Gravity Driven Mechanisms

[CraigD]

Aemilius, I’ve looked carefully at the still and motion pictures, but can’t entirely make out how your machine is put together. It’d be helpful if you could post a diagram/mechanical drawing.

 

PS - Hope you liked the drawing, this is a great forum and thanks for having me!

I did – it’s gorgeous, cementing my initial intuition that you’re a genuine graphic and mechanical artist, something I aspired to, but abandoned more than half my life ago, in the early 1980s.

 

I was introduced to its technique – representing shapes via shades via dots, not lines – in 7th grade art class, back in what I think of as something of an educational golden age, when every kid in southern Appalachian who made it through the 7th grade in public school had a semester of Art, including studio stuff. I recall drawing pages of pictures of a ball sitting on a table casting a shadow, all with dots of a pencil. Later that decade, in my year as a fine art major, I saw a collection of sketches of chrome car bumpers, all done the same way, dots of HB pencil lead, and was so impressed, I tried it myself. I wish I could find those drawing – my own are long lost, but the ones that inspired me were in some glossy art book of the kind art teachers have around for students to look through, though I don’t recall the name of the book or the artist. Shiny metal surfaces are wonderful.

 

I’m pretty sure from you reply that you’re not much enthused by my idea of a mini into to classical mechanics course built around your machine, and as it’d be a pretty big effort for me, I won’t do it in that case. Still, I think you’re suffering from some serious misconception about physics that have lead you to a confused, perhaps pleasantly, but still, IMHO, not a good state to be in, conception of physical reality, where you see your machine as in some way demonstrating a mechanical phenomenon significantly different than, say, a clock pendulum, or the imbalanced upturned bicycle wheel JMJones describes here when, in conventional scientific terms, it isn’t.

 

You simply can’t talk sensibly about classical physics without defining its most and next most elementary terms. Fortunately, there aren’t many – here they are:

 

There are 3 elementary physical quantities: Position; Time; and Mass.

 

[math]\text{Velocity} = \frac{\Delta \text{Position}}{\Delta \text{Time}}[/math]

 

[math]\text{Acceleration} = \frac{\Delta \text{Velocity}}{\Delta \text{Time}}[/math]

 

[math]\text{Force} = \text{Mass} \times \text{Acceleration}[/math]

 

[math]\text{Energy} = \text{Work} = \text{Force} \times \Delta \text{Position}[/math]

 

All that’s needed to understand this “cheat sheet” is that [imath]\Delta[/imath] means "change in", the usual arithmetic symbols, and a bit of explanation of “Energy = Work”, to wit: Energy is the potential of something (a "system", "machine", or what have you - it's OK to be vague) to do (or “exhibit”, “perform” – natural language founders a bit with this) Work.

 

With these terms, we have everything we need to talk about any classical machine (that is, one that doesn’t involve nuclear fission or fusion, speeds an appreciable fraction of the speed of light, or other phenomena not well described by classical mechanics), including yours.

 

What all the classical physics-aware folk, such as JMJones, Turtle, and I, have been saying since seeing your machine, is that the Work you hand is doing on the machine’s lever – its input – is equal to the work the machine is doing to the surrounding universe – its output.

 

Its input work is the force your hand is applying to the lever, times the distance it moves. It’s output is the force its various parts apply to everything it isn’t, times the distance over which it applied it.

 

You could directly measure the input work fairly precisely without too much trouble, by, for example, video recording you hand-pushing and pulling an accurate bi-directional spring scale attached to the lever. Measuring the output work is trickier – the most practical way, I’m guessing, would be to enclose everything in an insulated, soundproof box containing a very precise thermometer, measure the increase in temperature, and multiply that by the heat capacity of air. When all this is done, and done right, the input and output work will be equal.

 

But all this work is, I think, unnecessary, because what’s really on your mind here, Aemilius, is how gravity is involved. This is actually simpler than understanding and measuring output work – for example (either really, or in your imagination):

• take the machine apart;
  
• weight each part;
  
• use a knife edge to find and mark the center of mass of each part;
  
• put the machine back together;
  

With this info, looking at a video of the machine in motion, we can tell precisely the amount of gravitational potential energy it has at any moment.

