The Mechanical Engine

[Inquorate]

Just a theory

@ Ted - without having seen your wheel, I've been thinking of possible variables as to why your pendulum might pull the wheel down more without the spring..

In my experiments, the pendulum and lever are in sinc; for each swing of the pendulum, the opposite arm will go from up to down to up..

To get it in sinc, I had to change the position of the weight with reference to distance from the pendulum's fulcrum. This changes the period of the pendulum's swing..

I wonder if things change re the spring's effect

[Ted Ewert]

@ Ted - without having seen your wheel, I've been thinking of possible variables as to why your pendulum might pull the wheel down more without the spring..

In my experiments, the pendulum and lever are in sinc; for each swing of the pendulum, the opposite arm will go from up to down to up..

To get it in sinc, I had to change the position of the weight with reference to distance from the pendulum's fulcrum. This changes the period of the pendulum's swing..

I wonder if things change re the spring's effect

There are a lot of variables depending on the setup. Like I said, I wasn't able to experiment much before I had to go.
Each wheel will have a different resonant point. What works well on one may not work on the other. Once I get a wheel actually built, then the tuning starts.
When the pendulum swings out, a number of things are happening. The balance of the wheel shifts, centrifugal force begins operating on the pendulum, both from the rotation of the wheel and the swing of the pendulum itself. There is no point in the swing that centrifugal force does not act on the pendulum, even at the top of the arc. Instead it combines to produce a force vector that generally points in the direction of rotation, most of the time (we hope). Focusing and enlarging this vector is what we hope to accomplish here.
As long as the pendulum is moving, it is exerting force on the wheel in the direction of rotation. If you replace the solid pendulum rod with a string, it will remain taut throughout the swing. This force obviously varies in strength, but the duration is longer that an amended swing, as with a spring.
If you have a heavy, slow wheel this may be advantageous, while the spring might work better on a faster moving wheel. Who knows, this is the kind of stuff best left to find out once the wheel is actually running.
Anyway, I still have to make the latches. This will be the most work. Making a functional, reliable and relatively simple latch mechanism will take some thought. Peter's design looks pretty good, although it will take forever to fabricate eight of those. Maybe I can borrow some of Santa's elves to help me, this being the off season and all.
Maybe the serrated clamp on an old pair of ski boots could work...

Ted

[CloudSeeder]

A pendulum as Ted says has power at every point, but this device as it is being developed is seeking to use mostly the power at bottom, 6 o'clock of the swing. That's losing all that other power. I believe if the pendulum arm was to be extended above... and it was to be pushing an arm over to the bottom of the hub that could conveniently be surrounded with clock-like ratchet teeth... or pulling, whichever worked best.

That way you would get all the downward force of the first pendulum swing, which is the lion's share of the swing ANYWAY, and then the remainder of the force from 6 o'clock on over would be used also in a direct-drive pump to the hub.

Pendulum + Pendulum Excess = Use all power?

I would tend to recommend a slip ratchet over the hub that would only pull one way.

[Inquorate]

Sharing wheel design

YouTube - wheel schematics

I may add a serrated edge to the latch, and a triangular point to the pendulum base, and possibly surface both with tin or copper plate..

Ps, I did the dimensions for a meter diameter and then in true homer simpson style went and measured my plywood board - only 80 cm.

Love and light.

[CloudSeeder]

I'm not against the use of a rubber ball if that's what is really needed, but absorbing energy that could maybe be used into the forward movement somehow seems like to me would be a desirable thing to do. If the ball absorbs it in one side then the ball on the other side is pushing in toward the hub.

The hub can't move so it absorbs the energy and deadens it. That's a squandering of system energy right?

[Inquorate]

The hub

@ cloudseeder - when the latch releases the pendulum, the 'gravitational potential energy' of the pendulum, and the centrifugal force acting toward the rim of the wheel turns into kinetic energy of the pendulum and creates a centrifugal force downwards. the impact on the rubber ball of the pendulum causes the elastic ball / spring to compress. Some work is done (energy 'used') to do this. This comes from a small portion of the kinetic energy of the pendulum. Some of the kinetic energy will be transferred to the rim of the wheel. This will turn into rotational torque on the wheel, just like if you push the handle of a frying pan perpendicular to the handle: it will want to turn about it's axis. The rubber ball will then convert a good portion (more than half) of the pendulum's kinetic energy back to the pendulum but back toward the centre of the wheel. This will create a centrifugal force down on the pendulum which will translate thru the pendulum's pivot as torque on the wheel. The pendulum will return to about 1/3rd? of it's starting position. By this time however, the torque on the wheel itself will have moved the latch the other 2/3rds of the way, and the pendulum will re-latch.

That's the theory.

[CloudSeeder]

That's a lot of theory, and you're in a better position to understand it than I. Without contradicting the theory I was just wanting to point out that pushing any ball on one side of the ball is causing the other side of the ball to push toward whatever holds it, a simple & direct transfer of force. Since the center support cannot move perhaps then -in agreement with your theory- the force is being 99+% reflected back through the ball to do everything you said.

A Force echo. And really, that would make good sense too, that since the force is unable to move the center support it lacked somewhere to go, so it remains in the ball for a counter push, a rebound effect. My previous post was then premature. This is not a cut & dry simple immoveable object vs irresistible force when the one is a rubber ball able to transfer the force back through.

