The Mechanical Engine

[CloudSeeder]

Great point Michael. I saw a device once that made a sudden imbalance near the 6 o'clock position. Godspeed.

[Ted Ewert]

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

I agree that there has to be an imbalance, but I'm not so sure about the 6 o'clock position.
The imbalance has to serve a function, i.e. shift weights efficiently or generate power. The problem is that you got nothing left at 6 0'clock to work with. At 6 o'clock the weight should be tucked in and waiting for the ride back up to the top.
The only exception to this being Ben's impact mechanism, which is a whole different ball of wax.
I think in a "normal" clockwise rotating wheel, business hours have to be between 12 and 6, 1 to 5 more likely.
I hope to have my wheel running by next week, then I'll finally have some real data to work with. I love building, but I hate the waiting. I feel like a walking dichotomy.



Ted

[Inquorate]

Dichotomy

I feel like a walking contradiction

* a wheel that uses gravity to defy gravity? I mean really! Still, I'm following pretty good evidence. Eep.

[sucahyo]

Still catching up reading,

@Inquorate, thank you, I don't think my contribution is significant enough to mention. I will send the some file for evaluation since I am not done yet.

@Vortex, drawing in QCAD will allow us to copy rotate things and make life easier. The file is small I guess I can just attach it here.


I have a couple of notes during first testing:
- The lever need to be restrained by spring to avoid falling to opposite side at 7 o'clock position
- no need for lever stopper, the inside ball will hold it.




Here is the progress of replication, I modify some shape to make it compatible with WM2D:

[Ted Ewert]

This is the key formula IMHO: KE=1/2 MV(squared). Kinetic energy equals .5 times Mass times velocity squared. As velocity doubles, kinetic energy quadruples.
Gravity must accelerate a mass to a higher velocity somewhere in the cycle in order for any wheel to work. The higher the velocity, the better.
Acceleration can also be in the form of maintaining a constant angular velocity but increasing the kinetic energy by increasing the radius of the weight.
Ben's impact concept takes full advantage of this formula. The kinetic energy developed by the pendulum in free fall is much higher that the kinetic energy dissipated by a weight moving up for the same distance at a slower speed.
Of course, finding a way to efficiently harvest this energy without squandering it is the trick, but that's what makes it fun.

Cheers,

Ted

[Inquorate]

just sharing..

Video uploading, watch this space

Sound goes at the end again. Oh well, you can see what I mean.

YouTube - building wheel and ideas to share

[CloudSeeder]

Thanks Ted:

As velocity doubles, kinetic energy quadruples.

I didn't know that... goes into areas I missed in school.

[Inquorate]

Velocity and kinetic energy

@ cloudseeder - kinetic energy does quadruple when velocity doubles; that's why it takes more than twice the distance to stop a car at double the speed..

School didn't prepare me either, they teach rubbish in schools..

@Mike - was the idea for the changing fulcrum point for the pendulums in my last video part of what you were talking about?

[CloudSeeder]

@Inquorate; Thanks, in which case there must be a minimal speed for the wheels we should be aiming for always exceeding? Perhaps not "aiming for", just to know it is there...

[Michael John Nunnerley]

I agree that there has to be an imbalance, but I'm not so sure about the 6 o'clock position.
The imbalance has to serve a function, i.e. shift weights efficiently or generate power. The problem is that you got nothing left at 6 0'clock to work with. At 6 o'clock the weight should be tucked in and waiting for the ride back up to the top.
The only exception to this being Ben's impact mechanism, which is a whole different ball of wax.
I think in a "normal" clockwise rotating wheel, business hours have to be between 12 and 6, 1 to 5 more likely.
I hope to have my wheel running by next week, then I'll finally have some real data to work with. I love building, but I hate the waiting. I feel like a walking dichotomy.



Ted

Hi Ted, uploaded a cad drawing showing the type of cam system I am using. At the pivot point is a spring which just counters the inbalance of the cam, heavier on right than on left, see saw effect.

Now for the maths:-

Mass A+E less than mass of F+B+C+H+D and not taking into consideration centrifugal changing to centripetal force after the pivot point. With the two cams this equation is the same at all points as it turns, but not with one cam only. Also there is no up hill movement of the cam wheels, only downward movement. The cams will take a little playing with but you get the idea.

I will be mounting the wheel probably on a solid wall, at the moment it is where it is just for mounting the parts. Naturally each counter slider is inter connected using threaded bar for adjustment and the threaded bars are at different levels so as they can cross and not touch one another. A lot to take into consideration

More photos to come or may be a video if it works

Mike

[Michael John Nunnerley]

change of direction of force

@ cloudseeder - kinetic energy does quadruple when velocity doubles; that's why it takes more than twice the distance to stop a car at double the speed..

