Take a look at the pictures below. The construction is simple... Anyone seen a similar idea before?
Original idea, thanks for sharing!
Possibly show stopper I see:
When A1 hits Y, the load it off the can. B is pulling the can up, nothing makes it flip as the drawing is implying it will. So, A1 will rest on Y, A2 will remain high, no weight shift.
Nothing stops you from drawing in a linkage of sorts which directs the tilt of the can, to make tilt is possible. Then the next reason why it won't work will need to be thought up :-)
Original thinking will eventually bring succes!
That was my thought too @Cloxxki. But I had some hopes that the kinetic energy in the weight B was able to let the arm swing a bit further so the can could flip... I will make a practical try - should be possible :)
Vidar
Quote from: Low-Q on December 24, 2009, 09:33:58 AM
That was my thought too @Cloxxki. But I had some hopes that the kinetic energy in the weight B was able to let the arm swing a bit further so the can could flip... I will make a practical try - should be possible :)
Vidar
Low-Q, did you ever make a build of this with linkages? Has anyone else tried?
@winner
o...This is simple enough to try in Phun, the free Physics Simulator.
Just Google "Phun" to learn more. This should give you approximate
dimensions.
o...You may want to make central points X and Y wheels and give them
bearings, so that they slide/roll easily on the top and bottom of the box.
o...This isn't necessarily doable in Phun, but you may want to give the
axle of the box - hysteresis, meaning memory, so the box doesn't rock
until it is time to hit the X and Y limits. Hysteresis helps prevent a system
from coming into balance and stopping. Walter the Yog Guy came up
with a good idea of using a small permanent magnet DC motor as a
generator then using a switch to lock and unlock the rotor. This is
configuration is not exactly energy loss free, but it would be adjustable.
:S:MarkSCoffman
mscoffman,
Thanks for the response! Though given the simplicity of this model, it would seem it might take less effort just to build a physical model, eh?
I love these ideas that are so simple and require little explanation to see how they would work. I think most here are in agreement that the solution to a gravity engine, if any is found, will be something very simple. I suppose someone with experience can see immediately where the faults and show-stoppers in this system are, but it's easy to construct a movie in my mind that shows this thing as a runner after introducing proper latches to delay movement and provide the hysteresis.
I'm not sure when I'll get around to trying this in Phun or another simulator, but I'll try to do a physical model when I have a chance.
Hi Low-Q !
I call it (your proposal ) variable leverage (fulcrum+first class lever /with a variable arm +two masses).
You intend to play swinging motion (as a seesaw with a "sleeping partner"),
I have as a purpose to play a full continuous rotation.
Some developments , refinements of the variable leverage , you can find at :
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/search.php?search_author=iacob+alex (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/search.php?search_author=iacob+alex) ...let's say"theory"
http://www.geocities.ws/iacob_alex/ (http://www.geocities.ws/iacob_alex/) ...look at "Some Drafts"
Everything should be made as simple as possible (concepts and tests) , before to discover that the "whole" is the sum of its parts.
I made some "small size" experiments.....before to develop them , in the future , as bigger ones.
Al_ex
No 'Continuously overbalanced' device can EVER work without an external supply of energy.
At best you can make it act like a perfectly balanced flywheel. It will continue to run until frictional losses cause it to stop.
Stop wasting your time on these unworkable devices.
It looks like the key to make the arm work is to keep the tube close to level so the required work to tilt it and move the ball is as small as possible!
The problem is as the main pivot rotates so does the tilt of the tube, increasing the amount of work required to move the tube to a new position at the end.
That is why I have been saying that any and all gravity devices (and magnet motors) must use the torque shifting principal to gain an advantage. Otherwise, everything is always equal.
Hi. Lumen !
I agree with you , so "...to use the torque shifting principal..." , or with my words " the torque difference shifting on the same side of the fulcrum ".
Simply , we can maintain the unbalance ( torque difference ) for an " automata seesaw" , due to a regular " gravity escapement "...
Al_ex
This is very similar to this concept:
http://static.wixstatic.com/media/79b7a2_d9dee3456ae74a6d98be8697b1afa77d.jpg
The picture is not explaining what is happening. The ball can be in a close position, when it lifts. And it can be in a further away position, when it becomes heavier. We just need to insert a similar tipping ball under it and above it so the ball rolls either to the right or left.
