The ratio of this lever is pi/2:1 or 1.57:1. This means for every mm of travel downwards we can get weight (1) to carry another weight (2) 1.57mm upwards. If you like inches for every 1 inch down we get ~1.5 inches in upward motion, using identical weights!!!!

WOW so by looking at the wheel as a simple lever (seesaw) we can seemingly do the impossible. By building some form of chain drive we can use the downward motion of the weight which must travel a longer route to carry another similar weight up a shorter distance to the top.

I'll make this clear...
It doesn't work. I'll leave it to the reader to work out why

  Curious Chris,
I made a couple of mods to your drawing, hope you don't mind.
But if you had 2 wheels of different diameters but both rotating at a 1 to 1 ratio, it might be
possible to have the weights on the way down take a longer path and develop some torque for
rotating everything with.
Probably a stupid idea, actually any pm idea is stupid so does it matter ?

[CuriousChris]

Hi johnny

What you are proposing is essentially identical to other overbalanced wheel designs the problem with the 2 different circumference wheels is that the wheel bringing the weights up has more weights than the side of it going down.

Your drawing is possibly a little overdramatic but if you count the weights going up there is 6 with only 3 in the descent side. I think a more accurate drawing would show a ratio of 5:4 but the problem still remains you are trying to lift more weights than you are using on the way down.

My modification of the standard overbalanced wheel was an attempt to overcome that limitation I can have the same number of weights going up as in the downward path and they only need to travel a shorter distance.


I have tested my version and as expected there is a gotcha. but nonetheless it was a good experiment which left me with another potential avenue of research. So I might convince myself yet that OU is possible

[Newton II]

I'll make this clear...
It doesn't work. I'll leave it to the reader to work out why

It will not work for the simple reason that the height of travel remains the same.   The falling weight even though it takes longer route,  the effective height

of fall is D (diameter) and it has to again go up a height D.

[CuriousChris]

Johnny

I have to apologise my last comment is wrong. it can be made to have the same number of weights on the way up as down

Hi Newton II

Of course you are right.
But the mechanism behind why it doesn't work even with the extra leverage was not immediately clear to me. In fact it was dubious enough for me to want to actually build an experiment and prove it, which I did. Normally I don't bother. I look at something, work out why it wont work and move on. This time was different.

Different enough for me to venture into making an actual post about it. Normally I refrain myself to not talking about my own silly ideas of OU.

Nevertheless I have another idea from this one and may need to test that too.

I may be hooked