The Mechanical Engine

[marxist]

thanks and added thoughts

Hi CloudSeeder,

Thank you for recognizing value in the idea I presented yesterday. Since it contains the 'smack plate' (disguised as a ramp) of your 'fire wheel concept' I had an inkling that you might like what was presented and would understand it.

The concept also draws from Peter Lindemann's statement that the wheel had to run RELATIVELY slowly with the pendulum having to be RELATIVELY fast, so that smack-plate and pendulum impact each other with a maximum difference of speed.

This is where 'inertia' plays it's role with the wheel's mass (revolving slowly) absorbing the speed of the impacting pendulum, gaining speed from it as a consequence (provided the ramp is properly oriented).
'The wheel feeding from the pendulum', one might say.

Please note, that in order to achieve the desired max. difference of speed at impact, the ratio of the size/circumference/diameter of the wheel to the length of the pendulum is probably an important factor.
I hope we can determine the ideal proportions.

You have mentioned several benefits which might be achieved when this design is properly thought through.

Maybe there is one more point:
If the pendulum gets lifted up due to collision with the ramp, it's center of mass (COM) will be lifted up too.

We know that a lot of wheels stop, because their center of mass moves below the axle/hub of the wheel during rotation.
Due to the lifting of the center of mass of the impacting pendulum, it might be possible to dynamically maintain the center of mass of the whole system above the axle - thus avoiding 'keeling'.

Three more side notes:
- See also posting of LarryC in a gravity related thread at overunity.com:
New accelerating gravity wheel ! Converted video from www.newenergymachine.com !
containing the term "Centrifugal slam capture".
- What I describe only consists of reordered musings of other people.
- I think 'intellectual property' is a detrimental concept.

[CloudSeeder]

@ Marxist: Intellectual Property a "detrimental concept"? Whew, I think MONEY is a detrimental concept period. hahahaha And smack plates are just a takeoff on the inclined plane so we're both plagiarists, and yet you have defined what the Patent Office people call a New Use, worthy of a patent I would think.

Actually, Marxist, I had not thought of your ramp as being a smack plate... but I appreciate you giving some credit. The way you have shown it it is one but it shouldn't be. The pendulum weights will be moving too lumbering slow to justify calling them coming together a collision. Your drawing had the angle of attack too steep, a minor issue I knew you would correct later so I didn't mention it. For your adaptation to work the plate needs to have a graduated curvature at initial contact otherwise the plate could stop the pendulum cold and throw the impact force to the outside.

Speaking of stopped cold, I could have my two systems built and running in one month's time from now if I had money for Parts. I can't do much with my disability check but pay the bills. Between your solution and my two and Inquorate/Sucahyo and Michael Nunnerley I think we now have a total of 7 perfectly capable Gravity Wheel designs that will work, some of them using Peter's ideas more & some less.

You might count only 5 but I have another two I haven't revealed. It's 7.

We have, in my honest opinion, all succeeded at about the same time but for the building. I'm going to convert my large apartment bedroom into my workshop starting today and am already looking for a source of money. I made a mistake with gov't forms back in November and have just now gotten it straight but it's still going to be 2 months til the $600 finds my pocket, and I owe it all to my son for buying me this new computer after the Downadup virus took out my last one.

It looks like whoever has money for Parts will carry the ball over the goal line 1st.

Anyway, for yours to re-direct the force upward you'll need to hmm alter the weight of your pendulum, more weight higher and less at the little wheel, which in your terms would be raising the weight's center of gravity. You do very good work Marxist. Your drawings really lit the place up.

[Inquorate]

Money and resources

I got all my wood (wheel board, supports, base, pendulums) from the discard / rubbish piles at a building site once the concreters had finished, and another place after someone got a new fence

A couple of skateboards and a wheelbarrow left out during council kerbside cleanups gave me plenty of bearings. I just soaked them in methylated spirits and re'greased' them with sewing machine oil.

The most expensive bits were all the bolts nuts and washers, which I had to pay for.

In short, salvage

Love and light

[CloudSeeder]

@Inquorate: Yep, I know you're right, and some of the stuff I bought years ago like the bearings. I've kept carrying them around with me since 1996 when I first attempted making a wheel. hahahaha I'm almost a moving landfill of Parts already. However, the fact is I have $35 in my bank account til May 3's check, so even the tubing I need (new tubing that isn't dented) and a few other things actually represent a large expense to me right now.

So I'm going to get my work space in order for next month and do some drawings in preparation.

Your comment is very helpful!

[Peter Lindemann]

Keep on Truckin'

Inquorate and Cloudseeder,

I love that can do attitude. Here are some inspiring quotes to eat for lunch, plus, they are very low in calories!

"I have done so much with so little for so long, I can now do everything with nothing."

"You can't get much done by starting tomorrow."

"Teamwork is the magic that allows ordinary people to accomplish extraordinary things"

and finally:

“Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.”

Keep up the great work!

Peter

[Michael John Nunnerley]

A fluid bottom cam

@ Ted

Hi Ted, I have been experimenting with my set up and I have found, as expected, that the top cam is OK as per my drawing, but the bottom cam needs to be fluid as the bottom angle of attack of the cam wheels must be 91 degrees or it will not work. Do not look at the red cam, look at the three circles. A cam has to be made with a perimeter that moves so as to keep the angle right all of the time up to 6 o'clock, then it will work. It is possible that it can go just past 6 as the momentum will carry it so as to catch the top cam just past 12 and then it is all down hill on this cam. As you can see on the original bottom red cam the angle is a lot less than 90 degrees.

This is what I am working on, any suggestions are welcome from all as to making a fluid cam guide.

