John Gs Wheel

[john_g]

Hi All

I thought I would start a new thread on my gravity wheel rather than spamming up Cloudseeder's excellent thread.

Having had quite a few non working models - no surprise - I have built up a new wheel (frame) as my test bed to explore some different mechanisms.
I have come up with four different options that I think may work, and I will post them up as I go along.

The wheel is quite large in size but should be easier to work with, and more forgiving of small imbalances.

So to start with I have built a rim, 6 ft diameter, made from 6 glued laminations of thin plywood, with holes drilled at every 45 deg on the outside edge, to attach spokes etc to. The spokes are wood, attached to the rim by heavy duty L brackets, and to the hub by plywood plates.

The hub runs on a solid 1/2inch steel shaft running in wood cutouts.

It rotates very easily and so far so good.

I will keep you posted.

Regards

John

[Peter Lindemann]

Excellent Start

John G,

Excellent start for your project. Having built more than 40 test wheels of this type, I would like to suggest a few more things for you to do before you try any of your ideas.

These suggestions involve two main categories of work. The first is to lower the rotating friction to an extreme minimum, and second, to produce a critical balance on the wheel BEFORE you begin your experiments.

Aaron has seem my basic test stand for these kinds of experiments, and knows what I mean when I say the following. I could put ONE PENNY on the outer wheel at the top, and with only that much imbalance, the wheel would begin to turn. It would continue to accelerate until the penny fell off, but then continue to turn on its own for over TWO MINUTES, accomplishing up to 20 full revolutions before stopping. The critically balanced wheel could stop in ANY POSITION, with no preference for any residual "heavy spot".

If you are interested in my help with bringing your wheel to this condition, just let me know.

I wish you every success in your experiments.

Peter

[john_g]

Peter

Thank you for your kind suggestions- yes I will take up your offer ref balance and have PM you.

At the moment, I think rightly or wrongly, that the wheel needs a certain amount of friction to offer resistance to rotation to enable the proposed mechanisms to work. Too fast a rotation and centrifugal force could work against operation.

One idea that I will look at, that may seem contra, is will a rim out of balance run? For example placing one 4 lb wt on the rim and turning it at say 20 rpm, only requires what feels like a small force to keep the momentum going.

Regards

John

[Stealth]

Like Peter, I too have built many gravity wheels and other configurations trying to achive an overbalanced wheel design. All my designs have failed,not because of friction, but because of the basic design itself. This is a geometry problem I am working on.I do think an overbalance wheel is feasible to build. Although it goes against the basic nature of gravity itself.I am in the process of designing an wheel now to overccome gravities force. I hope you, or someone else does find success in creating a machine to harness gravity as a power source. If you can't overcome friction, then you have no chance of powering a generator or other device with gravity. The closest I have come is with an odd number of sliding apparatuses, it would make several revolutions before equalizing.I also came close with a rolling ball wheel that I still have but am rethinking it's geometry.I also have another design that is not mine,so I will have to check and see if it can be posted or not.If you want,I can post a picture of the rolling ball one as someone may want to build one to experiment with.Good luck with your wheel. Stealth

[Stealth]

rolling ball gravity motor

I am not sure who designed and built this, but I think it was Mr.Leopold of Leopold optics fame.Anyway, it is as close as I've come to building a self running gravity motor. I built one on a small toy scale, if it were built on a larger scale, it might work.I haven't looked into whether I can post the other one yet or not. Good Luck. Stealth

[john_g]

Stealth

Thanks for that. I have tried a few designs, all pretty roughly made. However all of them didn't work because they needed a weight to be in a new position, say 5-10 degrees (wheel rotation) ahead of where it actually was. So what I think is needed, is a mechanism to advance a weights normal movement.

[Harvey]

It is possible to extract energy from the Gravitational field. Our oceans do that twice a day when they move all that weight around we call tides.

The secret to extracting energy from conservative fields is to play two or more conservative fields against each other in an asymmetric way. Because of the conservation of energy laws, this forces energy to be converted and stored in the opposing field where the excess can be put to work.

For example, have a look at my M.A.P. (Magnetically Assisted Pendulum). Here we have three conservative fields interacting that represent two potential energy sources. These fields have force vectors that are asymmetrical and the result is such that we get a gain in gravitational potential energy which can be used to perform work. The process may look simple, but it is rather complex. For one thing, the magnets are not oriented in an intuitive way, they are reversed. For another thing, the moving magnet can be turned around at the top of the pendulum swing with less energy (about 1/10th) of the Gravitational Potential energy gain. Therefore, a gain is produced on each swing in each direction if the magnet is rotated 180° at the top of each swing.

