This one keep me up all night!
Please anyone tell me why this can't work! The arms can be built to any lenth to vary the power.
I have attached some animation of this new design idea, the weights are passed upwards and handed off long ways to the upper pully assembly and they fall extended on the power side. This would be a mechanically tough project but I believe it will work. ;D
Please give me your feed back.
Thanks
Dale
lol oh my god! yet another sweet ass idea dude!
All,
click onto the above GIF picture in
Dale?s posting to see the animation of Dale !
dale this is just amazing !
Looks very bright.
I can see no difficulties !
This is an amazing principle.
Well done.
Regards, Stefan.
Dale,
how did it run in WM2D ?
Did it accelerate ?
Or did it came to a stop ?
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.
Wow thanks Stefan and FreeEnergy,
I don't think WM2D can do this type of motor, and if it can I don't know how to do it.
This is just one of those ideas that wakes me up at night.
Maybe one of the advanced users here could help.
I am not an engineer and most of the science is over my head. (that is a call for help!)
Thanks and I am excited.
Dale
this idea made me gasp when i first glanced my eyes on it. this is so simple idea that i didn't even have to read your post(text), the picture said it all! i feel butterflies in my stomach right now. just awesome! looks really promising.
now lets test it and see if it works and pass it on to the world!
It's something that can be quickly simulated in wm2d by scripting the anchoring mech. However, it will not prove 100% it's working because it's code. But, it can give a better perspective of the process.
I am on besslerwheel.com forum, drop a line there, my username is LustInBlack. I can simulate this, but I want some details and to know you .
Thx! (Your idea is great!)
Ok, this looks interesting. Everything above the center of the top circle is balanced (on average). The same is true for everything below the center of the bottom circle. So that leaves the middle sections. There are ten 'weights' on the left exerting a downward force. Two weights on the right side are being rotated upward at all times. If we assume that each circle has a radius of one unit then the weights have a length of ten units and the center to center distance of the circles would be 12 units. This puts the center of gravity of the swinging weights out at 6 units radius. The average torque needed to swing a weight up around a circle is 2 / Pi times that needed to just raise a weight so the average torque on one circle on the right side is 2 / Pi x Wt x 6 radius. Assuming the Wt of each weight equals one then the average torque on the right side would equal 7.6394 compared with a torque of 9 on the left. But wait, we've made an error. The quantity of weights on the left is not correct. The correct spacing between weights would cause a different quantity of weights to be on the left. Each weight must be spaced at 1/4 of the circumference of the circle which would be a spacing of Pi x 2 / 4 = 1.5708. Divide this into the height of 12 between centers and you get a quantity of 7.6394 weights on the left. This exactly balances the torque on the right. It also causes a problem of synchronization between weights and wheels. With the proper dimensions they could be synchronized but they will still exactly balance.
Jim_Mich
the spacing and the numbers of arms are wrong. this could be a big problem.
still would be nice to test this thing out in reality.
This is the correct spacing, see attached image..
I believe this could be a basis of a modified design..
Maybe it doesn't work as is, but I believe in it anyways..
My idea would be to make those arms light.
And put a sliding weight on each of them. That weight would reside near the chain on fall, and near the edge of
bottom wheel. When connected to upper wheel, the sliding weight would be at the end of the arm, and that would be the Fattest weight to lift. However at 3 o'clock and above on the top wheel the sliding weight would slide back to the edge of the wheel.. Closing the loop.
[Sliding weight would have a lock mechanism to lock it in place and unlock at 3 o'clock on top wheel]
try it this way...login to see picture.
This will not work, at least, if you keep that number of arms on falling side.
as the arms on the left side are incresed so will the geering need incresing to get the ones on the right side to move that much faster, I think this needs more discution but I am unshure as to weather it will work or not as the arms on the right side are moving faster than those on the left.
Jim thanks for taking a look, It will not work and it looked so positive. That is just heart breaking. Oh well thats why god made drawing boards ;D
Thanks everyone
Dale
would it work if you were to have four pinwheels taking from that one stack on the left side. so you ahve pinwheel top left top right bottom left bottom right, so them the speed of the bars could fall faster and be caught? Evan
Hi Dale,
Good tryout!
Look forward for your next one, but don't forget to have a sleep sometimes. 8)
*login to see image
what if half of this machine was put into water and the arms were to be foam? what side would sink into the water first? :)
What a heartbreaker!
Shot down on conservation of energy without even getting to the problems with the mechanics of such a device.
That band holding all the ends with full perpendicular weight would be something of a challenging design project.
I had the thought of adding a third wheel to pass the baton from 45 degrees to 45 degrees instead of at 90 degrees, but the math still balances.
Adding water only equals adding friction.
Thanks for the mental stimulation.
The lower wheel has one spoke out of balance, because it loses its upper spoke to the upper wheel. The upper wheel has one spoke out of balance because it loses its left spoke to the ladder of spokes. The ladder of spokes have less leverage: its torque is not generated by its center of mass half way down the spoke. Its torque is generated from an application of force right up against the bearing (the small center circle). Each ladder spoke will have much less torque than the individual fully extended spoke.
So you have 2 out of balance spokes that are fully extended and 10 (or nine) spokes whose mass (force) is up against the bearing. The length of the spoke not only determines the number of spokes in the ladder but it also determines the leverage difference between the ladder leverage (up against the center wheel or bearing) and the fully extended spoke leverage. Rough estimations show that these are about the same, 2 spokes with a lever arm of 6 and 10 spokes with a lever arm of 1. I predict that the system will not cycle.
If however you drop ten one kilogram masses (in the ladder) .1 meter they (all ten) will be moving 1.4007 m/sec and they will have 1.4007units of momentum. If you can transfer all of that momentum to the mass on the bottom of the ladder it will rise 10 meters. The ladder has 10 spokes (masses) that are spaced at .1 meters; for a height of 1.0 meters. Ten meters is greater than 1.0 meters. Toss your spoke back up beyond the top and you will have your machine.
G'day all,
This is a variation of an old idea that does not work.
It was called: Simanek's Silly Slinky Device
You can see it here: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/annex.htm
There have been many variations on that theme over the years, all of them do not work.
Hans von Lieven
@ hansvonlieven,
Spring ratio 1:2 AND gear ratio 1:2
Arranged to balance into 1=1
Total power input exactly equals total power output IF friction equals zero.
Why is it so much easier to get something for nothing from a person than from nature?
Even the patent office applies that principle/law to fees/inventors. SAD ::)