hi all. I have a concept design that I have been trying to fault for almost a year now. the system seems capable of producing a consistent unidirectional torque. I was hoping someone here may be interested in investigating the design. i have attached pictures of the system showing the way the end product would look. feel free to input figures in the drawing as you see fit.
note: the flat side of the supports is the chord the of inner circle. the sector angle of that chord is 90 degrees at the center. pic 6 shows that clearly. Also a four armed system (pic 6) would result in a minimum torque value of zero at the position shown. the six arm system keeps torque consistently above zero.
I really hope someone with good workshop experience can try this out and let us all know if it's workable.
sola oladosu
dishour@yahoo.com
Hi Solardark
Thats a nice idea, but plese descride ones , how the
weight on the right side climbes up ,after passing the Push station.?
I can see no spring or counterweight or cam or else.
good luck
helmut
its very similar to ones ive seen before
the problem is that the torque generated is equal to the amount of energy it takes to move the weight closer to the wheel
and in actuality it would be less due to friction
the spring has to have an elasticity ratio equivalent to the weight of the roller, again a little extra for friction
this means the torque of the weight will have to overcome the force of the spring
even if you could get the roller as close to the wheel as possible you would still not be able to get enough torque to compress the spring
if you get a weaker spring, it would not be able to push the roller back out
Check out the Museum of Unworkable Devices for an example of your idea:
Scroll down to The "heavier on one side" seduction.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/physgal.htm
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 06, 2011, 10:21:47 PM
Check out the Museum of Unworkable Devices for an example of your idea:
Scroll down to The "heavier on one side" seduction.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/physgal.htm
There's nothing new in this idea, it's been discussed extensively in this forum. On the other hand, it doesn't mean a thing that it is shown in the museum of the unworkable devices. The fact that the machine in that museum doesn't work only shows that those in the museum weren't able to make a working machine, not that a working OU machine based on this priciple cannot be made.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2011, 10:37:23 PM
The fact that the machine in that museum doesn't work only shows that those in the museum weren't able to make a working machine, not that a working OU machine based on this priciple cannot be made.
So, Let me get this straight. It's in the museum of unworkable device because it doesn't work. But it could work.
OK. I guess that makes sense. :-\
Quote from: MrMag on January 06, 2011, 10:45:53 PM
So, Let me get this straight. It's in the museum of unworkable device because it doesn't work. But it could work.
OK. I guess that makes sense. :-\
Read again what I wrote. You're slow but nevertheless.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2011, 10:37:23 PM
There's nothing new in this idea, it's been discussed extensively in this forum. On the other hand, it doesn't mean a thing that it is shown in the museum of the unworkable devices. The fact that the machine in that museum doesn't work only shows that those in the museum weren't able to make a working machine, not that a working OU machine based on this priciple cannot be made.
I must be slow. I read it numerous times and it is still a little confusing.
It's really too bad that your posts are never helpful. Possibly because you really don't know or understand the device. You would think that if your comment stated that it was discussed extensively, you would be able to expand a bit and be able to give him an idea as to if it was worth his while to pursue. As far as the museum goes, it's a great place to look at the devices that I guess as you would say, may work if they actually worked.
Quote from: MrMag on January 06, 2011, 11:34:52 PM
I must be slow. I read it numerous times and it is still a little confusing.
It's really too bad that your posts are never helpful. Possibly because you really don't know or understand the device. You would think that if your comment stated that it was discussed extensively, you would be able to expand a bit and be able to give him an idea as to if it was worth his while to pursue. As far as the museum goes, it's a great place to look at the devices that I guess as you would say, may work if they actually worked.
That museum is worthless and shoud be ignored outright. It only shows how untalented and incapable of doing research and providing sensible argument the people who set up that museum are. Therefore, it's of no use to any OU researcher. As for the usefulness of the device at hand he can go to the Sjack Abeling thread and discuss this idea with many people there, who have a lot of experience with it. No need to open new threads on something discussed so much.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2011, 11:51:26 PM
That museum is worthless and shoud be ignored outright. It only shows how untalented and incapable of doing research and providing sensible argument the people who set up that museum are. Therefore, it's of no use to any OU researcher. As for the usefulness of the device at hand he can go to the Sjack Abeling thread and discuss this idea with many people there, who have a lot of experience with it. No need to open new threads on something discussed so much.
