The Mechanical Engine

[Ted Ewert]

I had to reduce the quality of the pics as my camera is 10.2mp and each poto takes more than 4mb so they would not load, but I think you can see, but not my usual quality.

I have found out some interesting things, a minimum radius of the wheel when extended must be 50cm there is a big relation of circumference to force available to do other work and also degrees of attack when using cams.

Question, what if we get very close to a machine working, it only needs a little extra energy to complete the circle, and so we put that extra energy, say e.g. 1 joule, I wonder if we could have an over unity situation? and run a gen to supply that energy plus.

Mike

If we get close?? I always get close, but close doesn't cut it. I want to make some power, a lot of power. Once this mechanism gets dialed in, we should be off to the races.
I'm trying to get my weights as far out along the circumference as possible. This gives me the greatest potential between top and bottom to develop some power.
The wheel has the same balance whether the weights are close to the center axis or further away, so why not move them out. For a pendulum you have to have some distance between the catch and the fulcrum, but not for a cam type wheel.
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that in order to get work from a force, such as gravity, we have to let the force accelerate a mass, and then harvest that power through deceleration. Even the pendulum works on this principal.
If a wheel is rotated in a horizontal position (vertical axis), and one of the weights is suddenly extended out and away from the axis, the wheel will slow down according to the conservation of energy. If that weight is pulled back in, the wheel will speed up.
When the wheel is in a vertical position, and that same weight is extended (at the proper position) via a ramp, gravity accelerates the mass, which effectively increases the torque on the wheel and mitigates the normal slowing effect. When the weight is pulled back in towards the axis, the wheel naturally speeds up and excess energy would be available. If energy can be merely conserved on the first cam ramp, the second ramp is all gravy.
Anyway, I'm just thinking out loud.

Cheers,

Ted

[Inquorate]

Thoughts welcomed

Idea+500e.jpg (image)

[Inquorate]

Ted

I really like that description

[Ted Ewert]

The angle that the pendulum's swing is interrupted doesn't change the direction of the force. However, if positioned just after the pendulum's maximum kinetic energy point, maximum thrust seems to be conveyed. And it doesn't seem to matter how far the rubber ball is from the pendulum's axis, but I only experimented with 2 to ten centimeter placement.
When the pendulum is swinging under the lever, and If the weight/ pendulum is swinging in toward the wheel's axis, it will transfer as downward torque. If the pendulum is swinging away from the wheel's axis, it will turn into upward torque.

But when the pendulum is above the axis the torque is in the opposite direction; pendulum falling out will create down torque, pendulum falling in will create upward torque.

YouTube - pendulum to wheel torque directions

It's quite counter-intuitive, and I'm waiting for inspiration from my subconscious mind...

Makes perfect sense to me. When the weight spends more time outside the balance point, the arm goes down, more time inside and the arm goes up.
It's a simple balance issue.
I'm not convinced that anything other than balance ultimately turns a pendulum wheel. I think your excellent experiments prove it. If centrifugal force had anything to do with it, the lever would have moved down when the pendulum was swung in the balanced position.
Acceleration plays the part of maintaining rotational speed when the weight is extended, and returning the weight to the position of rest. Actually, it's all interrelated but that's how I look at it.
I find it helpful when analyzing a pendulum to think in terms of the pendulum being a force vector: the vector being aligned with the shaft of the pendulum, starting at the fulcrum and pointing towards the weight. The length of the vector will change with the position of the pendulum during its swing, but the direction will always be the same. The more time the vector spends pointing towards, or outside the direction of rotation, the better. That's why I don't think the spring will work well. I would want the pendulum spending as much time as possible, and as far away as it could get, from the axis of rotation. In fact, if you could put a spring up just after the swing passes bottom, and let the pendulum bounce back out again before coming back in to rest, you could develop even more torque.
I think the way Peter had the thing drawn originally, sans the return spring, would work just fine.
BTW, I love the way the lever on your rig looks like swiss cheese.

Cheers,

Ted

[CloudSeeder]

OK.........

[Inquorate]

I think I agree with Ted

I agree with Ted's post above after doing experiments to confirm his suggestions. But the torque delivered by the impact on the 'spring' seems too good to pass up, even though it acts as an opposing force, because it overcomes the weight distribution of the pendulum, it must be the stronger force. While I now have hope for Peter's design minus the spring, I also want to incorporate the spring's torque. Somehow.

YouTube - my most organised video yet

Still

[Peter Lindemann]

Unbelieveable.....

Idea+500e.jpg (image)

At this point, I agree with your conclusion that the release should be at the 6 o'clock position to create the biggest build-up of momentum to impart to the wheel. Gravity naturally "re-sets" the system at 12 o'clock.

Talk about upside down and backwards! This is absolutely THE most counter-intuitive design I have seen.

Build it, Inquorate. From what you have shown on your films, it looks like it will work! Absolutely brilliant work!

Now I know how your Science Teacher felt.

Peter

[Peter Lindemann]

Too Much Rubber Band

I agree with Ted's post above after doing experiments to confirm his suggestions. But the torque delivered by the impact on the 'spring' seems too good to pass up, even though it acts as an opposing force, because it overcomes the weight distribution of the pendulum, it must be the stronger force. While I now have hope for Peter's design minus the spring, I also want to incorporate the spring's torque. Somehow.

