Why wouldn't this work?
Because it's not really overbalanced.
Not only that, but, of course, gravity is conservative. This means that the PE of a mass depends only on its height, not on how it get there. The work available from a ball at a certain height (say the top of the wheel) is equal to the work it takes to get it up there. And in any real machine there will be losses. You get out what you put in, minus losses.
You might like to look at
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/overbal.htm
Your design is essentially the same as the one in the woodcut from the 17th century, down the page.
There's a lot of information at that site that you might find helpful in your future designs.
Conservative field? That's not really correct. If you start by assuming that you might as well just quite what you're doing. Bessler proved something, the reason why this won't work has nothing to do with conservation. Conservation is a myth on this forum, and you should know that TK instead of trying to sound educated.
Ah. I guess that's why there are so many functioning gravity wheels on this forum.
But what I can't understand is why so many of them were invented for the first time in the 17th century, and keep showing up here posted by "newbies".
Maybe it's because "Conservation is a myth on this forum."
Have you read Simanek's site? What, specifically, is wrong with the analysis of gravity wheels found there?
TinselKoala ~ I ask this in all seriousness. Do you think there is any way that a gravity wheel could work? Obviously not with the same old "put a weight here and there and a few levers". I mean something with ingredients other than weight and gravity - something that has momentum, inertia, centrifugal forces, etc, that when working together cause the movement? Personally, I feel that it is possible but all those pursuing gravity wheels are typically repeating the same mistakes over and over just like you said. I for one enjoy your critiques because it saves me time building something that is bound for failure. I remember you took the time to build Mondrasek's gravity/magnet wheel so you must have had a slight hope it would work....or maybe you were just proving that it wouldn't. ;D
Quote from: Fred Flintstone on February 13, 2009, 11:11:03 AM
TinselKoala ~ I ask this in all seriousness. Do you think there is any way that a gravity wheel could work? Obviously not with the same old "put a weight here and there and a few levers". I mean something with ingredients other than weight and gravity - something that has momentum, inertia, centrifugal forces, etc, that when working together cause the movement? Personally, I feel that it is possible but all those pursuing gravity wheels are typically repeating the same mistakes over and over just like you said. I for one enjoy your critiques because it saves me time building something that is bound for failure. I remember you took the time to build Mondrasek's gravity/magnet wheel so you must have had a slight hope it would work....or maybe you were just proving that it wouldn't. ;D
I actually don't.
Unless a way is found to put the wheel in a non-uniform field, and even then probably not. The root of my disbelief has to do with the "nature" of gravity. It seems that many people believe it's a force, but it isn't. It's an acceleration. Gravity doesn't "flow" any more than a road goes somewhere. It simply is, and masses can move along gravitational gradients, like cars move along a road. You can no more extract energy from gravity, in the usual sense and in a uniform field region, than you can get a "journey" out of a road. I know the analogy isn't perfect, so don't bother picking it apart. But consider the exact equivalence of gravity and "ordinary" acceleration. You prove the identity every time you ride in a car, because the accelerations from the car's motion (slowing down, speeding up, going around curves, etc.) add smoothly and completely with the acceleration of gravity according to the rules of vector mathematics, with nothing left out or left over. Now, it's clear to most people that you can't get "free energy" out of accelerations due to motion...I think.
So for a "gravity" wheel to work, there must be something, that is usually conserved, made to change. Like charge, or mass, or the gravitational constant. Changing moment arms or paths, in a cyclical manner, isn't going to do it. Losses can be made very small, but unless there's some change in a normally-conserved quantity the losses will cause the system to stop.
@sloth
TinselKoala pointed out the main problem. So, no go....
Actually, your modifications (ramps) to the original (at least 500 years old curved compartments rolling ball wheel) is making things even worse... Why?
Think about:
-Most of the weights are (most of the time) "resting" on the inclined ramps, so they mostly don't contribute much to the wheel's rotation...
-the combined center of mass for all the weights is always below the axle...
-the "scissors effect" (many weights are "caught" between the curved path/ramp "jaws") - a lot of friction...
Can you explain which way this wheel is supposed to rotate? I see both ccw/cw arrows...
Anyway, if you'd build it, you would see for yourself...
Due to many flaws, it would probably not be moving at all....Just IMHO, of course....
Cheers!
Spinner,
Thank you for your analysis. It was much more informative than TinselKoala's canned answers, senseless belittling, and juvenile self-glorification.
To answer your question about the arrows, they represent which direction each weight should be pushing the wheel. Most of them are directed counterclockwise. Two of them push the wheel clockwise, and one has no effect either way in its current position.
The idea is that the wheel clearly has more weights pushing counterclockwise than clockwise. In a simple universe you'd think that alone would make it spin. However, the devil is in the details. My biggest worry about the design has always been that the weight of the counterclockwise weights will be lost by resting on the ramps like you said, but since I'm not a physicist I don't know how to calculate that loss. Hence me asking for help.
I suspect the problem of friction caused by the weights jamming against the spokes could possibly be lessened by using a rolling pin shaped weight with wheels at the end that rest on ramps outside of the wheel with the rolling pin sticking through the space between the spokes. If the wheels can spin independent of the rolling pin segment that makes contact with the spokes it shouldn't jam as much. If the surface of the spoke were to have a sliding track that moves with the rolling pin when it presses against it you might be able to reduce the jamming even more. Neither modification will completely eliminate friction. In fact, they may produce more friction just in a different way.