Mike

[CloudSeeder]

Thanks Peter! Inquorate got me so inspired I had to fight to keep from jumping in the car and driving around looking for job sites; (translation: do anything but start on the room).

We could save a lot on the cost of Parts by making our wheels 9 inches tall,
market as toys with a fake solar cell. We could GUARANTEE the cell never breaks.

hahahahaha I kill me sometimes.

[Inquorate]

I've worked out one of our little problems

To get a pendulum that is swinging anti-clockwise to strike a spring or rubber ball and convert to clockwise motion of the wheel...

Put the spring on a separate immovable object. The torque that would have tried to move the wheel anti-clockwise cannot move the spring and so the end of the pendulum becomes the new pivot point for the anti-clockwise torque, which translates as a downward force on the wheel.

and the crowd roars!

I tested the principle out on a pendulum / lever arrangement and it works.

I even made the lever unbalanced so the pendulum side had something to lift.

[Inquorate]

Thinking outside the box

@ mike, do you need 91 degrees, or just the centre of mass to be at 100 degrees? Your balls could be wheels with one side heavier than the other maybe.

[CloudSeeder]

Having a few 2nd thoughts is all

I'm having a few second thoughts about these designs. They look good, but everything new looks good. An Edsel looked good. I can't shake this feeling that too many weights are being used because the sum total of the weight of the entire device has to be moved -and kept moving/rotating- BY ONE WEIGHT AT A TIME.

I favor less weights with a few counter-weights on the opposite side. I think two opposed weights should work, each weight responsible for one-half rotation, a strategically-placed counterweight carrying each one as it is on-the-fly #1 past the 180 mark and #2 over into the domain of the 2nd weight.

All of your designs seem impeccable! So I have a suggestion. Build them just like you're already doing but, after completing them and they don't perhaps do what you think they will do, and should do, peel off some of them down to either two or four and try my idea as a fallback, a Plan B.

[marxist]

details

Hi CloudSeeder

....the plate needs to have a graduated curvature at initial contact otherwise the plate could stop the pendulum cold and throw the impact force to the outside.

I understand that. The curvature of the ramp should be a part/section of a spiral, getting gradually steeper. Agreed?

Another possibility might be, to use a non curved (=straight) ramp but resting it on a spring, so that this spring gets gradually more compressed, when the pendulum rolls onto it, with a combination of the pendulum's weight and it's centrifugal force pressing down on the ramp.
Agreed?

... to re-direct the force upward you'll need to hmm alter the weight of your pendulum, more weight higher and less at the little wheel, which in your terms would be raising the weight's center of gravity.

I don't understand that. Can you please explain why you think that the center of mass of the pendulum should not be located as far away from the pivot as possible (i.e. in the wheel or pendulum bob, with the upper part of the pendulum being as lightweight as possible)?
Thanks for your help.

[CloudSeeder]

Sure, Marxist. The ramp is more than just a ramp; it is a "Force Re-direction System", a system within a system, in fact, a holy grail. Adding a spring? Yes, you could do that, but springs have two ends, so whatever force comes against one end is expressed to and comes out upon whatever the other end is based on.

So the spring would still be sending the force outward like centrifugal, not downward-redirected that we have all been trying to get to happen. So a spring is to be avoided and try something else.

Determine where the most power of the pendulum is exerted -as Peter has been telling us all along is exerted- because that is THE POINT beyond which the gentle slope of the beginning ramp should start, very gentle angle at first then increase into a full upward ramp.

Giving these forces to a spring would be detrimental to the entire point of the ramp.

I see what you mean about the weight being topheavy, and yet if the full and equal weight of the weight hits the ramp it still tends to send too much force outward as centrifugal, force you need redirected upwards so that gravity (plus the cross-connected weight of its mirror pendulum on the up side) yanks the weight DOWN.

Hmm.
You do need a spring but it needs to be in the weight itself:
=> the weight needs to be telescoping and spring-loaded.
That will
#1 dampen the impact with the ramp &
#2 ease the weight into upward motion.

So yes Marxist, you were right. My ideas lacked for qualification. Needs a spring. And the weight distribution of the weight would likely benefit being a 60-40 split from the center, 60% above center, 40% below center.

[CloudSeeder]

Negative Centrifugal

@Marxist:

Any centrifugal that reaches the outer rim is in effect turning the outer rim into a flat smack plate and that's LOST ENERGY because it pulls against the hub => which is immoveable. You may as well be hitting the ground with a hammer.

What needs to happen is that all centrifugal force be re-directed into raising the pendulum. The previous post ideas should do that very well, a telescoping pendulum slightly heavier at the top with a gentle-at-first ramp.

That avoids smacking the ramp. Good Work!

[CloudSeeder]

@Marxist: Gentle spiral lead-in to the ramp: Agreed.

[Ted Ewert]

@ Ted

Hi Ted, I have been experimenting with my set up and I have found, as expected, that the top cam is OK as per my drawing, but the bottom cam needs to be fluid as the bottom angle of attack of the cam wheels must be 91 degrees or it will not work. Do not look at the red cam, look at the three circles. A cam has to be made with a perimeter that moves so as to keep the angle right all of the time up to 6 o'clock, then it will work. It is possible that it can go just past 6 as the momentum will carry it so as to catch the top cam just past 12 and then it is all down hill on this cam. As you can see on the original bottom red cam the angle is a lot less than 90 degrees.

This is what I am working on, any suggestions are welcome from all as to making a fluid cam guide.

Mike

I'm having a hard enough time making a solid cam thats merely smooth and accurate, let alone a fluid cam.
Nevertheless, the cam I have is almost done, and with any luck I should be able to start testing pretty soon. If this cam doesn't work I have a couple of other configurations to try, but it's no small thing to build a whole new cam. I may eventually resort to a simulator program.

Ted