It is my opinion, that to extract energy from the monopolar force of gravity, we need to use a reciprocating device and extract the energy at the end of each reciprocal cycle. A rotational system will always take back what it puts in. Here is one I had in mind some time back:
Larger Image

Cheers!

[Michelinho]

Hi John_g,

Tonight I had an idea for a magnetic bearing/suspension that I will try soon as I have all the hardware at hand.

I have a set of 6 cone magnets like these: 1/2"*x*1/2"*Cones...

And also 1" x 1/2" x 1/4" ring magnets like these: 1"*x*1/2"*x...

By gluing the cones at each end of a 1/2" aluminum axle and the ring magnets in aluminum adjustable supports, with guides for the centering of the cones on the axle and others for guiding the axle toward the disc magnets (might need threaded rods to adjust the supports).

I tried earlier tonight with hot glue for a quick test but the hot glue did not hold the cone on the axle when I was still at around 1" from the disc magnet. So there is some pressure involved in the setting of the axle in the jig.

A lathe would be handy to machine the ends of the axle but I will try to shape the ends in the press drill. I made a support that I bolt on the press drill plate with a bearing set in that I use to polish axles or make groves in for lock rings.

In the coming days, I will try the concept in a better setup. I'll keep you posted on the results.

Take care,

Michel

[Cloxxki]

I am not sure who designed and built this, but I think it was Mr.Leopold of Leopold optics fame.Anyway, it is as close as I've come to building a self running gravity motor. I built one on a small toy scale, if it were built on a larger scale, it might work.I haven't looked into whether I can post the other one yet or not. Good Luck. Stealth

At first glance, I would be suggsting a ramp at the right bottom to advance the weihgt's return inward. And, it would be like all the failed wheels that cam before it, I suppose.
Perhaps energy should be extracted from the left-top slide to the outside, apart from it being repositioned. Or, a light upward curve to the outer end of the rolling surface near the end might optimize the downward impulse of the weight that would otherwise just bump the rim quite laterally.

A am also opposed to ultra-low friction wheels. Each configuation will seem to "almost" work, if friction could be reduced just a little bit more. If this is true, we are looking to extract less energy from greatly successful gravity wheel than from a bumblebee landing on the smells-like-honey side of a wheel on a generator shaft.
A waste of energy to look for such small gain on gravity, IMO. I do appreciated Peter's accomplishments, low-friction setups have a great quality of efficiency. If our car wheel bearings would be given such attention, that would make the world a better place. Car tires and car aerodynamics obviously together turn 50% of our fussile fuels used in them, into useless and preventable heat and friction. And quite efficiently so. And that's before looking at the engine's own burning efficiency.

IMO the overbalanced wheel, where leverage is attemptedly used, is futile. No lever is ever long enough to use 1kg being lowered by 1m, to let another weight of 1kg, be raised any higher than 1m.
height * mass, people, we have not tricked that yet.

I have not been able to even get a theoretical success yet, but feel that if we're to find OU from gravity, we'll need to exploit a 3rd or 4th power of velocity. The rate of acceleration, and its own rate. It's so complicated to grasp that part, there jus might be something in it.

If there is any truth to high rpm anti-gravity effects of spinning designs (lots of claims out there), perhaps these are OU, as KE might not be killed for the AG effects.

I hope someone manages to do something with CF, it's a mind bugger for sure.

All the best of luck John!

[john_g]

Cloxxki, Michelinho, Harvey

Thanks all for your input. Today have made 2 lever arms, weights and hinge shown in attached pics - these are two of four 'prime movers' (hopefully) to enable advancement. I will only make a pair to start with to see if the concept works. Note I have tie-wrapped the weights to the arm - had far too many thumps/near thumps by weights moving in the past!

Things may go quiet from me for a few days - bank holiday, house DIY etc then work.

Stealth
I noticed today that the Mr.Leopold design, on a close look (glasses on) is asymmetric.

Kind regards

John

[Harvey]

I am not sure who designed and built this, but I think it was Mr.Leopold of Leopold optics fame.Anyway, it is as close as I've come to building a self running gravity motor. I built one on a small toy scale, if it were built on a larger scale, it might work.I haven't looked into whether I can post the other one yet or not. Good Luck. Stealth

Does anyone else notice that one of the bays is missing a roller?

As it is, there are 5 rollers on the outboard side and 6 on the inboard side. If we add the missing one, there would be 7 on the inboard side. I don't know if the weight of the extra two rollers on the inboard side can be offset by the leverage on the outboard side.