YouTube - my most organised video yet

Still

Inquorate,

I see what you are trying to show, but many of the effects shown in this latest film look to me like they could be being produced by the rubber band and NOT by the other forces. Some of your other tests showed totally unambiguous results. This one seems less clear.

I think the idea you proposed in your last post should be simulated and/or built with 8 weights. It looks like the energy imparted from the hammer impact may be enough to overcome all of the other forces and still drive the wheel.

Peter

[Inquorate]

Point taken

Another video on the way, watch this space

YouTube - combining the forces

[Ted Ewert]

Another video on the way, watch this space

YouTube - combining the forces

That's a lot of force, I like it!
Dammit, don't get me going on a new concept before I finish my current project! I'll never get anything finished.
Thanks for the video.

Ted

[Inquorate]

Hello Imhotep

Long time no see :-) hope all is well

Ps @ all - about 7o'clock seems better than 6, ''harvests'' more of the weight differential. I need shorter screws

Love and light

[Peter Lindemann]

Pendulum Lever Tests

The angle that the pendulum's swing is interrupted doesn't change the direction of the force. However, if positioned just after the pendulum's maximum kinetic energy point, maximum thrust seems to be conveyed. And it doesn't seem to matter how far the rubber ball is from the pendulum's axis, but I only experimented with 2 to ten centimeter placement.
When the pendulum is swinging under the lever, and If the weight/ pendulum is swinging in toward the wheel's axis, it will transfer as downward torque. If the pendulum is swinging away from the wheel's axis, it will turn into upward torque.

But when the pendulum is above the axis the torque is in the opposite direction; pendulum falling out will create down torque, pendulum falling in will create upward torque.

YouTube - pendulum to wheel torque directions

It's quite counter-intuitive, and I'm waiting for inspiration from my subconscious mind...

Inquorate,

I have gone back to look more closely at your Pendulum Lever Tests as reported in Post #335. After redrawing your diagram, it became obvious that the lever arm is forced DOWN when impacted by a pendulum swinging CLOCKWISE, regardless of starting position. Conversely, the lever arm is forced UP when impacted by a pendulum swinging COUNTER-CLOCKWISE, regardless of starting position. At least this is true when the bumper is close to the pivot point of the pendulum.

This is a most intriguing result and lends a lot of support to some of the things Ted has been posting. The point is, when the pendulum swings Clockwise and is interrupted in its swing, it imparts ITS Clockwise momentum to the LEVER. This result appears to be quite large, in spite of the low mass of your pendulums.

Currently, this finding seems to produce a force that acts AGAINST all of the other forces we have identified for driving the wheel, including Centrifugal Force and Gravity (mass imbalance). This is apparently true IF we look at one side of the wheel at a time.

Bessler shows a number of designs where the pendulum pivot point is on one side of the wheel, the arm crosses over the center, and the weight is on the opposite side of the wheel. One such example is his drawing #31 in the Machinen Tractate. He also shows quite a few designs where the pivot point is on the perimeter and the weight is very close to the axis, as in MT #19. The point is, it may be possible to get the impact force to "cross over" to the opposite side of the wheel, if this can be made advantageous.

There is a great deal to consider here, and I currently do not see a clear way to resolve all of these forces (Impact Reaction, Centrifugal Force, and Gravity) into a design where they all work together.

Any thoughts, Gentlemen?

Peter

[Inquorate]

All working together

I don't see a way to get all the forces working together. Yet. But I will.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

We are getting close

Hi all, there is one thing that is sure, we need as Peter has indicated, to extract part of the free energy in the movement from 12 to 6 to counteract the upward movement from 6 to 12, now we have to make the balance advantage of light on the left too heavy on the right, that we know.
Consider these points:-

1. The ratio "all important" must be at least 2:1
2. The work input must be equal or less than the work needed to move the ratio of 2:1 when it is on the upward side 6 to 12
3. The direct work needed if we do not use external force is always equal unless we change the ratio of axis as in a childs see saw.
4. What do we do! we either change the weight on one end of the see saw which we can not do or WE CHANGE THE FULCRUM, like our ansestors to move big weights with little force.
5. We have force on the right 12 to 6, how do we use this to its maximum to move the weight at 6 to the axis IN ONE FELL SWOOP.
6. When the weight at 3 is fully extended it has the maximum gravitational force and maximum centripetal force because it cannot move out any farther so the centrifugal force changes to centrpetal force, this is the point to trap this force to move the weight at 6 to the center of the axis. ( CENTRIFUGAL FORCE CHANGES TO CENTRIPETAL FORCE WHEN IT CAN NO LONGER TRAVEL IN THE STRAIGHT LINE THAT IT WISHES TOO ).
7. How do we use this force! I put it to you all that we need to design a sistem of levers and fulcrums which are triggered, not on the outside of the weight at 3 but on the inside of that weight at the point nearest to the axis, this is FREE ENERGY TO BE USED TO CREATE MOVEMENT OF THE WEIGHT 6.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

ran out of space, did not finish

8. If we use a system of continual movement, as in a type of natural balance, we will never succeed, nature will see to that, we have to create at one point an abrupt in balance and that must be at 6 oclock so as to start the movement again.

I am working on this at the moment as well as building the machine. Any input as to levers and unbalanced fulcrums would be welcome.

Mike