School didn't prepare me either, they teach rubbish in schools..

@Mike - was the idea for the changing fulcrum point for the pendulums in my last video part of what you were talking about?

Think of centrifugal force is when a weight is unrestricted in a straight line, when you put something in its path that force is turned into centripetal force in the other direction, I hope you understand, like a rubber ball hitting a wall, it comes back to you with the force you sent it to the wall in the first place less other forces like gravity which is pulling it downward and so never comes back with the exact same force. Difficult to explain, I am not a teacher only an aging engineer loosing the old grey matter quicker each year

Mike

[Ted Ewert]

Think of centrifugal force is when a weight is unrestricted in a straight line, when you put something in its path that force is turned into centripetal force in the other direction, I hope you understand, like a rubber ball hitting a wall, it comes back to you with the force you sent it to the wall in the first place less other forces like gravity which is pulling it downward and so never comes back with the exact same force. Difficult to explain, I am not a teacher only an aging engineer loosing the old grey matter quicker each year

Mike

Hi Mike,
I understand that your explanation of centripetal and centrifugal force is what is now taught in most academic institutions. However, I have found the model of two equal forces to be much more beneficial in my understanding of rotational phenomenon.
I completely agree with Ben when he says that they teach rubbish in school. Modern physics relies far too much on the Newtonian model, which plain doesn't work for angular dynamics. It sort of works for slower speeds, but completely falls apart when you analyze devices such as a Hilsch vortex tube.
IMHO, the absolute essence of the natural universe is duality. Light and dark, hot and cold, north and south, expansion and contraction, centripetal and centrifugal forces... North is not less south, just as light is not less dark. Centripetal force is not the only force in a rotational system. All motion is curved and all motion contains both centripetal and centrifugal forces.
I spent a lot of time studying vortexes. If you look at a satellite photo of a hurricane, you immediately see this giant vortex with a little hole in the middle. The hole is the centripetal portion, the rest is the centrifugal portion. The forces are equal in strength, but unequal in volume. This is one of the very interesting aspects of these two forces.
Without getting into a whole discussion of Nature, I just wanted to say that I find the model of two distinct, but different, rotational forces to be much closer to what I find experimentally than the bazaar model I see being taught by physics teachers these days.
My two cents anyway...

Cheers,

Ted

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Hi Ted, like the way you put it and I agree with the teaching in schools etc, they do not inspire the mind, only to follow like sheep, look at the none obvious is my moto. When you start to put things into practice things start to emerge that calculations can not calculate, there are so many forces in this project that can not be calculated, one of which I believe is speed of revolutions in relation to the circumference. A wheel doing 10 rpm with a circumference of 50cm is not the same as one with a circumference of 200cm, the distance traveled is 4 times more in the same time factor. I believe that by increasing the diameter is the more all important factor for a gravity engine to work what ever the design. The centrifugal force increases with the diameter not the revolutions, the bigger the wheel the more torque at the axis, like riding a bike with high gears although we are changing to another form when connected to a chain and other sprokets and that would take us into another topic

Mike

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Diameter

@Ted
Others have found in the past that SIZE IS ALL IMPORTANT anything less that 1mtr will not work, it does not have the force to overcome the losses that are in the form of friction and antigravity

Mike

[Peter Lindemann]

Potential Success

Gentlemen,

I believe I have found a design that uses the kinetic energy transfer of impact in harmony with the gravitational and centrifugal forces. The mass distribution looks neutral, so that should not detract.

I completely agree with Ted that the explanation for the question: "where is the energy coming from?" lies in the formula (KE=1/2 mv2) or Kinetic Energy equals one half times the mass times the velocity squared. I was about to post the formula when Ted did.

We have seen from Inquorate's experiments that the Kinetic Energy of the weight can be transferred to the wheel by the agency of ELASTIC COLLISION, and that the Kinetic Energy of the weight increases by the square of the velocity. If we want GRAVITY to accelerate the weights to a higher velocity, then the wheel needs to turn relatively slowly so gravitational acceleration can get ahead of it. Since all of the accounts say that Bessler's wheels turned slowly, I think we are on the right track with these ideas.

I will post my design movement and the wheel configuration as soon as I can draw it up nicely.

Ted, I have high hopes for your design. The only reason I abandoned systems like the one you are attempting now is that I never figured out how to keep the WEIGHT of the moving mass referenced to the wheel, while its POSITION was referenced to the cam. If you can solve that, I'm sure your idea will work.

Peter