One thing is certain, a gravity device must be resonant with the Earth's gravitational acceleration. So the length of the roller travel and the rotational speed of the wheel must harmonize with the 9.8m/sē gravity will try to move the rollers. I think the geometry must work fluidly with that motion. Any impacts between the rollers and the wheel will result in lost energy. So there needs to be a smooth transition from the roller motion to the wheel motion in the energy exchange from Gpe to Ke.

[rickoff]

Does anyone else notice that one of the bays is missing a roller?

As it is, there are 5 rollers on the outboard side and 6 on the inboard side. If we add the missing one, there would be 7 on the inboard side. I don't know if the weight of the extra two rollers on the inboard side can be offset by the leverage on the outboard side.

Yes, I noticed that. Also, the position of ball c is incorrect, unless the wheel is rotating clockwise. For a moment, let's assume it is rotating counter-clockwise. At the current position of the wheel, ball c's supporting ramp has just leveled out, and ball c would still be at the inboard side, just before beginning to roll to the left, and not yet doing any work. Ball c would not likely be at the outside until it is at the position where ball d currently is. Only 3 balls (d, e, and f) are doing work. In another degree or two of rotation, ball c will begin to move outward while ball l moves inward, and at that point 4 balls will be doing work. Ball a will be idling at the bottom of the wheel until the next support comes along, while the "missing" ball is just becoming a burden. The missing ball, and ball m are being lifted at the outside right, while 4 balls at the outside left are supplying the lift. Balls l, k, i, h, and g are also being lifted, but at the inside right where less counterweight is involved. All things considered, though, it seems that this wheel cannot work in a counter-clockwise rotation. Basically, it is a system of leverages where left versus right. The amount of net leverage at any given point in the rotation can be summed up by adding the distances of the balls from the centerline for each hemisphere (east and west). At the current position, for example, and remembering that ball c should currently be at the centerline, the distances for balls c, d, e, and f (the western hemisphere)total 114. In the eastern hemisphere you have balls g, h, i, k, l, and m, with distances totaling 150. Thus, with more weighted leverage on the right side, the wheel will want to rotate in a clockwise direction. With that in mind, then ball l would actually still be at the inside, with a distance of about 18, rather than 40. So subtract 22 from 150 and you get 128. The eastern hemisphere is still heavier, but not by a lot. And will it always be heavier? Suppose that clockwise rotation continues another 15 degrees, and that ball c is then at the centerline. Balls a, f, and e will be further from the centerline, while ball d will be a bit closer, so the leverage for these 4 balls remains about the same. The difference is that with ball c at the centerline you can subtract 37 from 114, which is then 77. At the same time, all of the balls in the eastern hemisphere would be producing leverage, (except the "missing " ball, which will be idling) as ball l would have just rolled to the outside. So the eastern leverage would be somewhere close to 150, or nearly double that of the western with a clockwise advance of 15 degrees from the currently shown position. This wheel does look like it could possibly work, but you would need to assess the actual leverage factors for each hemisphere for each 10 or 15 degrees of rotation to see how it all averages out. And you would have to assume that the wheel itself is perfectly balanced, that the weight of each ball is identical, and that the bearings provide almost no anti-rotational friction. And one more thing - if rubber balls are used for this, it looks as though they would be apt to hang up at the narrow end of the supports when they drop down, and could get stuck. A stop could be added, though, to prevent that.

Rick

[Cloxxki]

Yes, I noticed that. Also, the position of ball c is incorrect, unless the wheel is rotating clockwise. For a moment, let's assume it is rotating counter-clockwise. At the current position of the wheel, ball c's supporting ramp has just leveled out, and ball c would still be at the inboard side, just before beginning to roll to the left, and not yet doing any work. Ball c would not likely be at the outside until it is at the position where ball d currently is. Only 3 balls (d, e, and f) are doing work. In another degree or two of rotation, ball c will begin to move outward while ball l moves inward, and at that point 4 balls will be doing work. Ball a will be idling at the bottom of the wheel until the next support comes along, while the "missing" ball is just becoming a burden. The missing ball, and ball m are being lifted at the outside right, while 4 balls at the outside left are supplying the lift. Balls l, k, i, h, and g are also being lifted, but at the inside right where less counterweight is involved. All things considered, though, it seems that this wheel cannot work in a counter-clockwise rotation. Basically, it is a system of leverages where left versus right. The amount of net leverage at any given point in the rotation can be summed up by adding the distances of the balls from the centerline for each hemisphere (east and west). At the current position, for example, and remembering that ball c should currently be at the centerline, the distances for balls c, d, e, and f (the western hemisphere)total 114. In the eastern hemisphere you have balls g, h, i, k, l, and m, with distances totaling 150. Thus, with more weighted leverage on the right side, the wheel will want to rotate in a clockwise direction. With that in mind, then ball l would actually still be at the inside, with a distance of about 18, rather than 40. So subtract 22 from 150 and you get 128. The eastern hemisphere is still heavier, but not by a lot. And will it always be heavier? Suppose that clockwise rotation continues another 15 degrees, and that ball c is then at the centerline. Balls a, f, and e will be further from the centerline, while ball d will be a bit closer, so the leverage for these 4 balls remains about the same. The difference is that with ball c at the centerline you can subtract 37 from 114, which is then 77. At the same time, all of the balls in the eastern hemisphere would be producing leverage, (except the "missing " ball, which will be idling) as ball l would have just rolled to the outside. So the eastern leverage would be somewhere close to 150, or nearly double that of the western with a clockwise advance of 15 degrees from the currently shown position. This wheel does look like it could possibly work, but you would need to assess the actual leverage factors for each hemisphere for each 10 or 15 degrees of rotation to see how it all averages out. And you would have to assume that the wheel itself is perfectly balanced, that the weight of each ball is identical, and that the bearings provide almost no anti-rotational friction. And one more thing - if rubber balls are used for this, it looks as though they would be apt to hang up at the narrow end of the supports when they drop down, and could get stuck. A stop could be added, though, to prevent that.

