TD replications

[gotoluc]

Hi webby1


as you know I have always supplied input reset data which is deducted from the output gain.
Even with this input reset subtracted for the output gain I'm still left with a 30% torque gain.

I have come up with a rotating design which will have 2 to 4 alternating torque sequences which has no need to reset the output.
Each of these alternating output torque sequences will transfer the 30% gains in rotating flywheels.
The question now is, will this 30% output torque gain alternately transferred in each flywheel which will represents at most 40% of one revolution (per flywheel) be enough to keep each flywheel turning the 60% of the remaining revolution and may include a small counter force to go through as well?

I think it may but we never know till we try.
Most of the parts for the build will be in next week.

Stay tuned and please feel free to point out any other problem you find in the meanwhile.

Regards

Luc

[gotoluc]

Are the 28 samples of the Torque arm 14 in one direction of rotation and 14 in the other?  with the 60g being the start\end point?

The 28 sample test 3 output torque chart has 140 degrees of travel (not 14 inches) on the output torque arm with an average of 165 foot/grams of torque throughout that 140 degrees of travel.

What I see from the  data you have provided is only 3 columns,, engage, cost,,, disengage, cost,, torque arm out, output,, but am missing the 4th which is torque arm reset, cost.

I would have to make serious modifications to my test device to calculate the losses of the output torque arm to rotate the balance of the 220 degrees needed to bring the arm back to the reset point. So I decided to use that time to just build a device which can continue to rotate in case it does work.
My new design uses many parts I already have on hand so the cost of extra parts is just $25, so not a big loss if it doesn't work. Plus, once I have the device put together (even if it doesn't work) I'll be able to measure how much the balance of the rotation (reset) costs.

Regards

Luc

[gotoluc]

Let me put it this way.

The full cycle is,

engage,     CCW, cost 0.2778951388 J
torque arm, CCW, gain 0.7795415278 J
disengage,  CW,  cost 0.2622390746 J
torque arm, CW   cost ??

After disengage the torque arm needs to be put back into the position for engage to happen for the start of the next cycle.

Yes, I got it but I don't think this is a practical way of resetting it. I want the output torque to continue in the same direction and return to the beginning. Makes more sense to me to keep things in motion then to send it back in the opposite direction.

We'll see how it works out.

Luc

[gotoluc]

Conservation of momentum is important and should be considered.

However,, with the testbed you had you could of simply pulled the Torque arm backwards (CW) and measured the force over the same distance while the other arm was in the disengaged position.  This would then of provided the energy needed for the complete cycle regardless of how it is applied.

28 samples,, 14 samples

Yes I agree, I could make new torque arms which would need to be 3 inches or less to rotate 360 degrees. However, doing that causes other problems like the scale is going to have issues measuring the portion when the arm is close to hitting the aluminum slab and possibly other issues I can't immediately visualize.


Like I said, I rather not make drastic changes on this device for now. You'll have to wait a week or so to see what I can come up with on the next full rotation test device.


Luc

[Sacregraal]

Hello everybody ,

This device remind me something you probably knows ...
http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/2magpup.htm

It was in 1998 ...

Keep the good work Gotoluc !

SG