Roll on the 20th June

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi all
I have a question? if you have the pivot point of a beam in the center and everything is level or balance and I move that point to one side why does the beam drop if both sides are of equal weight?
Take Care All
Graham

[kude]

Well, to wade into the muck (raking) going on here so much lately...and hopefully offer a solution or two...

To my thinking the way around "the wall" causing the twisting is to just remove it from the scene.

Use 2 electromagnets instead of permanent magnets, one at each end of the rod, with the EM's mounted on the wheel itself, the repelling/pulling magnets on the rod shaft will ride between the 2 EM's. The weights can ride on an extension above the actuator similar to the extensions currently seen. Use one EM to push, depending on location , or pull otherwise. Hall effect or reed switches, or fiber optics and photocells can switch the EM's, and you can either use brushes or other means onboard, or off, to transfer power to them.

This way, there's no twist if the rods are braced or in guided bearings correctly, and you can shoot the rod up the same time you pull it, and you can secure latch it as you go up anyway (even if using regular magnets) via  U-shaped hinge pin (nail hinge works) to flop down onto a series of ramp steps alongside the rod/shaft...so as it goes up, it is latched into place...as it comes down in the 5 o'clock area, the tension releases, the u-pin flops down, another nail prevents it from falling all the way back down as the wheel rotates, so gravity (add a small counterweight) flops it back into the latch zone at 12 O'clock ready for the next up-cycle. Picture attached, hopefully clear enough. Can use a lighter wheel this way since you are not using it to break 'the wall', so lighter weights should rotate it well enough, and also be easier to pulse up.

Having EM's at the base and top of a weighted rod though is like having a precisely shot pulse right in the middle of the works, no mixing and matching loading and offloading as it repeatedly goes by one or more magnets.

Anyhow, remove the wall that way, makes more sense to me. No twisting on your main bearing then, it need only support the wheel itself and attached items. I say all this from having built a wheel using regular magnets and finding it lacking, and moreso, finding that it's going to slow down no matter what, when hitting that 'wall'. So I don't speak from theory, but practice. I do know the latch thing I mention will work and save much redundant work.

Anybody using permanent magnets needs to have a fairly massive wheel (that's one thing Archer has correct). But if using the ramped step latch system, you may be able to remove about 1/2 the magnets in both arcs and still get the desired results. Would likely require adjustment of the mechanics for the latching if the RPM's got up there. But it's a do-able.

The problem then becomes mostly how to get enough juice to pulse the EM's from the wheel's rotation, but all of these gravity wheels present some kind of a problem, so, that's not really a problem problem to me, the solution to that will present itself within 100 years if not much sooner.   ;D  Naysayers in most tech industries are only right for the present time. New knowledge means new advances, new possibilities.

How many people would believe that invisibility is just around the corner? Indeed it is, already existing for microwaves via metamaterials, and one day for regular light.

All a matter of time.

Archer may prove to be a creative who let thought get ahead of action (or he may not), but otherwise, something will turn up one day, in some way. No harm in creating, dreaming and making things, even if they are futile, after all, most of these contraptions are nice performance art, regardless of 'success'.

Sorry for a long winded first post. This thread's been a doozy to follow.

Robert

@Robert
Take a look at this guy's Bendini motor. He has a little trigger circuit that alternates charging two batterys. Basically he's added a specially constructed coil that acts as a trigger. Given the spokes with magnets on the end of spokes I wonder if the two systems can be combined. Maybe this could power your actuators/solenoids that move the rod arms. Look at this guys videos, he shows you how to make the control circuit and special coil. http://www.youtube.com/user/introvertebrate

For those using an electro magnet ,maybe this circuit is a good way to turn the magnet on and off. I recommend looking at all his Bendini videos to grasp how this might work with the wheel. You'll understand it.

@ Purepower,
I saw you mentioned bismuth. Are you considering a chunk of bismuth at the 7 o'clock positrion to soften the wall on that part of the wheell? II found magnets frustrating to work with , but bismuth might have the desired effect.

[sm0ky2]

You have got to be joking sm0ky2 if the short end is near 25k's why does it lift, why does the beam drop at the long end, easy because the long end is heavier, if you put the pivot point right in the middle never end will drop why because both ends of the beam are the same weight, you move the pivot point even one inch one end will drop why because one end is heavier, your weight displacement has changed changing the weight on ever side of the beam.
Take Care smoky2
Graham

you'ce completely lost me at this point graham...  his fulcrum never moves, and his lever is never balanced..

look ::  here's an example of how you would break the long end down into 5 segments.

ok the first segment (which is exactly as long as the short end of the lever)  has the almost the SAME MASS as the short end - minus the control rods). This is a 1:1 lever.
the spear on the end is about 1/5th that mass.
leaving us with approx.  2 & 4/5th's that mass distributed along the last 4 segments in decreasing ammounts.  we can include the spear-head onto the last segment for simplicity, and call the last 2 segments "equal".  They are slightly less mass than the 2 previous segmets - so let us assume that:

we'll say that segments 2 & 3 are 1 mass each, and this would make the segments 4 & 5:   0.5mass each.

NOW:::

Segment 1 = 1:1 length,  1:1 mass =    Lever  1:1
Segment 2 = 2:1 length , 1  : 1 mass  = Lever  2.0 :1
Segment 3 = 3 : 1 length , 1 : 1 mass = Lever 3 : 1
Segment 4 = 4:1 length, 0.5 : 1 mass = Lever 2 :1
Segment 5 = 5: 1 length, 0.5 : 1 mass = Lever 2.5 : 1

Leveraged mass:  5.5 : 1

            This is just an example,  Archer's actual leveraged mass is closer to 4:1

it has an upwards tensioner, offsetting that value some.   
when the lever itself has a 4:1 leveraged mass ratio, and a weight hung on the end acts at a 5:1 length leverage - what does your lever do???

it lifts 20:1 for 1/5th distance.........     

[sm0ky2]

Hi all
I have a question? if you have the pivot point of a beam in the center and everything is level or balance and I move that point to one side why does the beam drop if both sides are of equal weight?
Take Care All
Graham

because when you move the pivot, both sides are no longer of equal weight OR length.

[Rusty_Springs]

because when you move the pivot, both sides are no longer of equal weight OR length.

Two things first I never said he moved the beam amd second you just agree with what I said in that statement.
If you read what I said, I said long side is heavier then the short by 5:1 so you have to even them out before you add the 20 to get a true 20:1, you said me saying one side is heavier then the other on the bean was crap and now your saying I'm right make up your mind.
The reason I asked the question because the only right answer
would make my statement about the weight of the beam right and not crap.
Take Care Sm0ky2
Graham