Roll on the 20th June

[DrWhat]

He may need to rotate the whole device so that the magnets pull more in the 3 o'clock position rather than at the 2 o'clock position. This will make it easier to pull the arm outward since the gravitational resistance will be less/nil. He may need more arms to achieve this, and make the sliding very low friction.

Once he's done this he'll either have to weaken the magnet strength or increase the peripheral mass at the ends of the arms so that once the arm is pulled sideways in the low gravity position it will rotate without the magnets causing a braking effect (ie once it starts to rotate past 3 o'clock, the gravity strength is stronger than the magnetic strength).

I'm not optimistic it CAN work but worth improving.

Just my two bob's worth.

[exxcomm0n]

Ya know.....

that torsion-less rod, it's got them slots the bearings sit in.

That usually means a lathe.

But if you took a rod and 2 pieces of tube cut to the correct lengths and cemented them into place on the rod, wouldn't that make a slot for the bearing to sit in?

I LIKE the brass plumbing fixture linear bearing, but I want to keep that mass out of a moving assembly, so back to brass rod hand made fittings (luckily I can crank up the HHO torch for brazing) like smoky for the torsion-less ones.

Aluminum flashing for the facing.

I wonder if I can find any of those mobile basketball hoop things with the base you fill with water, broken ones even.

Hmmmmmmmmmmm..........

[dirt diggler]

If he's out, he's out.

I still respect what he did, the ideas he brought to the table, and the masterful presentation (which I think is not over yet) in the way it was played out.

I have to start looking at old card tables and crawling junkyards again.

I have to draw me up some plans (actually amass and collate previous "art" folly).

i have to get me some skate bearings (my nephew does roller blade hockey so that shouldn't be hard).
Well....a LOT of skate bearings.

A have to build an opposing lever water sculpture

Various and sundry "Newts" start taking aim for your pot shots.

Fuggit, let's do it anyway.

it doesn't have to run forever to be better than what I'm using now (gasoline and grid).

I'm with you there Excommon.
With what we have seen, and your drawings/ideas with the water, I think there may be something there.
If we could get Purepower to look at the vids again, and come up with some math that works for the over lift, then maybe we can try something out.

ciao,  Dirt

[fletcher]

hmmm ... let's see - it doesn't cost any money to mentor the other builders [who are busting their arses to replicate] along the 'correct' path & since HE took them there on a promise & faith I would expect that is the least HE could do, in the circumstances ?! - perhaps after a good nights kip he'll be more kindly disposed towards his flock ?!

[purepower]

He may need to rotate the whole device so that the magnets pull more in the 3 o'clock position rather than at the 2 o'clock position. This will make it easier to pull the arm outward since the gravitational resistance will be less/nil. He may need more arms to achieve this, and make the sliding very low friction.

Once he's done this he'll either have to weaken the magnet strength or increase the peripheral mass at the ends of the arms so that once the arm is pulled sideways in the low gravity position it will rotate without the magnets causing a braking effect (ie once it starts to rotate past 3 o'clock, the gravity strength is stronger than the magnetic strength).

I'm not optimistic it CAN work but worth improving.

Just my two bob's worth.

Actually, I had the same thought about 30 pages ago, think you might find it interesting...

I was thinking on the wheel again (and as I have stated many times before, I see potential in the wheel but the lever is rubbish), and I feel I may have a possible solution. Instead of having the magnets at 1 and 7, has anyone tried 3 and 9? Now this would eliminate a good portion of the "fall" on the right side, but less work would be done against gravity by the magnets in the recycle process. By minimizing the influence of the magnets, the "sticky wall effect" would also be minimized. Running it down numerically, I think you would need a very large amount of rods so that just as one shifts and falls, there is another right behind it to run through...

Again, just a thought.

Reply...

I don't think the 3-9 idea will work quite that well.

To exploit a gravity wheel there has to be a heavy weight wanting to fall to it's lowest point, correct?
Now if you take away 20-30% of that fall the generated energy will not be able to get the next rod to 9 to be "fired" over to 3.
When this started Archer asked us to try an experiment which was taping a coin to a bicycle tire, setting it @ 1:00, and letting go.
I did this a few times with different wheels and weights and even dropping from 1:00 the weight didn't have enough hutzpah to make it to 9:00.

8:30 was about the best I can remember.

You may not like who said that, but it still remains a valid benchmark for this exercise.

Do the coin/bicycle thing at 1:00 and at 3:00 and mark the highest point after it passes 6:00.

I may be full of spurious excrement, but the thing you do with your own hands and see with your own eyes is the one of the truest things you'll ever know.

You need that lift energy at the 7-1 place, IMHO.

In fact, I've had good success with starting @ 6:30 (but far and with faint effect) to try to make the "wall" into more of a slope.
The theory being that I cannot jump a high wall without mechanical aid, but if there is a series of walls graduating to the highest height I might be able to jump from shorter wall to higher wall until I get to the highest.

Each small jump is the same, but the cumulative effect of them realizes the once not possible height.
I'm not sure the energy for the series of little jumps would equal the energy necessary for the one big jump.

But give it a shot and prove me wrong please.

Do and show, and help bridge the gap be it technical, conceptual, political, philosophical,  or mathematical.

Even showing failure is important. VERY important!

No one should ever be afraid of being wrong, only of not learning from it.

The only way not to be wrong is to not try, which seems like the "wrongest" thing to me.

My response...

I understand completely the 9-3 scenario will not work, even before I posted. While the momentum would certainly not allow for the mass to carry from 3 to 9, the imbalance from the other rods could. When I said you would need a "very large amount of rods," mathematically it would need to approach infinity. For every mass center located to the right there would be a mass center located to the right to counter-react in the 9-3 example. The only rod with out a counter-partner would be the rod on the 9-3 location. Once this falls, for motion to continue, another rod would have to follow immediately behind. This is assuming the rod could fall. If there is enough magnetic attraction/repulsion to move the rod, then there would likely be enough magnetic force to hold it there.

Just trying to catch you up a bit...


@Dirt

What vid do you want me to have a second look at that shows definite "over lift." I saw a couple that when pieced together suggest over lift, but this is simply not enough to go on. But give me a link and I will give it my best...

-PurePower