well this is an idea that i thought of today and was wondering what everyone else thought
A. axle of lever
B. pendulum weight
C. axle with slip ring
D. counterweight
lets assume that we have the ability to "lock" the pendulum in mid swing, as well as locking all the axles
starting with the picture as step one.
1. unfix pendulum weights (B), allow them to swing as far as possible (obviously a little less than the height it fell) and lock them in place again at other side.
2. unlock slip ring (C), position of counterweights (D) keeps the rod holing the pendulum upright in respect to the axle of the lever, overbalance, causing it to lift lever with a force equal to the difference of distance between both weights in respect to the axle
ok so that drawing was for a concept
this is my theory
if we didn't have a method to keep the pendulum upright, we would lose an extra degree for every degree the lever lifted.
there are better ways of doing this, this was the easiest to draw first, a few mechanical
ok so lets say the height of the pendulum is a little bit taller than the length of the lever
if we start the pendulum's 45* from the rod
with the left pendulum, the weight (B) will now be about the length of the lever away from the axle
the right pendulum swings and stops almost over the axle, the distance being almost nothing
we now have a force equal to the weight of the pendulum weight acting upon the lever to overbalance them
let me know what you guys think, obviously friction is the issue, oh and i wonder what would happen if you hung another couple pendulums on the bottom of the lever
essentially it breaks down to how much energy is lost to friction on the swing of the pendulum
i feel like this set up could work if we lose less than 10 degrees per pendulum, per oscillation
heres a clearer , if anyone knows how much force is needed to keep a pendulum oscillating, and be so kind as to share it would be greatly appreciated, obviously it would be more specific to the pendulum, but i was wondering what someone thinks could be a safe guess as to how much a typical pendulum's amplitude decreases per oscillation
well the idea is, i came up with a way to allow the pendulums to maintain a perpendicular relationship with the event horizon while the lever itself oscillates most like between 10*
@P-motion, i am glad you think there will be little resistance, thats the key element in this operation. i really like the idea of a moving fulcrum but i havent figured out a way to make it turn itself,
as for this set up,
an easier way to make it more efficient would be to start the pendulums out at 180*
this would place the weights at the maximum distance, allowing for the full weight of both pendulums to be a slight distance away from the axle, giving a torque equal to the weight of both pendulums + the distance from axle + the distance the edge of the lever travels (angular distance of lever in respect to event horizon)
our input is still only the friction lost in each pendulum, output equaling the total mass of both weights plus some
im a little rusty on my trig but so far it looks promising, my calculations have been based on a stab in the dark assumption that my pendulums will lose less than 10* per oscillation
anyone have any ideas?
heres a mechanical approach
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8670.new#new
well i would start the swing at a right angle in respect to the fulcrum,
my is to figure out a way to lock the pendulum in place when it reaches its vertex, and using the position of the weights in respect to the fulcrum
if the lever is 4' long, and the height of the pendulum is 4', starting the pendulums out parallel with the event horizon,
we locked the weights in place, and there is now a weight (x), first weight would be resting on the edge of the lever(2' if the length of the lever is 4, that places it on the other side of the lever, with the fulcrum resting half way, being 2') , the other being 6' away from the fulcrum (4' for its height and another 2 for starting out at 2' away from the fulcrum)
the output is equal to the set up on the left
now if we let the pendulums free fall, they lose height, to be safe lets say were going to lose 30 degrees for both pendulums (gross over estimate)
this means the energy is equivalent to moving 2x a distance of 30 degrees, which is the same as moving x 60 degrees, right? because we know the length is 4', we can see that we will need a force acting upon a lever equal to a weight of x which is placed 4' away from the fulcrum
this shows a equal input and output ratio
this also assumes our pendulums can only achieve an efficiency of 60%, which most should know is easily attainable for a pendulum
edit::::::::::
forgot to mention, all we need to do is limit the lever to 30* of rotation and this will provide the energy back, to create OU all we would need to do is extend the levers range of motion
do i have it wrong?
i don't mind at one bit, on the contrary id rather have any response than none at all, and i know you are experienced in gravity devices
the efficiency question
yes, from what i can remember, because gravity is an acceleration, the lower the pendulum is released it does become slightly more efficient, because gravity has less "time" to act upon the weight, but at the same time the smaller the angle we release the pendulum at, the less distance each weight is respectfully to the axle
i feel as if the torque would be sufficient to overcome gravity, but i do have ways to make this more efficient and work better,
when you say faster, your implying more force right, because to get the same mass the same distance in a faster time just requires more force, meaning a way to get the counterweights further from the axle while maintaining a vertex angle for each pendulum being less than or equal to 45*
yes im fairly confidant i can, a different set up will come later, possibly with math that could at least prove it will make as much energy as it takes out
im still very curious if you or anyone else has any opinions as to how they think this mechanism will behave in a real world situation
i made a quick pendulum and it seemed to lose about 10* when i dropped it from 0* (or 180)
when i dropped it from 45*, it seemed to lose 1, possibly 2*
so you were correct that 45* will make it more efficient, and with this knowledge i think i can prove it will work
firstly i want to know the reason why people think this wouldn't work, or if they agree and see something
Quote from: P-Motion on January 21, 2010, 10:43:54 AM
HI MB,
You did bring up a good point about the efficiency of a pendulum.
One thing I have wondered is if they swing to high, do they become less efficient ?
If so, this might mean limiting their swing to 45º or less.
I hope you don't mind my making a couple of suggestions.
Pequaide once mentioned that Galileo did an experiment with pendulums. What he found out is that if a pendulums swing were interrupted, the weight would not lose momentum.
And with the stop that Jerry mentioned, I did something once where I found out a weight on a short lever can have a pretty good recoil.
