An idea I wanted to get some feedback on

[hartiberlin]

Hmm, no feedback?

Hi Erick,
from which action should come any overunity effect ?
Please explain.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.

[erickdt]

Okay...well...I don't think it will work.  But I couldn't prove it.  Of course, I'm the kind of old codger that thinks nothing proposed here will work most of the time, so don't let my opinion slow you down.

How does it get started would be my first question,  then what stops it from accellerating once it goes?  It seems pretty complicated with potentially a lot of friction.  It must have been a lot of fun to design and draw.  Looks expensive to try to build one.

You misspell "armature", that's another comment.  Your drawings are very nicely done and neatly arranged.  Is that SolidWorks? 

I didn't want your first post to go without some kind of answer!  Welcome to OU.com!

Humbugger

Thanks for your reply!

I'm thinking that it would start as soon as you put it together. No push or anything like that. As for stopping it: I hadn't relly though too much about that aspect of it. I'm thinking that to totally stop it you could move it away from the 1/4 round ramp (move the rotational axis to the right). At this point this function is not designed into my idea.

Thanks for pointing out my spelling mistake! Whoops!

I modelled this drawing first in FormZ and then imported it into AutoCAD 2007 as is my usual method of working.

[erickdt]

Well, the design looks sound enough, but it kinda strikes me as something that would probably start off running ok with a little push but eventually "equalize" itself. Half the weights would be working to keep the motor going while the other half would be working to stop it. I think that's what all the belts and pullies are for; to try to minimize the equalization that will undoubtedly occur. Even with the belts and such, it looks like it would just be adding more drag into the system and eventually grind to a halt.

Anyway....I'm not an engineer or anything, so take my observations VERY lightly. 

I agree that there is probably an excess of mechanical parts/functions thereby causing what is probably an un-necessary waste of energy. The purpose of all of these mechanical parts/functions is to ensure that there is a constant imbalance, one that would commence as soon as the machine is assembled.

The "X factor" for me on this design is this: Is the leverage created on the right side of the machine enough to lift the weight on the left side to the rotational axis to the fulcrum of the rotational axis where it will have a null effect?

[erickdt]

Hmm, no feedback?

Hi Erick,
from which action should come any overunity effect ?
Please explain.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.

I'm not sure that I would describe what I'm trying to do here would be described as over-unity. As I said in my previous replies, I am thinking that the machine should auto-rotate as soon as it's fully assembled. There would be no starting push or anything like that. The idea is that the machine would work completely off of gravity. That's the idea at least.

[wile_coyote7]

The problem is, as I see it.......one side of the device (the side using gravity to move down), will have (at the same time) to fight gravity on the other side. What's interesting though is the possibility of the pullies changing the center of gravity on the "up" swing side by pulling the weights in toward the central hub (to the inside of the "arm") while the "down" swing side has the weights pulled away from the central hub (to the outside of the "arm").

I think the one thing that would really be an enemy to this motor is the added load from the pullies and of course friction.