Rick

Rick, would a simple ramp South East not help the balance of the wheel assuming coutner clockwise rotation?
Clockwise is very counter-intuitive, although I've seen it in parts of cycles of similar contraptions.
It seems that for clockwise rotation, Western hemisphere leverage could relatively easily be reduce with smarter ramps or mechanisms.

[Stealth]

rolling ball gravity wheel

I had the balls to hang up on the inside of the wheel repeatedly until I made a stop to prevent them from becoming lodged in the smaller end of the wheel.This drawing does show a missing ball in its configuration, however that may just be a error in the drawing I have tried it both ways, with and without the ball. It is very close to becoming a self running motor design.There is a story behind this design.A friend who is a janitor at a large univerity was cleaning after hours.He went into a professors room to straighten up some papers and dust the furniture.While straightening his papers, he noticed this drawing on the professors desk.Intrigued with it, he photcopied the drawing.There was another paper attached to it that is not present in the drawing here.It desribes the operation of the wheel,but I do not have it.Long story short, the professor had left this drawing out of a safe which was left open,probably in a hurry to leave.I found out about the drawing a obtained this copy. I have tried steel balls bearings and lead balls in this wheel.It is as close as I've come with a build.I think with curved ramps and or a small degree of variation, this one would work.I have some CAD designes that may work,but they haven't been built yet.It was not supposed to be opensourced,but now it is.Still don't have confirmation on the other design yet.Good Luck. stealth

[Harvey]

As John G. states above, the wheel in Stealth's dwg is asymmetric.

This could be purposeful, or neglectful it is hard to say, but the result would be that some of the rollers simply cannot move inboard as far as others.

I use the term roller here, because we do not know that the rollers are spherical. In my drawing above, my rollers were long cylinders connected to two endpoint wheels as drawn. All you see is the end-view. This is the first place that I have shared that information. That element immediately changes the mass acceleration force in the F = ma equation where 'a' is the acceleration of 9.8m/sē. And as you may imagine, can overscale the frictional resistance of the system by several magnitudes.

Cloxxi's reference to the third or fourth derivative of position (where velocity is the first derivative and acceleration is the second) is an interesting thing to ponder. Even a small child understands the third derivative which we call 'jerk'. We see this sudden change in acceleration throughout our daily lives and we intuitively apply it to overcome the moment of inertia associated with stationary objects that just won't budge otherwise. Like a kid whose wagon wheel gets stuck behind a root sticking out of the ground, who first leans away with a pull, intuitively changing his leverage to no avail. Next he will roll the wagon back a bit and then steady pull it to see if that gets over the hump only to find it stops with that constant and steady velocity. So next, he rolls it back and then pulls faster and faster, accelerating all the way up to the point of impact only to find that it bounces back. And finally, without doing any calculus, he intuitively 'jerks' the handle just as the wheels are about to impact the root and that extra change in acceleration at the right moment does the trick and over the root it bounces.

Weight lifters use it to snap the weights at the right moment. Rockets use it to get the final escape velocity. Animals use it to catch their prey at the last moment.

So if there is a means to apply that third derivative, without losing energy do to impact (anytime you hear a sound from the transaction, you have lost energy) then I would say that it could be quite useful. Here is a secret: Compress a spring orthogonal to the rotation of the wheel using gravity, and then release it tangent to the rotation of the wheel and in connection with the wheel and you will have successfully converted the gravitational energy to kinetic energy by using two conservative forces. When done properly, energy can be extracted from the gravitational field.