I guess if the devices don't work it would be a useless museum. I hope he appreciates the lead you gave him. Thanx
Quote from: MrMag on January 06, 2011, 11:59:43 PM
I guess if the devices don't work it would be a useless museum. I hope he appreciates the lead you gave him. Thanx
spam
@ mr_bojangles... the system does not use any springs. those small discs are supposed to be strong permanent magnets. should have mentioned that earlier, sorry.
@ResinRat2... they are very different devices. that site shows three similar weights equally spaced from the center with no provision for altering arm length. this has a slider mechanism included to allow changes in moment arm lengths. i'm playing with MOMENTS here not weights.
@omnibus... thank you.couldn't have said it better myself. but i don't agree with you about that site showing unworkable devices. couldn't have gotten this far without that site showing me things i need to avoid
@mrmag... it could, if you tweak it right. the guys who said man would never fly must have looked at da vinci's ( correct me if i'm wrong please) wing design and said it's a bunch of crap.
@helmut... i'll post a writeup explaining how the system goes through it's stages.
thanks everyone for the comments so far. sorry for not responding sooner. still don't have anyone saying they'd be willing to try it out though. would be really great if someone would prove this for all of us.
sola oladosu
dishour@yahoo.com
Hi I tried this one some time ago, never build one, just testdrived
http://www.youtube.com/user/YbborNetsrek#p/u/41/Q9PEN-LmRWk
@solardark:
Please do provide a step-by-step explanation of how you envision your design to (possibly) work. I look forward to learning more!
truesearch
As promised, an explanation of the way it's meant to work. Thought the first set of pictures were sufficient to show the general idea. i guess my pictures aren't worth their thousand words.
First I need to name all the parts so that things don't get mixed up. Pic 7 shows the four main parts of the system; the magnets, the main supports, the slider guides and a slider (inset).
There are 12 magnets, 2 frames and 6 sliders corresponding to the six radial arms. That can be verified in pic 2. I have labelled each of the slider guides A - F starting with the shortest in the bunch.
Assuming the system starts in the position shown in pic 7, the moment produced by guide D about the pivot of the slider guides would be greater than that produced by guide A. Moments in guides B and E would be equal just like in C and F.
The system starts to turn with the moment in A remaining constant while that in D diminishes in a cosine fashion. This continues until F clears the lower corner of the main frames.
Once F is on the vertical side, it’s moment also becomes constant while the moment in C keeps rising in a cosine fashion. In essence, there would be two arms on the left generating moments that are larger than what the two arms on the right are producing.
This system is meant to keep moving until A clears the higher corner and it’s moment becomes equal to that of D again. In which case, the imbalance between C and F should keep the system going.
Of course all these degrees of motion are possible only because the sliders allow the magnets to move back and forth relative to the slide guides. Plus the only magnetic parts of the system will be the main frames. Everything else should be non-magnetic
@Cherryman... that’s true. It’s essentally the same principle. What do you mean by ‘testdrived’? These things should be built and verified. I really wish i’d paid more attention while we were taking workshop classes. My loss I guess!!
Please everyone now's the time that your comments really matter. You know what it's all about. If someone builds and proves it doesn't work then we'll all know one more way not to try making gravity motors :) and we can all turn our minds to other options.
@solardark,
So, why should anybody else do it and not do it yourself? This is a well-known idea and therefore in this case it is not the idea but the making of the device that matters. We all know that someone has to make it and we don't need to be told once again what we already know.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2011, 09:34:48 AM
@solardark,
So, why should anybody else do it and not do it yourself? This is a well-known idea and therefore in this case it is not the idea but the making of the device that matters. We all know that someone has to make it and we don't need to be told once again what we already know.
Spam
I will tell you why it cannot work!
This is a very good illusion but it is easy to see the problem. The pressure angle of the rotating spokes as it attempts to raise the weight up the straight wall looks to be about 30 degrees. This means that at the point where the weight is first trying to ride up the straight wall only about 50% of the force us upward and 50% into the wall.
