hello,
in the gif-animation the red points are (for example) 1000 kg weights. (round or cylinder-form).
Why does't work ?
I think the friction is not the biggest problem. (or yes ?)
(Sorry for this stupid question)
thanks,
Mani
NICE IDEA
build it and then see if it works. if it works post video here.
thnx :)
Great design... but I'm afraid it won't work.
I think the wheel will have the same weight in both sides... and will need more force to turn.
Just my oppinion.. maybe you need to build and test.... this is the best way to assure your concept...
best regards
Augusto Arnold
Nice animation,
the question is,
if the one ball at the right side is able to lift both balls
at the left side ?
the trick here is the shifting of the balls within the wheel making the wheel imbalanced. still you would have to built it and see.
I think it has potential. The right side can be extended as much as needed to get the leverage to lift the three other balls. Also the ball is rolling downhill most of the time until it again gets close to the axle (fulcrum) point. Very clever!
Hello,
Good looking design, it is a variation of the original. I guess it won't work, but it can be tested in WM2d.
I see one problem with this, and every similar deflector track type design (in this way).
The force caused by the weight in the gravity field act on two bodies. One is the spoke of the wheel, and the other is the deflector movement track. So, the force produced by the weights divided into to parts, act on the wheel, and on the track at the same time. Therefore this wheel always use the force of the weights partly on a useless way.
I checked the animation step by step, and I think it has equilibrium points, and won't work, but of course it's hard to tell for sure by sight only, especially in this way the weel operates.
Before anybody decided to build, I recommend to do a simulation first.
Principle: It's always easier to thrust a car up on a slope, than to lift it up (when it is hanging in the air).
A published invention from a ,now dead, german inventor:
DE3621312,Gravitator: a water-wheel/pump-concept
Can somebody simulate the process ?
Sincerely
Lanca
hello to all,
thanks for your repley.
I make some drawings with 16 weights (red) and the weights are never in balance.
On the right side (down side) the sum of the distance to the middle is approxemately 1,6 x higher then the left side sum disdance.
(I don't know the word in Englisch "Schwerpunkt)
So the problem is how Greg&Gregor said ""a car on ramp or free hanging is different""
OR the friction is the problem. I had download the sim-program WM but it dosen't work on my computer.
Lanca: thanks for the info about the patent but the pump need also energy !!!
please post picture(s) here
Hi Dellemann!
I'm not the best in simulation, but If you post a picture or sketch, I can try to simulate a similar wheel for you.
Here is a wm2d model which shows what Greg was trying to explain earlier. The red arrows show the forces on the balls (the balls exert a force in the opposite direction). You can see that the balls on the right exert most of their force on the cam track and not on the spokes of the wheel. Those on the left do the opposite. Although the balls are all the same weight not all of that weight acts against the spokes.
If you were to measure the distances between opposite balls and the axis and then calculate the moments you will find that they are mostly in balance. There is a point, when balls are at the right hand corner, that their force is not counter-acted by the track and at this point they do exert great leverage but against that you will find that there are, at that point, more balls exerting great downforce on the left (though at a shorter radius). If there was some way to increase the nymber of balls on the right then it would work but then there would be no space for them when they get to the left. Same old, same old problem.
In sum, the forces balance out.
prajna, thanks for your sim !
than the problem is the ramp ?
Where is the "resultat direction" ?
here the pic (the lines red and green are the sum of the distance to the axis.)
Mani
These red arrows show the total force. I think the resultant direction is at right angles to these arrows. Where the arrows are short the force will be greater and where they are long it will be less (i.e. you need to invert the values.) I hope this helps.
It may help you to think about this to consider one ball on a track. Next to the ball is a box. When the track is horizontal the force of the ball is entirely downwards to the track. When the track is at 45 degrees half the force from the ball is acting on the track and half of it is acting on the box. When the track is vertical all the force from the ball is acting on the box. Hence, when a ball is running along the top or bottom of the track (in your cam wheel example) it exerts most of its force on the track and very little on the spokes of the wheel.
We really have to consider this model in five parts: The balls that are to the left of and above the center of the main circle (top left 'TL'); the balls that are to the left of and below the centre of the main circle (bottom left 'BL'); the balls that are above and right of the centre of the main circle (top right 'TR'); the balls that are to the right and below the centre of the main circle (bottom right 'BR'); the ball on the extreme right of the track. TL balls are quickly decreasing their backwards force on the spokes as they travel clockwise. TR balls have a mostly small forwards force on the spokes that changes little until they reach the extreme right. BR balls have a mostly small forwards force on the spokes that changes very little. BL balls are quickly increasing their backwards force.
The key ball is the one on the extreme right, which has a very brief moment when it is exerting a strong forwards force on the spoke at a greater lever arm than the ball on the extreme left but this force is brief and drops off quickly as it rounds the corner. Then the ball at the extreme left exerts more counter-rotation force because its weight is acting nearly directly down on the spoke, whereas the weight of the ball on the right is acting mostly down on the track.
Eventually the system will find a point where the great force from the balls on the left exactly balances the small forces (albeit at a greater lever arm) on the right.
I hope that is clear now.
What, if you modify the spokes from 12 to 2 o?clock , so that all the upper
balls can directly run to the spoke at 3 o?clock and then get the next spoke
back, when it comes to 3 o?clock ?
This way always a few balls will exert at 3 o?clock a big force against the
left balls.
You coukd do it this way, that all spokes from 12 to 2 o?clock are pulled into the direction
of the axis and at 3 o?clock you push them out again between the balls.
Could be done with short pulses on an electromagnet relay-type linear motor.
Thanks for the sim and for the explanation, prajna! Good. :)
I've tested a number of this kind of wheels, and I found that they aren't work. Doesn't matter how do you change the track, I think. It can be traced back to one thing:
Weights by themselfs always roll down on a slope. You can't rise the weights to an upper position (on the left side) with the use of the wheel and gravity only. With other words, it's impossible to create any operating cam track, where the weights change position by gravity only. They can't roll up, only down. So, in this case they always stay in a lower position on the right side, this means game over.
Maybe, if the cam track is not a closed loop, and the weights are "free" from somewhere, where hartiberlin say.
I personally don't hope about that too much. But good idea.
Of course, all these problems don't mean that every gravity device is impossible. Just needed to think on new ways, not on the old ones over and over again...
I think external devices are necessary for the real success. A clever method to rise the weights for the less force, and another method to make them to exert a greater force on the wheel when they are going down.
Keep up the good work!
You mean something like the attached Stefan? Still won't work.
Pranja, you have forgotten to put 2 additional balls at around 4 o?clock !
So there are 2 balls missing at the right side ! Otherwise, yes, simular to this !
There is one ball missing, Stefan. This is necessary, otherwise one would have more than 1 ball on each spoke. The ball at 11 o'clock 'skip's the 12 o'clock spoke to arrive at 3 o'clock. Well, such an arrangement is not really possible because of the spoke spacing but, in any case, if balls travel from 12 to 3 you end up with more than one ball on each spoke (unless there is a gap).
Okay, Pranja, but
ONE ball is still missing !
You can pull back the spokes from 12 to 2 o?clock so the ball just runs out to 3
o?clock and then at 3 o?clock push out the spokes again, so each ball
will then be again in its normal slot.
This should work then.
It is just a matter of modifying the spokes at the right time !
P.S: Yes, at 3 o?clock will then always be 2 balls !
When the spoke comes back out again at around 3 to 4 o?clock,
it will push itself back between the 2 balls
and then at the left side every ball is again single
on every spoke, so at the left side there is then only 1 ball per spoke again !