Sjack Abeling: Working Principle

[AquariuZ]

The 13th vote is in                        cat

This picture: What, Who, Where, Results?

[powercat]

This picture: What, Who, Where, Results?

Hi AquariuZ
It is an old one
There was a website, gone now,it is where I got the picture
It worked on  compresed air
   I think it was in India inventor
I cann't remember much more but it didn't work

cat

[Cloxxki]

@AquariuZ:
Springs of course press as hard back as do press forward. Would you propose using a "locked" position in the rise column to lose less on the back end than is won on the front? And would the second weight then be dragged along?
I may be mis-understanding oyu, but it sure is interesting.

I've done some sketching, based on non-connected weight, and found that the slot configuation can make vital differences in how the weights and wheel behave.
My current understanding is, that a flow can be devised, where velocities, heights and potentials all work in harmony. It's a game of phases and their counter-phase. Getting the most from the lower ramp. For instance: high release velocity at start of bottom ramp. The wheel can't help past this point, and IMHO shouldn't. Just let the weight roll on on its own some. To get optimal velocity at the lowest point, the counter weight will better not be taking too much energy from the wheel at that moment. So either it's just being slammed in its hook, or it's at least not draining energy from the lower weight anymore.
Next idea that's becoming more persistent in my mind, is that the "shot put" action might have to come from the wheel's inertia, not from the other weight. The wheel may need to have some positive mass to it. In case of 8 weight, perhaps this factor will be less of a problem.
HOWEVER if I would be correct, that we need optimal speed at the lowest point, then Abeling's explanation makes sence : "2 weights, one doing the work to raise the other", or something along that line. In a system of 1 wheel and 2 weights, when on it off the hweel, the other weight and the wheel together can do some serious work for a period of time, thus for a number of degrees. The speed variance that we see with just 2 weights MAY be what's making this possible to begin with. The wheel's weight vs. that of the dumbells may need to be very well balanced to get the desired effect.

Oh, about phases. The timing of fases will be hugely different for a Dusty-style thin part-of-circle slots, versus "spokes", and let along "offset spokes".
My sketches and visualizations seem to now point out that we want the 6-8:00 weight to get BEHIND. The getting behind saves serious energy, allows the wheel to store that, and release it when the slot has the raising weight play catch up, aided by a counter weight in optimum pulling phase, and a wheel ready to give a nice nudge in the back.
(The "getting behind" feature would totally complement my idea of pivoting rods. I proposed a setup before, where a pivoting rod, at roughly 75% of it's length, the weight being at the very end, would allow the weight to comply to the circle, and catch back up when so required to. Weight would not really be "off" the wheel, just not taking energy from it on the first part of the upswing. If the rod IS a spring, or incorperates one, there's some more explosive energy to be stored and put to good use.)


Anyway,
Short : the slots might need to start at 0-3-6-9:00, and at the hub be well off-center, CCW (back). The part of circle shape is nice, gives dramatic slinging at the top, but may be "over the top". And, get the timing wrong, and it will just fall apart.

I wish I had the skills to draw and simulate this like you guys.

Regarding the weights, I'd suggest using roller around the bearingss to achieve greater diameter. Slot will need to be wider too. Friction will be greatly reduced. Much less spinning and bouncing. Bearings themselves will work more efficiently, too.

[AquariuZ]

I am changing my vote to a full Yes BTW

[Cloxxki]

I am changing my vote to a full Yes BTW

Interesting. Which new insight or data has made you upgrade your vote?
Perhaps the people picking one of the top 2 options could get together to work on getting the very most viable setup? As Dusty said, take the best from the best ideas, and merge into one design.
If we can find consensus one WHAT would be making it to work, we could try to come with a solution that was not yet sold to the energy suppliers.
I have access to a top-notch milling/CNC shop if preliminary tests and simulations are preferable, I could perhaps have a simple proto done. Could good design and precision make up for scale?