This means without any friction, the weight at this point appears to weight twice as much as the other weights. The reason is at this point for the same rotation of the spokes, the weight will raise twice as fast, so to the center hub point it appears twice as heavy. This tapers off as it reaches the center of the straight wall (90 deg point) then again increases as it reaches the top.
Simple trig calculations will easily show this.
Still looks convincing though!
Quote from: lumen on January 08, 2011, 11:30:39 AM
I will tell you why it cannot work!
This is a very good illusion but it is easy to see the problem. The pressure angle of the rotating spokes as it attempts to raise the weight up the straight wall looks to be about 30 degrees. This means that at the point where the weight is first trying to ride up the straight wall only about 50% of the force us upward and 50% into the wall.
This means without any friction, the weight at this point appears to weight twice as much as the other weights. The reason is at this point for the same rotation of the spokes, the weight will raise twice as fast, so to the center hub point it appears twice as heavy. This tapers off as it reaches the center of the straight wall (90 deg point) then again increases as it reaches the top.
Simple trig calculations will easily show this.
Still looks convincing though!
This is the known "scissors" problem we've been discussing in the Sjack Abeling thread. You have to show it isn't because of friction. Analyze it in absence of friction.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 08, 2011, 12:01:17 PM
This is the known "scissors" problem we've been discussing in the Sjack Abeling thread. You have to show it isn't because of friction. Analyze it in absence of friction.
I thought I stated " without any friction" ?
Yes, scissor action is a good description.
Quote from: lumen on January 08, 2011, 12:11:34 PM
I thought I stated " without any friction" ?
Yes, scissor action is a good description.
i know you stated it but you didn't quite do the analysis. @Cherryman's sim indicates otherwise.
How do you make round magnets? How easy do the magnets roll?
magnets roll easy. take out the disk-like magnet in a burnt speaker, place it on the side of a fridge and let go. you should have bit of the stuff all over the floor.
@omnibus... ok you and mrmag have a thing going on there (spam ;D). anyways i can't cos i don't have much workshop experience.if i tried i'd probably mess it up with all the imperfections that are bound to be in my work. if everybody's willing to wait maybe 2 or 3 years i'm sure i could build a unit by then but... do we have to?
@lumen... goood one. the pressure angle in the drawing is actually 45 degrees (pic 6). i had to exaggerate the drawing so it's clear to everyone what's happening.
Had reservations about that too but i figured if the unit was moving real slow it wouldn't matter much. plus, that angle can be reduced while still getting a torque difference in the system. if we bring it down to 26 degrees we have [T=0.1*M*R] to play with. the present config. gives [T=0.293*M*R]
i do have to read more about the scissor problem issue so i have a better idea of what you're saying. i'm guessing there are are limits beyond which the scissor effect becomes irrelevant. do you know those limits?
could someone please post a link to the scissor effect discussion on abeling's thread. the search i did returned something about patents instead.
Quote from: solardark on January 09, 2011, 10:45:17 AM
could someone please post a link to the scissor effect discussion on abeling's thread. the search i did returned something about patents instead.
Just search for the "Sjack Abeling" thread. It's quite informative...
You may find some unpleasant information about the Omnibot's science, though...
Entering at your own risk...
Quote from: solardark on January 06, 2011, 07:09:53 AM
hi all. I have a concept design that I have been trying to fault for almost a year now. the system seems capable of producing a consistent unidirectional torque. I was hoping someone here may be interested in investigating the design. i have attached pictures of the system showing the way the end product would look. feel free to input figures in the drawing as you see fit.
note: the flat side of the supports is the chord the of inner circle. the sector angle of that chord is 90 degrees at the center. pic 6 shows that clearly. Also a four armed system (pic 6) would result in a minimum torque value of zero at the position shown. the six arm system keeps torque consistently above zero.
I really hope someone with good workshop experience can try this out and let us all know if it's workable.
sola oladosu
dishour@yahoo.com
Just that the weights have to return to the same hight for each revolutions, says this wheel cannot produce excess energy. Consider the time it takes for each wheight to go from top to the bottom versus the time it takes for them to go from the bottom to the top. It will take the very same time. When the hight is the same as well, there should be no reason why this wheel work.