 

Gravity does exactly this:

• converts kinetic energy into GPE when the machine is changing from a state of lower GPE to higher;
• converts GPE into KE when it’s changing from higher to lower.

I find It helpful in demystifying the role of gravity in a machine like this to imagine taking it on a spacecraft to a zero-gravity environment, attaching the center of gravity of each part via a long fine wire to a spring or similar mechanism producing precisely the same force as it experienced on Earth due to gravity, then running it as usual. Ignoring problem of wires tangling in parts (we can invoke helpful thought experiment pixie/daemons to disconnect and reconnect wires as needed to avoid such trouble), despite the practical absence of gravity the machine will behave exactly as it did on Earth.

 

In short, in classical mechanics, gravity is merely a mechanism available for storing as or releasing work from energy, fundamentally not different from machines like spring compressed gas piston/cylinder gadgets. These are not themselves pools of energy, like fuels, but “rechargeable” means of storing it.

[Guest Aemilius]

Glad you liked the drawing CraigD, it was a real labor of love.

 

I'll just say thanks here to all of you (especially JMJone0424, Turtle and CraigD) for continuing to comment. I can see that all the misunderstanding up to now is my fault.... I've failed to communicate clearly what I have in mind. I thought it would be obvious with the posting of the video, but it seems that may actually have only served to confuse the issue further.

 

For example, I thought I had shown clearly with the series of stills (page four) how it's a balanced system, yet it's still being compared analgously to an imbalanced bicycle wheel or a conventional pendulum, so it must not be as self explanatory as I thought and therefore remains largely open to interpretation as to what's actually happening, evidenced by our continuing disagreement. That's my fault.

 

I don't have the time to undertake any in depth study of mathematics, and surely none of you have the time to replicate the mechanism to verify what I believe the empirical evidence shows. As you said CraigD, we're speaking related but not mutually comprehensible languages. I have to find a way to bridge that gap and find a language we all understand that eliminates, or at least minimizes any need for subjective interpretation, leading, hopefully, to some form of consensus.

 

CraigD "Still, I think you’re suffering from some serious misconception about physics...."

 

Well, I'm certainly not ruling that out, and I actually joined this forum specifically to answer that question. If I'm conclusively shown to be wrong in my line of reasoning I'll be the first to admit it and move on.... I just don't feel that's happened yet since, as I said above, I've failed up to this point to clearly elucidate my observations in a way that would have allowed for the elimination of any doubt. Not only that, even if I had succesfully conveyed what I have in mind, I would not have understood your answer.

 

I'm going to wait now before posting anything further until I can come up with a common frame of reference, or "language" that will allow for some form of "conversation" to take place.... this might take a few days.

 

Thanks again for your time, input and diplomatic demeanor CraigD, I think I'm talking to the right person.

 

Emile

Edited July 29, 2012 by Aemilius

[CraigD]

.... I've failed to communicate clearly what I have in mind. I thought it would be obvious with the posting of the video, but it seems that may actually have only served to confuse the issue further.

 

For example, I thought I had shown clearly with the series of stills (page four) how it's a balanced system, yet it's still being compared analgously to an imbalanced bicycle wheel or a conventional pendulum, so it must not be as self explanatory as I thought and therefore remains largely open to interpretation as to what's actually happening, evidenced by our continuing disagreement.

There’s a famous (at least among the like of Lawrence Krause and other science popularizers and enthusiasts) joke that goes something like this:

 

Milk production in small country that’s economy depends heavily on its dairy industry is low. It’s government convenes a panel of prominent scientists from several disciplines to work out solutions to the problem: a biologist, a sociologist/psychologist, and a physicist.

 

The biologist goes first: “we must analyize the gene of our cows, determine the oneresponsible for best milk production, and their inheritance, then breed, or perhaps clone, to promote those genes among the population”

 

Then the psychologist: “we need to look at the environmental factors that stress and stimulate cows – herd size, stall and pasture size, pasturing and milking times, even the color and patterns of fencing. Optimizing these to reduce stress will result in happier cows, which produce more milk”

 

His turn come, the physicist walks to the board, draws a circle, and begins: “assume the cow is a sphere ...”