What I am wondering is if the movement of the lever the 2 pendulums are on can be increased. You know, made to move faster.
Jim
hello. i'm new in here, so if i say something idiotic please be gentle :)
anyhow.. interesting concept.
the penulum will swing faster if shorter distance from axle, but would mess up the dynamics of this interesting arrangement.
it looks like it just might work, but realise that every extra pendulum you add is making extra resistance too. and the counter-balancing weight would need to be just right or it would slow it down fast.
nice work. hey, you folks in here are rather clever. i like it.
and i do think it might work if you could produce more momentum than resistance caused by friction.
-wayne
correct, every added is more friction
however, because this works in half steps, meaning we only have to add enough energy to overcome friction from one
lets say we release it at 45* on the right ride, and it only swings up to 40* on the other side
because there are two pendulums, it works out to be equal to 2(x, [mass]), a distance of 10*, or 1(x) a distance of 20*
the relationship between my system means that if we allow our lever to osciallate between 20*, it will have recouped all losses
however if we allow it to rotate 25*, we have now gained 5* and can be considered excess energy
a super simple solution to making it more efficient, is to make the height of the pendulum the same as the lever, but have the length of the rod/rope be twice that of the lever
in this way, we get the same ratio, but out output torque is increase due to distance, and if we use the same weight, while its a further distance, at only a 45* we can limit the friction loss to most likely less than 4 degrees
meaning if in fact we can achieve a pendulum that loses only 2* for one swing starting at 45*, we could see overunity with the lever oscillating at 20*
so if our lever is 2m long, and we are releasing our at 45*, for simplicity sake, i made used the 45* angle as an interior angle and Pythagorean theorum showed me that the length of the hypotenuse would be about 5.67 m
this way, the position of the first counterweight is 3m away, the second being 5m
the drawing shoes in red the 4' x 4' triangle used to obtain the desirable pendulum length
x(weight of counterweight)= 1 N
our output is now giving a torque of (1 N)(3 m) + (1 N)(5 m) giving us 8 Nm
assuming we lose 5* per single , that gives us 10* distance for 2 N
we also know the distance is the height of the pendulum, being around 5.67 m
so (2n)(5.67 m) = about 11.314 Nm
how could this possibly be overunity?
well, this implies that the lever is only moving 10*
however, i am going to put a gear on it, which means i can go twice the distance with half the weight
how can this help?
if i attach a gear to my lever, i will attach another lever to the pendulum that is half as big
now my output weight has been halved, as well as the distance of my lever has now been doubled to 20*
in doing so, i now have (2 N)( 2.83 m) = 5.67 Nm
Input 5.67 Nm
Output 8 Nm
did i do something wrong or is this really what i think it is????????
yes, apolgies, i forgot to throw that key in there
the last drawing i posted is to scale for a pendulum with a height twice that of the lever it rests upon
the idea is to lock the counterweight in place and keep them there while the lever torques
then pendulums can be released and whatever energy is gotten out is put back into the pendulum
the SI unit for torque is the Nm, which is why i chose to do my calculations in this fashion
in a couple posts earlier i used feet and pounds
picture how much energy it takes to get the pendulums back to equilibrium
now instead of picturing two, picture one with twice the weight
we must now move it 10* to get it back to starting position
since we already know how long the pendulum is, we know how much torque it produces
more to come later, P-motion, just try plugging in your own numbers for your own calculations, mine arent really textbook calculations
i would recommend starting with the first drawing ratio
make the lever 4, make the height of the pendulum 4, and just use "x" for the weight
it shouldn't look like anything special until you remember you have the option to utilize a gear system to gain greater distance with the same force (respectfully)
i find it odd with the simplicity of my idea that no one really has an opinion on it their willing to share, comments as to why people think it won't work are the most helpful, unless it is a way to make it more efficient, being best case scenario
all well, il keep this in the back of my mind for a while, less someone has anything else they would like to add
Get well soon Jim!
@Jim
i like the way you think, thats a clever observation
my goal for this is to extract energy from the lever
essentially, unbalance the lever using the weight of the pendulums, and instead of using direct force to manipulate the mass of the counterweights to induce an unbalance effect on the lever, use the already shifting position of the pendulums counterweights
if instead of a string we use a rod, it gives us the flexibility to stop and lock the pendulum at any position we want,
so first we lock the lever, let the pendulums swing into position on the other side of the axle, and then lock the pendulums, allowing a force to act upon the lever,
and possibly if timed correctly, we could use the torque of the lever to act upon the pendulums at the bottom of their swing to continue the process
do you think this is possible? so far i know i can make a system that produces a torque on the lever with a force equivalent to the weight of both counterweights to reset itself, however with friction this means it would not run itself, due to the delicacy of this process
ive got another way of doing this without pendulums, but i wanna run through some numbers first, if they come out to be what i think i might PM to get a second opinion before posting anything major
until next time....
mr_bojangles
My Step Dad gave me permission to show you his triple pendulum to be food for thought. The center lifts and drops to try to help accelerate the pendulum but this did not happen as planned. But if it helps open some new thoughts in peoples minds. He said go ahead and show it.
Michael
OH yes, Copy wright 2010, The shifting pendulum set, by Alan Bauldree
a work of art for sure
ive been busy with school for the most part, still thinking, just not taking the time to share
i appreciate you sharing that for sure, i have thought about something similar to that, it is helpful to visualize it
Quote from: mr_bojangles on February 08, 2010, 04:35:00 PM
a work of art for sure
ive been busy with school for the most part, still thinking, just not taking the time to share
i appreciate you sharing that for sure, i have thought about something similar to that, it is helpful to visualize it
mr_bojangles
I would be more than happy to send you a video but you need to PM me your email address. I use it more for meditation at this time. Well at least it has a use. LOL
Alan
Video sent