A working ball wheel

[armagdn03]

I have been thinking about the gravity wheel concept as a whole here for a couple days, and I think that the one you have with the ball rotating into the center is a good example to build my conclusion off of, but It fits most other designs.

If you have a wheel with a row of cups on the rim designed to catch falling balls, you would have a type of water wheel. Now if you had two rows of cups, one on the rim, and one further in towards the center, now you have a wheel with two concentric circles of cups, a fancy water wheel if you will.

Now this is the question that begs answering.

If I drop balls into the outer rim, and say the wheel has very little mass and the balls are quite heavy so their momentum dominates the system.  If you drop a ball onto the outside circle of cups, you will cause the rim to rotate downwards, but no faster than -9.81 meters per second squared. Towards the center of the wheel, movement will be much less as we would expect.

Now if you were to drop the same ball into the smaller circle of cups, does the outside circumference travel downwards faster than gravitational acceleration? Or since the cups in the center ring are harder to move, will the wheel rotate at the same speed no matter which cup you drop it into?

Physics tells us that it doesn?t matter which you drop it into, and this has been my experience. This thought experiment is reversible. Lifting the ball to a certain height takes the same amount of energy that will be released from it upon return to its starting position, regardless of path.

Im sure there is a way around this, but I really don?t think it matters where on the wheel the ball comes back up, be it a straight path from the 6 o?clock position to the center, or along the outside rim, it takes the same force to accomplish both.

But here is the really interesting thing that never made sense to me about vector addition, and I found this when I tried to quantify vector components in terms of percentages of a whole. (say you have a vector with an angle of 90 and a magnitude of 2. You have a y component vector that is equal to magnitude 2 and an x that is equal to 0. or if you have vector angle zero, and magnitude 2, you have a y =2 and an x=0. But if you have a 45 degree magnitude one, you have an x = 1.414 y=1.414, so together you have a displacement of 2, but individually you have one that is greater?.How can this be? Obviously x is 50 percent of the whole, and y is 50 percent of the whole, but of what whole? The two vector magnitudes added together? Do you take it from their resultant multiplication? Are we saying that 1.414 is 50% of 2?

This applies to wheels too, which are just essentially unit circles which the above math is based off of.

I understand that speed of a falling ball on a wheel is dependant on its path as stated above, but energy stays the same, but there is still something hidden that I cant quite put my finger on. I think the lead out theory explains this, but I haven?t studied it enough carefully, maybe someone would enlighten me a bit more.

I think it is possible to get something out of a wheel, but it?s a sticky wicket indeed.

[armagdn03]

I also have access to a Data Tech table, which is essentially a computer controlled exacto knife that can cut out cardboard designs exactly up to 6ft by 9ft. If anybody has need of exact replication of ideas, id be willing to cut the ideas out, and give it a try or send you your requests over mail, (materials and time would be free, but it would be nice to have a little shipping compensation)

I would need the files to be made on a computer aided drafting program like AutoCAD, and you must save your drawing as a .dxf which is one of the options when saving your file

[AB Hammer]

armagdn03

I have already posted one that is like one you mentioned.
The key is using the law of leverage and understanding shift. It has been said- With a long enough leaver you can move mountains.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3497.0/topicseen.html

[armagdn03]

That?s just the thing though, if you have a lever with fulcrum at one end, a load at the other, and a driving force inbetween, it doesn?t matter where you put the driving force, you will always get the same amount of work done,  it is a trade off between force and distance moved, but never more energy than put in.  for example if you x displacement at the load, and you have a pressure near the fulcrum, you don?t move the pressure very far, but you have to apply a bit of force, if you move it closer to the load you move it far, but not that much force. It?s a trade off based on trigonometric principles outlined in the unit circle, and vector addition.

You said you have one like I said and pointed me to a link, but your ball one is like this too, and almost every other one I have ever seen. The problem is that I see people trying to do something that is impossible. You are changing the path of an object but its displacement is the same, and I see a ton of designs that look different by are trying to solve the problem in the same manor, which DOES NOT WORK. We need to go about this a different way. We need to look at the horizontal component, the perpendicular to gravitational force, as this is where extra work is done in my opinion.

Remember one gift 4 man, or whatever that crazy site was? It claimed a new use of Bernoulli?s principle? Think about the principle, it contains a displacement perpendicular to gravity that causes extra movement of molecules creating a vacuum over a wing making it rise. Maybe there is something to this?

I could be way off, but who knows.

[AB Hammer]

armagdn03

What do you think made the cardboard one work? If the principle is wrong, then something happened that we need to examen. The thoughts come to me specilly when it started to deform, but still kept running. So maybe it was shifting the whole wheel each time the ball fell which may have kept it running. Its just a thought but it would still give a direction to go with.