The point here (which Krause makes well in his wonderful and too little-known 1994 book Fear of Physics, where I first encountered it) is that physics is largely the art of simplification, reducing complicated, difficult to analyze (formally or informally) systems to simpler, easier ones, while keeping the two well-correlated enough that the analysis applies well to both.

 

That’s what folk are trying to do here with your machine.

 

As I read it, the trouble is that you’re finding these simplifications insufficiently close – you feel they’ve failed to remain correlated to your actual machine, which despite its small number of parts, is pretty complicated (without the diagram I begged in my last post, I’m still unsure I could build one myself)

 

Let’s look again – or perhaps for the first time, explicitly – at an essential (and terse) definition of a “weight driven mechanism” (let’s use “weight” instead of “gravity”, as the former is an actual force, rather than a field equation, and doesn’t have a lot of weird pseudoscientific baggage):

 

For a mechanism to have the possibility of being weight driven, it must have states of higher and lower

http://gravitational

potential energy.

For such a machine to work, it must be capable change from a state of higher GPE to lower with less input work than the difference in GPE between the two states, so thus in principle be capable of producing more output work than input. But we needn’t, in a first analysis, worry about whether it works or not. We can find interesting qualities just with the idea of different net GPEs, and, as the saying goes, leave the detail to engineers.

 

An interesting attribute of a given weight driven mechanism is how many local maximum and minimum GPEs it has – that is, if we plot its GPE against its states, the peaks and valleys in the plot.

• A simple weight-on-a-spring has 1 maximum and 1 minimum
  
• A simple pendulum has 2 maxes and 1 min
  
• The imbalanced bicycle wheel in JMJones’s post #81 has 2 maxes and 1 min, unless it starts with sufficient kinetic energy to revolve completely, in which case is has 1 max and 1 min.
  
• A gomboc has 1 max and 2 mins (and lots of other interesting and much lauded properties, described and discussed various places, including this thread, which introduced them to me a few months ago)
  
• You can make a simple machine with as many maximum and minimums as you want via a rolling wheel with dents and bumps deforming the usual perfect circle. For example, this one
  
  has 1 or 2 maximums, depending on starting KE, and 2 minimums.
  

I’m not sure how many and Aemilius’s machine has, but it must have them, and be, on this level of analysis, equivalent to some “deformed rolling wheel”

 

When the analysis is expanded to include not just GPE but kinetic energy, differences between a deformed rolling wheel and Aemilius’s machine appear. But, to describe machine that are equivalently static “balanced systems” this GPE-only first level of analysis is sufficient.

 

Back to an earlier point in the thread, let’s not lose sight of the central contention of the thread from that point on: that Aemilius’s machine is in some physically real sense “commutating” or “modulating” the force of gravity on its various parts.

 

I don’t find it necessary to explicitly describe the physics of the machine, or find simpler models of it (though I find this helpful for visualization), to show that this isn’t happening. (There are some other really good reasons to be suspicious of the idea that the gravitational force can deviate in such a dramatic way from the laws of General Relativity of its classical approximation, Newton’s universal gravitation, but these needn’t be brought up here). Rather, I think the “gravity demystifying” though experiment I described at the end of post #87, which seeks to show that any energy storing mechanism, gravity or other, could be used in Aemilius’s machine, does.

[Guest Aemilius]

CraigD "There’s a famous (at least among the like of Lawrence Krause and other science popularizers and enthusiasts) joke...."

 

That joke was hilarious!

 

CraigD "....physics is largely the art of simplification, reducing complicated, difficult to analyze (formally or informally) systems to simpler, easier ones, while keeping the two well-correlated enough that the analysis applies well to both."

 

Understood.

 

CraigD "As I read it, the trouble is that you’re finding these simplifications insufficiently close – you feel they’ve failed to remain correlated to your actual machine...."

 

Exactly, and as the thread progressed, all I could see coming down the pike was more analogies, debate and argument with no clear consensus or agreement in sight.... very frustrating.

 

CraigD "....which despite its small number of parts, is pretty complicated (without the diagram I begged in my last post, I’m still unsure I could build one myself).