So the situation is like this. You've got 9 weights resting on ramps pushing counterclockwise against the full weight of 2-3 weights pushing clockwise + friction + the weight of the wheel (which we'll assume is made out of as light of a material as possible). Without relying on vague, canned answers, it would be interesting to know how many resting weights equal one free weight and how much friction would have to be reduced to make the design more viable.
Any nonjudgmental suggestions are welcome.
Hi, sloth!
Thanks for the good words... But..
My post was just a small addition to TinselKoala's.
He pointed out the main problem to you... Although you may think his post is a "senseless belittling", it still is correct.
Gravity wheels are a long known subject. So, it's almost impossible to expect a nonjudgmental suggestions / answers...
Sorry to say, but I don't see anything which would make your concept workable.
Anyway, good luck!
Sincerely!
The ramps just add more losses.
TK, You've outdone yourself! That sure looks like perpetual motion to me. :o
Thru the magic of animated gifs. As long as your computer is running, that thing will turn.
But I can't take credit for it. The animation is from Simanek's site, of course, that I linked in an earlier post.
Why do the ramps just add losses? Because the balls do no useful work while rolling on the ramps, they just convert that hard-bought PE into KE, the momentum vector of which needs to be reversed somehow when the balls get back onto the wheel. It's not transferred to the wheel, so it's just wasted, I think it actually slows the wheel down--in other words, the momentum of the rolling balls on the lower ramp actually would slow the wheel as the balls go from the ramp to the wheel.
But that doesn't change the fact that, neglecting losses, the maximum useful work available from gravity wheels, in general, is zero. Add losses, and the thing grinds to a halt because it cannot even power itself.
Holding your breath until you turn blue, and stomping your feet, can't make 3+ 3 = 7, no matter what your theory is or what shape your rolling pins are.
All good engines usually have two forms of power battery and gas in most cases same goes for generators...
So I wonder if we could somehow use helium in an enclosed wheel to help the wheel along most likely not but obviously one who can create or nullify gravity has to potential to do something magical.
I see why Tim Ventura went all in big on the lifter project then kinda burned out at american antigravity.
It seems as if the areas of research that are lacking somewhat is cheaper solar fabrication, and gravity control ...
The exsisting cheapest form of free energy is wind and water turbines.
Torque. Torque is what makes something spin. Torque. Not mass. Not acceleration. Not even Force.
Yes, mass, acceleration, and (since Force = mass x acceleration) Force are all part of what makes something spin. But they do not do it without Torque.
Torque.
What is Torque? Torque = Force x DISTANCE. That is why the units for torque are sometime kg x meter (kgm), or foot x pounds (ftlb), or inch x ounces (inoz). All of these are a measure of a force *times* a distance.
If the total torque is zero, nothing spins. Also, the higher the torque, the faster something will accelerate it's spin.
What "distance" do we need to consider? The distance from where the force is applied, to the pivot point (axle of rotation). But vectors also play a part. In the case of gravity acting on a mass (gravity wheels), the force is the acceleration of gravity *times* the mass. This is commonly known as the *weight* of an object. The "distance" that is used in only how far to the SIDE of the pivot the weight exists. So it does not matter if a weight is 10 meters directly above the pivot point. In that case it is has a zero distance to the side of the pivot point so the torque that such a weight has is zero.
So, a 1kg weight at 1 meter to the side of the pivot point has a torque of 1 kgm. Move that weigh up or down only and it still has only 1 kgm of torque. Move the weight sideways so that it is 2 meters to the side and now the torque is 2 kgm.
Torques on the same side of a pivot add together. If you have 1 weight at 1 meter, you have 1 kgm of torque. If you have a second weight at 2 meters on the same side you have 1 kgm + 2 kgm = 3 kgm. So the wheel will want to spin in the direction where the weights are pulling it down.
Torques on the opposite sides of a pivot subtract. If you have the same 1 weight at 1 meter, you have 1 kgm of torque. If you have a second weight at 2 meters on the opposite side you have 1 kgm - 2 kgm = -1 kgm. So the wheel will want to spin in the direction where the *most* weight is pulling it down. In this case, on the side where the weight is 2 meters away. So this wheel will spin the opposite direction of the previous example above. It will also accelerate slower, since the torque is 1 and less than the previous example where the total torque is 3.
In the gravity wheel drawing that started this thread you have many weights close to the axle on one side, and few farther away on the other side. Because those few are so much arther away from the center, the torque they generate is equal and opposite to the torque of the many weights on the other side.
M.
Quote from: TinselKoala on February 13, 2009, 07:25:11 PM
The ramps just add more losses.
What would happen if one would tilt the wheel 45 degrees? Would gravity have less of an influence on motion?
Quote from: newideas on February 27, 2009, 08:28:13 PM
What would happen if one would tilt the wheel 45 degrees? Would gravity have less of an influence on motion?
Yes a wheel at 45 degree angle will have less force on the wheel for spinning, but it will work both positive and negative. I understand that a gravity wheel can not run sideways unless designed to do so. If a working wheel is even possible.
Quote from: sloth on February 13, 2009, 04:29:49 AM
Why wouldn't this work?
Because gravity is conservative. I does not matter how a ball get to a sertain hight. The work done to do it is the same. So also the work released when the ball is falling down again.
Vidar