Carry on, Good work! Thanks for helping me understand better.

[Inquorate]

Understanding

@ - cloudseeder, no probs mate.

[CloudSeeder]

@Inquorate 2:

However, that rebounding energy suffers from a delay that may be undesirable, not that it does not do something positive because it very likely does. Your device does not need to be subjected to ricocheting energy bouncing around. In that delay an out of synch energy results that you may decide constitutes a negative harmonics.

In my other previous post before the one you commented on, I was suggesting extending the pendulum arm upwards above the horizontal arm, for it to directly impart Lever energy into a hub-encircling ratchet for direct and immediate use of that energy, as opposed to sending it through the ball and suffering the rebounded energy that is contrary to proper timing.

Just a few thoughts to consider.

[Inquorate]

Ratchet

I'll happily consider any alternatives..

But I did / do not understand how the mechanism re the upper extension of the pendulum above the pivot point can, via a ratchet device, contribute to the wheel's net torque.

Hate to ask, but if you can email me a pic of said mechanism or how it relates to Dr lindemann's 'mechanical engine' developing increased torque, I will post it on my blog and link it from this forum.

Love and light,
Ben

[CloudSeeder]

I would be glad to do all that for you but Michael Nunnerley is the man on this forum who could likely find it in a snap... due to his high qualifications in these areas per his online Profile. He's "in the business" while I am not.

I used the word "ratchet" but the device I have in mind is not really a ratchet; it does the twisting work of a ratchet. Technically it's a weighted slip brake. It has weights inside it, so that when the Lever would strike it, spinning it, the inside weights would centrifugal outwards and grasp the hub, adding spin force to your device.

As soon as the Lever force is gone the weights immediately stop holding the hub => additional force has been imparted from the pendulums.

Yes, I could draw a few pictures if I wanted to, but as I recall, my poor pictures on my other thread got blasted all over the forums for not being up to quality. I'd rather not keep repeating that experience thanks very much. My head is tired of that wall. Nunnerley is the fresh man. He might know what I'm talking about. I think it is also called a slip clutch.

When I release any further pictures they will be higher quality.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Computor design simulator

Well folks I have some good news and bad news, which do you want first O.K: the bad news, I have a business friend whom does work for me, he is an engineering design tech: whom works for a very big company that I do work for and they have one of the most advanced design simulators that I know of and as a favour he loaded my design, at great risk of getting fired, and gess what!!!!!!!!!! it did not work but the good news is that it was 97% and we need 101% or at least at 100% you start it turning and it will maintain that speed, and on top of that it came back with suggestions as to increase efficiency

I am now thinking on how to incorporate these items into the design. One important thing is that the sum of the mass of all out of balance components has to be equal or greater than the mass of the disc or in the programs case the fly wheel and it assumed that it was in perfect balance before everything else was added. Well it is only 3-4% I have to find if the program is right

Michael N

[CloudSeeder]

It would be DISRESPECTFUL to solve the problem before 300 years... uhm, maybe spray some animal grease all over the moving parts especially the ones that touch. And check the subroutine code in the program to find out does it take animal grease into account. The programmers likely overlooked adding the animal grease module.

[CloudSeeder]

@Michael:

You say the program assumed your device was in balance to begin with? Uhm, that never was the case. Your device actually has two centers of gravity, and it was trying to consider it as having just one. Put a 1 in front => 197%, or flip it for 103%, and you're likely looking at a much closer result. Is my post flawed? I think you cleared the wall and the software needs rewriting myself.

[Peter Lindemann]

Which Design?

Well folks I have some good news and bad news, which do you want first O.K: the bad news, I have a business friend whom does work for me, he is an engineering design tech: whom works for a very big company that I do work for and they have one of the most advanced design simulators that I know of and as a favour he loaded my design, at great risk of getting fired, and gess what!!!!!!!!!! it did not work but the good news is that it was 97% and we need 101% or at least at 100% you start it turning and it will maintain that speed, and on top of that it came back with suggestions as to increase efficiency

I am now thinking on how to incorporate these items into the design. One important thing is that the sum of the mass of all out of balance components has to be equal or greater than the mass of the disc or in the programs case the fly wheel and it assumed that it was in perfect balance before everything else was added. Well it is only 3-4% I have to find if the program is right

Michael N

Michael,

It's hard to comment on this post, since I am not exactly sure which "my design" you are talking about. If it is the one with the ramps guiding the weights, then I tend to believe the simulator result. The 97% represents that the gravity inputs and expenditures to lift and drop the weights are essentially equal, and the machine does not run because of standard frictional losses. This is what I would expect from all of the experiments I have run. When gravity is the only force involved, there is NO GAIN mechanism in the system.

If the program has made some recommendations, it might be useful to follow them up. Although I have never seen one of these ramp systems work, the simulator my be able to see a way through it, IF the ramps really do relieve some of the work of lifting the weights. If the ramps really do help, then there might be a gain mechanism present after all.

Don't get your friend or yourself fired over this. Sometimes these big companies have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy for this sort of thing. In today's economy, having a job is worth a lot! Personally, I would not risk my job in a situation like this.

Peter