 

Right. I would have posted the plans for you here, but there aren't any. Just like the drawing (The Temple), there were no preliminary sketches, no actual measurements were made.... I just built it based on a visualization (there was some trial and error, like forming the spring eleven times before finally getting the calibration right).

 

CraigD "Let’s look again – or perhaps for the first time, explicitly – at an essential (and terse) definition of a “weight driven mechanism” (let’s use “weight” instead of “gravity”, as the former is an actual force, rather than a field equation, and doesn’t have a lot of weird pseudoscientific baggage)...."

 

I think that may be the key to future discussion....

 

CraigD "I don't find it necessary to explicitly describe the physics of the machine, or find simpler models of it (though I find this helpful for visualization), to show that this isn't happening. (There are some other really good reasons to be suspicious of the idea that the gravitational force can deviate in such a dramatic way from the laws of General Relativity...."

 

I completely understand your (and everyone elses) suspicions, but I'd like to be positive. I'm trying to refine a simple format now for future discussion that I hope will accomplish that.

 

Emile

Edited July 30, 2012 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

CraigD "....physics is largely the art of simplification, reducing complicated, difficult to analyze (formally or informally) systems to simpler, easier ones, while keeping the two well-correlated enough that the analysis applies well to both."

 

How about a simplified form of vector analysis? It seems suited to the task, doesn't require any great expenditure of time or effort to confirm or deny, and will allow the discussion to move forward step by step with no need for the use of analogy. The length of a line will represent the magnitude of a force and the arrow will represent its direction. I'm pretty sure (remember this is all new to me) I can use it to describe everything about how the mechanism balances and also to show why it begins to rotate when slightly tilted this way or that.

 

Before I get started though I'll just test the water here first by seeing whether or not this "vocabulary" makes sense to you (Turtle, JMJones0424 and CraigD) by making a number of (static) schematic "statements" to determine if you find them sufficiently descriptive to continue.... If not, just tell me what needs to be changed or added as time permits.

 

Emile

 

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2012 by Aemilius

[Turtle]

...

How about a simplified form of vector analysis? It seems suited to the task, doesn't require any great expenditure of time or effort to confirm or deny, and will allow the discussion to move forward step by step with no need for the use of analogy. The length of a line will represent the magnitude of a force and the arrow will represent its direction. I'm pretty sure (remember this is all new to me) I can use it to describe everything about how the mechanism balances and also to show why it begins to rotate when slightly tilted this way or that.

 

Before I get started though I'll just test the water here first by seeing whether or not this "vocabulary" makes sense to you (Turtle, JMJones0424 and CraigD) by making a number of (static) schematic "statements" to determine if you find them sufficiently descriptive to continue.... If not, just tell me what needs to be changed or added as time permits.

 

Emile

 

 

 

i see a potential problem in the upper of the 2 drawings above. it may be construed to imply that the total force is the sum of all 3 arrows, B + A + B, which would be mistaken. if you mean to show the total force is A (the mass/weight of the bar & ball), and that when A is supported on 2 points the force on each point is 1/2 A = B, then i agree and have no other problem with the drawing(s) so far.

[Guest Aemilius]

Hey Turtle....

 

Turtle "if you mean to show the total force is A (the mass/weight of the bar & ball), and that when A is supported on 2 points the force on each point is 1/2 A = B, then i agree and have no other problem with the drawing(s) so far"

 

You got it right Turtle, in all the drawings A was meant to show the total mass/weight of the ball, and B in all the drawings was meant to show the force(s) exerted by the mass/weight A. The mass/weight of any bar(s) in all the drawings was considered to be negligible (in this case) for the sake of simplicity in establishing a common frame of reference.

 

So, now, it seems we've established a common frame of reference which is as clearly understandable from the empirical standpoint as it is from the mathematical standpoint.... we've bridged the gap and can now have a conversation.

 

My plan is to start making one statement at a time (order yet to be determined) that we can either agree upon immediately or discuss until we do, which, in view of the inherent simplicity of this form of analysis shouldn't take very long. Then I'll move on to the next statement and so on until the analysis is complete and we can evaluate the results.