When the "overbalanced" part goes down, the mass in the opposite side must accelerate and deaccelerate in order to follow the different path on its way up. This acceleration of the mass will compensate for the "overbalanced" side and equalize the time it takes for each masses to reach the bottom and the top respectively - thus the energy given and taken from each side will stay the same.
Vidar
solardark
Welcome to the forum, and thanks for posting. The design you have shown has several problems like catch corners, magnetic drag (which you need to address in the design), only 1 arm free moving per turn and 2 arms under extra friction. Let me clarify the free mover is 1 but for a short time you have two but only one for a full rotations but switching to make that one alone, the push arrow is the direction you magnet weight has to push. Every turn you have 12 corner catches. It only took me a glance to see the problems. Understanding what you have to beat is what you need to learn. Good luck
Alan
forget the catch thingi.we can solve that by using a larger radius at the corners.pls elaborate on the push issue instead
Hi Solardark,
Welcome to the forum,
There has been many designs that try to shift the weight of a wheel. In your design I see spots on the corner edges where eddy current could be setup and create friction in the design. It will experience a pullback when it tries to cross the corners you would have to remove the flat edge from inside the wheel.
Here is a most recent patent application by a Taiwan group which also relies on magnets but in a different setup.
#US20100253091
"PHYSICAL ENERGY-CONVERTING ROTOR, ROTATING METHOD OF THE SAME AND GENERATING SET USING THE SAME"
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2010/0253091.html
The hard part with patents is your not sure if they are actually built or just theorized. Some patents are also missing steps/key parts if you try to rebuild them.
thanks dreamthinkbuild. i actually have come to the conclusion that the unit can't work as-is.
after lumen's input i went back and did an energy analysis of the system. you know, comparing potential energy changes on the right to the possible work ouput of the system on the left.
haven't finished the calculations yet but what i see so far leads me to believe that the negative POTENTIAL energy change on the right is greater than the possible system WORK OUTPUT on the left (at the two corners).
will do a post of the calculations later when i've sorted everything out. looked at Sjack Abeling's design pic on the "real world replication" thread. i think that design too will have those same problems.i.e. -PE change on the left corners will be larger than system possible W output on the right.
my thanks to everyone, specially lumen.it's funny how one sentence made in just the right ways helps change your perspective so radically.
oughta be smacked upside the head really. energy analysis is one of the first things i should have done. that's 200 level mechanics for crying out loud.
DON'T NOBODY BUILD THIS UNIT.
IT WON'T WORK!!!
the design still needs some TWEAKING.
this battle may be lost but the war ain't over yet.
cheers all...
Énergie 100% propre!
http://www.casimages.com/f.php?f=101004040640327824.doc
http://fr.espacenet.com/searchResults;jsessionid=D90BC5847EAF2A9D6C355C633950F296?locale=fr_FR&PA=SMERETCHANSKI+MIKHAIL&ST=advanced&compact=false&DB=fr.espacenet.com
Hi solardark thanks for sharing. I was thinking what if it's in the contrary mode?. I mean only one magnet to pull the load in while all loads with a spring out.
Thanks
Good one michel. That design looks promising. bouyancy differences are likely to give better results than moment based systems.
two things though. first friction at the piston/container contact area could really mess up that system. If friction is kept at a minimum here and watertight conditions still exist then it may work.
second, i'm not real sure how much of a volume change one can produce when the suction and compressive reactions of the gas in the system are considered.
he did state that nitrogen would be used in the chambers but if my experiences with empty (needleless) syringes are anything to go by, those pistons won't get very far before suction or compressive pressure in the chamber stops them.
Are there independent replications or commercial versions of the unit?
@guruji: spring based systems that involve changes in spring lengths (to me) are mostly a bad idea. you consume energy compressing/stretching those springs and that in itself is enough to defeat the goal of such designs.
At the same time, a magnet (single free magnetic pole) tends to attract at points beyond the expected line of action i.e they tend to pull elements closer together when such elements should be moving apart.
Usually you have only small moment differences to play with in overbalanced systems and these design approaches eat up whatever advantage one seems to have created.