...at : www.geocities.com/iacob_alex/Some_Drafts/text018.jpg
The "green" plays eccentric mass.
The "blue" is engaged to store (long time charge-short time discharge) rotational inertia : a weighted rim.
All the Bests ! / Alex
Hi P-Motion!
The topic here is about "Free Gravity Rolling 06..."
About your idea...I try to understand it(it's not quite easy),but why you don't open a separate topic,so that the people can focus and help you,maybe.
All the Bests! / Alex
Hi P-Motion !
I saw your drafts at Bessler Wheel's "Albums".
It can a good starting point,because you think in a "less is more" style.
About the last design,here (three arms...) intended as a self-rooling hoop,for this moment it appears to me a little "misty"...and maybe for you,alike any first idea.Try to evolve it.
If you read the topic "Wheel vs. lever" ,at this forum also,I hope you will simplify your design:two arms,only.
Regarding your suggestions (to add a "flywheel" or "2 counter-weights" ),take a look at the serial (01...06).
About the dimensions,mathematics...an experiment with a so simple configuration is more conclusive and reliable.
Sorry,that for the moment,I can't make some tests (I am living in a rent house,without the facilities of "garage people").
So,take a rest(as you said...),and when you feel the desire for the next step,make it!
All the Bests! / Alex
Hi P-Motion !
So,in my opinion,we don't need more than two spokes for any design of a possible PM.
Why?
Because the key to "unlock" the self motion is a greater gravity impulse (p=m*v=m*g*t ).
Here,the only variable(that people forget...) is the TIME FACTOR .
If we materialize in some manner the gravity fall,as a real flow ,we can induce,give rise to an ever increasing gravity impulse .
The gravity impulse is collected in the form of an inertial impulse:gravity dynamics turns into inertial dynamics.
Gravity impulse is generated by the ever increasing (accelerated) torque difference...if we let it fall enough time.
The inertial impulse can be stored as a rotating mass (hub or rim).
In a certain view,as we bounce a ball in two "worlds"(fall down in gravity, becomes rise up in inertia...but really is a simple transfer of momentum).
So,if we have a sufficient level of rotational inertia,we can use a part of it to "jump-up" the long arm-short arm configuration,and you know...this is the "self-motion".
The succession in time is:long gravity fall(and charge of rotational inertia),then short gravity rise(and discharge of rotational inertia).
All the Bests !/ Alex
Hi P-Motion !
If you want to verify the feasibility of your idea,you have two possibilities:
-on paper
-in reality
On paper,you need to take into account,step by step,the position of the CoG's projection (vertical line) and the fulcrum.
The fulcrum is simply ,a temporary (moving on a line) point-contact between the rolling device and the way(horizontal line).
The CoG's projection is simply,also a temporary(moving on the same line) point.It "expresses" the torque...
Here you must mesure the distance between two points on the same horizontal line,
If the CoG's projection-point remains on the same side of the fulcrum's point...you need no calculus.
In this situation ,your design can work as a "self".
If the CoG's projection-point moves to and fro ,face to fulcrum's point,you need to make some simple algebra: to add positive torque with negative torque .But this a static calculus (weighting machine type),not a dynamical one.
In this situation ,you have no confidence that your design will work as a "self'.
.
But a real test is more conclusive...
All the Bests! / Alex
Hi Jim !
A gravity rolling device of this type is very sensitive,reactive.
It plays as an object on the top of a needle :you can notice so easy any kind of motion.
If you begin with the long arm in the upper position,and release the wheel,so it can move freely,there are two possibilities:
-it can roll on the horizontal line,let's say on the right direction, less than a full circumference...and you have not a "self-motion".
-it can roll on the horizontal line,let's say on the same right direction,more than a full circumference...and you have the "self-motion"
Regarding your model,I wish you good results !
All the Bests! / Alex
...as you can see at www.geocities.com/iacob_alex/Some_Drafts/text018.jpg
can be seen,as a continuous tumbling inverted pendulum.
An inverted pendulum vs. pendulum ,has more reactiveness face to gravity...and so a greater imaginable potential to figure out a simplified gravity powered device.
All that you need to play this "game" : a (slightly modified) ring /hoop and a connecting rod/stick .
So,with two spare parts only,you can enjoy a two-leg self-walking "robot" !?
All the Bests! / Alex