 

Of course, anyone is welcome to comment, but after I make each statement I'll be particularly looking for any response from one, two or all three of you (CraigD, Turtle or JMJones0424) before moving on to the next statement.

 

I'll start planning the sequence of the statements to be made and how best to present them now that I know we're speaking the same language.

 

Fairly involved, might take a day or three.... Emile

Edited August 9, 2012 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

ERROR.... I'M HAVING TROUBLE POSTING, MY "AVATAR" PICTURE AND SOME ICONS ARE NOT DISPLAYING, AND THE "REPUTATION" BAR IS DISPLAYING IN THE MIDDLE OF POSTS ACROSS IMAGES AND TEXT INSTEAD OF AT THE BOTTOM.... IS ANYONE ELSE HAVING TROUBLE?

 

EDITED TO ADD - ERROR CORRECTED

Edited August 2, 2012 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

My thinking is that before discussing what is happening, I'll need to show difinitively what isn't happening. Earlier it was suggested....

 

JMJones0424 "Take a bicycle and flip it upside down so that the front wheel spins freely. Place a weight on the wheel so that it is imbalanced. Rotate the wheel so that the weight is nearly at the top. If you give the wheel a slight nudge, since the center of gravity is off of the axle of the wheel, the wheel will rotate so that the weight goes down towards the ground. Inertia will carry the weight almost back up to the top, but not quite. A slight amount of force is needed to carry the weight over the balancing point to begin a second rotation."

 

So, before I continue there are a couple of questions....

 

If I can illustrate how/why the mechanism balances out at any point around 360 degrees, wouldn't that be the equivalent of demonstrating that it's actually more like a balanced wheel with no imbalancing weight placed on it?

 

Additionally, wouldn't it also show at the same time that, like a balanced wheel with no imbalancing weight placed on it, the sum of all forces acting on the mechanism equals zero (unless acted on by an outside force) since it balances out at any point around 360 degrees?

Edited August 5, 2012 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

CraigD "Even without knowing exactly how it moves, I know the machine that’s picture you’ve posted shares the defining quality of all weight-driven motors: it begins with a greater net gravitational potential energy (in your machine’s case, I’m guessing the weighted bits on the ends of the rods begin at their maximum height), performs some mechanical work (stirring air, making sound, slightly heating various parts), then ends with lower net GPE (the weighted bits at their lowest height). This is essentially the same as a simple pendulum."

 

JMJones0424 "Take a bicycle and flip it upside down so that the front wheel spins freely. Place a weight on the wheel so that it is imbalanced. Rotate the wheel so that the weight is nearly at the top. If you give the wheel a slight nudge, since the center of gravity is off of the axle of the wheel, the wheel will rotate so that the weight goes down towards the ground. Inertia will carry the weight almost back up to the top, but not quite. A slight amount of force is needed to carry the weight over the balancing point to begin a second rotation.

 

CraigD "....I think you’re suffering from some serious misconception about physics that have lead you to a confused, perhaps pleasantly, but still, IMHO, not a good state to be in, conception of physical reality, where you see your machine as in some way demonstrating a mechanical phenomenon significantly different than, say, a clock pendulum, or the imbalanced upturned bicycle wheel JMJones describes here when, in conventional scientific terms, it isn’t."

 

Well, as I said before, I posted those stills (on page four) thinking they more than adequately illustrated how the mechanism is balanced, not imbalanced, but that was completely ignored in favor of continued conjectural analgous comparisons of it to various kinds of imbalanced systems, and the general rubberstamping of the whole thing as implausible with a few equations based on those analogies.

 

So here goes....

 

The first stage of the analysis will show how and why the mechanism balances, and why it does not resemble a Gomboc, a bicycle wheel with a weight placed on it, a simple pendulum or any other imbalanced system. It will show that, like a balanced wheel, no potential energy is or can be stored in the system because the sum of all the forces acting on it at any point around 360 degrees is zero.

 

The second stage of the analysis will show the function of the spring and why it's necessary.

 

The third stage of the analysis will show how and why the balanced system becomes imbalanced in response to a slight change in it's condition (overcoming only internal friction), resulting in relatively forceful rotation.