I should make a better picture, but the same concept as yours actually.
I made a better picture about what I am trying to do.
http://static.wixstatic.com/media/79b7a2_1e481109597d43248abe379fce00fef9.jpg
George
When the ball moves closer to the weight, it moves up. When the ball moves further away, it moves down.
And we need to tip the mechanism somehow so it switches position.
http://static.wixstatic.com/media/79b7a2_14a04b5f8dd34a89ad286ebbf9b8fd10.jpg
George
Quote from: Low-Q on December 22, 2009, 06:03:42 PM
Take a look at the pictures below. The construction is simple... Anyone seen a similar idea before?
You've only drawn the first and last steps as you would like them to be. However, as only the tube will start moving from Y towards X, the tube will set itself in vertical position (and it will always stay in vertical position no matter the lever position), thus the interaction between the tube and the ball at X won't be possible and the lever won't go back down to Y.
None of these ideas that seek to create a 'continuous overbalance' condition can ever work without the addition of external energy.
My advice is to stop wasting time on such nonsense.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on May 08, 2014, 05:45:56 PM
None of these ideas that seek to create a 'continuous overbalance' condition can ever work without the addition of external energy.
My advice is to stop wasting time on such nonsense.
Why should we stop ? Proving whether it works or not is better than any other puzzle ;)
Quote from: Airstriker on May 08, 2014, 05:54:41 PM
Why should we stop ? Proving whether it works or not is better than any other puzzle ;)
It has already been proven conclusively that it can not work. Read up on Noether's theorem.
This video is for Low-Q's eyes only.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsoUemkAmHo&feature=youtu.be
First attempt failed but I'm rebuilding right now.
Unlisted test #2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuMkLBtUf9g&feature=youtu.be
At least I had fun trying to build a better mouse trap.
Quote from: Dusty on May 09, 2014, 08:00:54 PM
Unlisted test #2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuMkLBtUf9g&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuMkLBtUf9g&feature=youtu.be)
At least I had fun trying to build a better mouse trap.
Hi Dusty, you could try to put magnets for tilt the basis in the two position. Two magnets, up and down, so the ball go from one position to another when the basis moves. Of course, the ball shouldn't be influenced by magnets (or it loses weight: maybe it could be made of lead, or brass). Bye
Quote from: LibreEnergia on May 08, 2014, 06:04:57 PM
It has already been proven conclusively that it can not work. Read up on Noether's theorem.
So what are you doing here? You won't stop these guys - if it's what you want ;)
Noether's Theorem isn't called Noether's Law for a reason.
Quote from: fletcher on May 12, 2014, 04:45:35 PM
Noether's Theorem isn't called Noether's Law for a reason.
That is true.
If there is a cheat to Noether it could mean that time machines are possible. That could be interesting. Then someone in the future where such machines might be developed could have come back and corrected those of us who expect that Noether was right. Then again those people from that future might all have been teases.
LOL - or subject to the time travelers Prime Directive - 'look but don't touch' due to potential unintended consequences.
Quote from: fletcher on May 12, 2014, 05:41:56 PM
LOL - or subject to the time travelers Prime Directive - 'look but don't touch' due to potential unintended consequences.
Do time travelers spend a lot of time in "gentlemen's clubs"?
Hi Low Q ,
You have a private message about your idea.
In my opinion you are on the verge to realize your unbalanced weight scale (I call it self-running/automata seesaw...simply a gravity mechanical oscillator ).
All you need: a simple hinged arm,a bigger size , the condition for a continuous unbalance(colinearity of fulcrum with the two masses ) ...and some tests.
I wish you success , again! It can be the first step to a gravity motor...a self-moving/swinging scale...
Al_ex
I have re-discovered an idea by purelyprimitives.
You guys might find this interesting. See he videos of purelyprimitives for further info.
Whats driving the weight is centrifugal force, the motor is on the arm, and is totally disconnected from load.
The trick is to be able to extract the full potential of the joule/sec of the mass in motion. 8900 joules/sec
It has some Skinner like tendencies.
http://www.overunity.com/14817/purelyprimitives-pendulum-power/msg413646/#new