Another wiew on gravity wheel - vacuum controlled under-water wheel

[TinselKoala]

Now that's a fascinating configuration.
I disagree, though, that it is still a buoyancy device, because the total buoyancy is not changing, it's just moving from side to side. The total volume displaced by the red tube is constant, as is its total mass. It is only the mass (or buoyancy) that is shifting position.
So, if it would run at all, it should run in air, or vacuum, because it is really a gravity wheel "powered" by the weight shift.
Your animation makes that very clear. It's in effect a single tube with a sliding weight in it, and instead of sliding the weight magnetically or with air pressure or some other way, you are sliding it mechanically with the cycloidal linkage.
So this one won't work for the same reasons other simple gravity wheels won't work: friction in the mechanism, combined with inability to maintain imbalance for more than a single cycle.

Gravity is conservative; many of the gravity motor designs are so efficient that, if only for that tiny bit of friction, they might go on running for a while under no-load conditions. But gravity only gives back what you put in, so as soon as there's the tiniest drag, or power-take-off, the system rapidly grinds to a halt--because it only possesses the energy you put into it to start it in the first place.

[Low-Q]

Now that's a fascinating configuration.
I disagree, though, that it is still a buoyancy device, because the total buoyancy is not changing, it's just moving from side to side. The total volume displaced by the red tube is constant, as is its total mass. It is only the mass (or buoyancy) that is shifting position.
So, if it would run at all, it should run in air, or vacuum, because it is really a gravity wheel "powered" by the weight shift.
Your animation makes that very clear. It's in effect a single tube with a sliding weight in it, and instead of sliding the weight magnetically or with air pressure or some other way, you are sliding it mechanically with the cycloidal linkage.
So this one won't work for the same reasons other simple gravity wheels won't work: friction in the mechanism, combined with inability to maintain imbalance for more than a single cycle.

Gravity is conservative; many of the gravity motor designs are so efficient that, if only for that tiny bit of friction, they might go on running for a while under no-load conditions. But gravity only gives back what you put in, so as soon as there's the tiniest drag, or power-take-off, the system rapidly grinds to a halt--because it only possesses the energy you put into it to start it in the first place.

Thanks for the input.

I will calculate the torque provided by the weight of the pistons and buoyancy by using vectors. I havent done that this far. I guess the answer is zero, but hope for more. To explain it doesn't work because it can't, isn't an answer I am looking for. So please provide calculations if you, or anyone for that matter, are willing to spend more time on this

If it can accelerate with no load, I have found what I'm searching for.

br.

Vidar

[TinselKoala]

So, if you still think buoyancy is important to the most recent design, answer me this: when the empty part of the tube is at the top of its travel, it has displaced an equal volume of water downward. This is where the buoyancy comes from! So when the tube rotates around the cycle, at some point it must raise this same amount of water back up, in order for the cycle to repeat.
Where does the work come from to raise this water up?

[TinselKoala]

I believe your current design is almost the same in principle as the above, "Buoyancy Motor #3" at
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#wheels
And here's a mathematical analysis of why it can't work, which I believe applies exactly to your design as well.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/bmitch.htm

But I will be interested to see your calculations, as well, of course.

[Low-Q]

I believe your current design is almost the same in principle as the above, "Buoyancy Motor #3" at
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm#wheels
And here's a mathematical analysis of why it can't work, which I believe applies exactly to your design as well.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/bmitch.htm

But I will be interested to see your calculations, as well, of course.

Hi

This inventon looks nice It seems to work at first, but doesnt after some calculations. I also believe they assumed the bubble wasn't filled with vacuum, in order to add the mass of air in the bubble. Would the facts change if there was vacuum in the bubble? After some thoughts, I don't think so. As the bubble is fixed on one or another side, the bubble will be forced upwards in any case.

In my design it might be the same deal, but the "bubble" in the vacuum tube is allways biggest at the right side - this is what made me blind about that design. And if the displacement of water is allways equal on both sides, as opposed to the invention above, the buoyancy on the right side should also be greatest. The flaw, as I see it, is how the wheel itself holds back the piston, so at the end the buoyancy on both sides are equal anyway. Case closed I guess...

Br.

Vidar