 

Lots of drawing to do, might take another day or two.... Emile

Edited August 8, 2012 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

STAGE ONE

 

This stage of the analysis shows how the mechanism is balanced, and why it doesn't resemble a Gomboc, a bicycle wheel with a weight placed on it, a simple pendulum or any other imbalanced system. It shows that the mechanism actually resembles a balanced wheel in that no potential energy is or can be stored in the system due to its position since the sum of all forces acting on it at any point around 360 degrees is zero.

 

FIG. 1 - Schematic representation of the Chassis.

 

FIG. 2 - The Chassis is fixed in this schematic. The Planet Sprocket with its attached Pendulum is free to rotate. The diagram shows the downward force A of the Pendulum and the resulting force B on the Planet Sprocket.

 

FIG. 3 - The Sun Sprocket is fixed in this schematic. The Chassis and the Planet Sprocket are free to rotate. The diagram shows the downward force D of the planet sprocket. The force C on the Planet Sprocket is the result of the force D after the force E from the oppositely situated Counter Weight (fixed to the chassis) is subtracted, or.... D minus E equals C.

 

FIG. 4 - The Sun Sprocket is fixed in this schematic. The Planet Sprocket with its attached Pendulum and the Chassis are free to rotate. The equal and opposite forces B and C acting on the Planet Sprocket effectively cancel each other out and equilibrious balance F is the result.

 

 

The Sun Sprocket is fixed in the following series of schematic diagrams. They show how the mechanism remains in equilibrium regardless of position through one complete cycle at various points around 360 degrees.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's a balanced mechanism.... Emile

Edited August 11, 2012 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

STAGE TWO

 

This stage of the analysis will illustrate the function of the Calibrated Spring. The Planet Sprocket with its attached Pendulum, the Chassis and the Sun Sprocket (with the Control Lever that's fixed to the same axel) are all free to rotate in the following schematic diagrams.

 

FIG. 5 - This diagram shows the downward force D on the Planet Sprocket. The force H on the Sun Sprocket is the result of the force D, and the force I on the Control Lever is the result of the force H. The mechanism is not balanced or in equilibrium in this diagram because there is no equal and opposite force to counter the force I.

 

 

FIG. 6 - The Calibrated Spring is mounted on the back of the mechanism (depicted to the right in the diagram). The lower end X is fixed to the stand the mechanism is mounted on. The upper end Y is connected to the Control Lever. The diagram shows how the equal and opposite forces I and J effectively cancel each other out and equilibrious balance Q is the result, or.... I minus J equals Q. The mechanism is in equilibrium, the sum of all forces acting on it is zero.

 

 

The following series of schematic diagrams show how the mechanism remains in equilibrium regardless of position through one complete cycle, and how the Calibrated Spring provides the varying equal and opposite force J needed to match the varying force I that the mechanisms changing mass/weight distribution exerts on the Control Lever at various points around 360 degrees, keeping the mechanism balanced, maintaining equilibrium.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 29, 2012 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

I'm very close now, about a day, to being ready to begin stage three of the analysis (things have been a little hectic around here). I've a much clearer idea of what you were talking about now CraigD when you said, in an earlier post, something to the effect that it's more complicated than it appears in spite of the small number of moving parts! If you wouldn't mind, I'd appreciate it if you could "split off" posts #99, #100, #101 and #102 to create another thread titled "High Performance Double Pendulum" just as you did with "Avalanche drive" in the interest of maintaining the continuity of this thread (and even erase this post afterwards if you'd like, whatever you think).... Emile

Moderation note: As requested, these posts have been moved to a new thread, High Performance Double Pendulum

Edited October 5, 2012 by CraigD

[Chewbalka]

Newton's cradle

 

Took a long time trying to remember what it was called lol

 

I can't upload a picture have not figured out how on the ipad lol

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_cradle

 

But i am sure this link will work!

 

Its funny as i was watching your youtube video i was thinking a lever action which would keep the spring out of the picture...

 

A small outwards ramp like notch on the inside wall of the main gears section ( some rebalancing afterwards)

A locked in arm with a sideways teeter mounted behind which pushes the arm your hand does

The teeters activated by the ramp notch pushing a rod towards the teeter not sure if it would work it moves so damn fast lol

Edited October 1, 2012 by Chewbalka

[Guest Aemilius]

Hi Chewbalka....

 

Chewbalka "Newton's cradle

 

Took a long time trying to remember what it was called lol"

 

It reminds you of Newtons Cradle? That's a new one! Over the years people have told me it reminded them of various things like a clock or metronome.... some favorites.... a Russian dancer (you know, when they squat with their arms crossed and kick out to one side and then the other).... I mentioned earlier a policeman stopped me once because he thought it might be some kind of firing mechanism (like a Gatling gun).... there was even one guy who thought it looked like part of a UFO!

 

Chewbalka "Its funny as i was watching your youtube video i was thinking a lever action which would keep the spring out of the picture... "

 

There seems to be an almost universal contempt for springs.... not sure why. The function of the Calibrated Spring is to maintian equilibrium during rotation, and it accomplishes that perfectly. As the mechanism rotates the spring cancels out the varying force the mechanism as a whole exerts on the Control Lever as all the weight continues shifting back and forth from one side to the other. The result is just like I said in an earlier post.... if you stand a pencil on end and move it back and forth (holding it at the top) you'll be feeling the same thing I feel when manipulating the Control Lever during testing.... almost nothing at all.

 

Chewbalka "A small outwards ramp like notch on the inside wall of the main gears section ( some rebalancing afterwards)

A locked in arm with a sideways teeter mounted behind which pushes the arm your hand does

The teeters activated by the ramp notch pushing a rod towards the teeter not sure if it would work it moves so damn fast lol"

 

Hand made ratchet arrangements, sliding counterweights, various linkages, pulleys, catch and release arrangements, even tiny hand made shock absorbers.... I've exprimented with them all separately and in combination over the years's (actually a lot of fun). The problem I kept running into though is that when rotating, it doesn't respond well to any sudden changes.... any changes being made as it's rotating must be introduced relatively smoothly or it's motion becomes jerky or lurching. I have a solution (installed on this model). I'll go into that after Stage Three of the analysis. As far as looking into getting the mechanism itself to perform the periodic imbalancing action I currently perform by hand (not perpetual motion, more a self sustaining reaction), I'll explain where I'm headed with that too.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

STAGE THREE

This stage of the analysis will show the four possible positions of equilibrium (two stable, two un-stable) and how the mechanism can become unstable and begin to rotate uniformly in response to even a slight change of condition. The Planet Sprocket with its attached Pendulum, the Chassis and the Sun Sprocket are all free to rotate in the following series of schematic diagrams (the Calibrated Spring and Control Lever are not shown).

 

The diagram below shows the mechanism in the first possible position of un-stable equilibrium. The Pendulum is inverted, the Planet Sprocket below....

degree of tilt P is zero degrees.

 

 

If the Sun Sprocket is rotated N degrees from P the mechanisms parts will seek to move in the directions indicated by M (degree of tilt required is exagerated) as shown....

 

Tilt to the left....

 

 

....and the mechanism will seek the first possible position of stable equilibrium F.

 

 

Tilt to the right....

 

 

....and the mechanism will seek the second possible position of stable equilibrium F.

 

 

The diagram below shows the mechanism in the second possible position of un-stable equilibrium. The Pendulum is hanging normally, the Planet Sprocket above.... degree of tilt P is zero degrees.

 

 

If the Sun Sprocket is rotated N degrees from P, the mechanisms parts will seek to move in the directions indicated by M (degree of tilt required is exagerated) as shown....

 

Tilt to the left....

 

 

....and the mechanism will seek the first possible position of stable equilibrium F.

 

 

Tilt to the right....

 

 

....and the mechanism will seek the second possible position of stable equilibrium F.

 

 

"Moderation note: As requested, these posts have been moved to a new thread, High Performance Double Pendulum"

 

Thanks CraigD.... Emile

Edited October 11, 2012 by Aemilius

[Guest Aemilius]

No replies? Does this mean there are no objections up to this point?

Edited October 8, 2012 by Aemilius