Chewbalka Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) "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...." How does the arm i am assuming rotate to the left? If small sprocket rotates "M" in the direction shown would that not also mean that the sun sprocket would also turn in the same direction at a slower pace causing the arm to move in the same direction? I know this works i have seen your video but i am still unsure how this is possible. Basically i do not know how you reversed the direction of the sun sprocket. I would require a 3D diagram to replicate the idea in my head. Sorry if this annoys you i am trying my best here to help but i just can not get this running in my head the way its supposed to work. I need that to understand things lol sorry. Edited October 8, 2012 by Chewbalka Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbalka Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 I think i just figured it out lol sun sprocket does not move lol! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted October 8, 2012 Report Share Posted October 8, 2012 (edited) Hey Chewbalka.... Chewbalka "Sorry if this annoys you...." No worries, I really appreciate your interest. Chewbalka "I think i just figured it out lol sun sprocket does not move lol!" You're close, the Sun Sprocket does move back and forth, but only a little. The Sun Sprocket is fixed to the same axle as the Control Lever.... The Sun Sprocket, the Axle it's mounted on and the Control Lever are essentially one piece. When I move the Control Lever several degrees (N degrees from P) that rotates the Sun Sprocket several degrees in the same direction and the whole thing begins to rotate. Edited October 14, 2012 by Aemilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbalka Posted October 9, 2012 Report Share Posted October 9, 2012 Ahh its all coming together now lol so now all thats left is make it perpetual lol... Seems simple enough... Lol or not i am sure your on the right track man! Maybe put two springs that look like the ones in the old thermo switches... You know what i mean right? The ones that can wind up when the mechanism reaches i think it was called position F releases and pushes the other way where the other spring does the work for the other way... I can explain better if need be lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted October 13, 2012 Report Share Posted October 13, 2012 (edited) Well, I've now completed three stages of the analysis without objection.... STAGE ONE - BALANCESTAGE TWO - COMPENSATIONSTAGE THREE - EQUILIBRIUM Coming up (more may be added).... STAGE FOUR - SYCHRONIZATION STAGE FIVE - TIMING STAGE SIX - ACCELERATION STAGE SEVEN - FORCE STAGE EIGHT - SCALE Depending on how all that goes and the outcome of several more experiments (forming and fitting parts), I'll follow with.... SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS POSSIBLE APPLICATIONS I'm going to take a week or so off from this.... so since there's been no agreement of disagreement since the beginning of the analysis, I'll just post a summary here of what I believe has been shown up to this point.... A uniquely balanced experimental mechanical arrangement, the Mechanism's motion is pendulous, but unlike a simple pendulum which has two possible positions of equilibrium (stable when hanging and un-stable when inverted), this Pendulum, because of the way it's balanced, actually has four possible positions of equilibrium.... two un-stable positions alligned with the force of gravity (hanging or inverted vertically).... and two stable positions perpendicular to the force of gravity (positioned to either side horizontally). The gravitational force itself is not switched or turned on and off, the influence that gravity has on the Mechanism is changed by changing the Mechanism's condition. I'm getting the Mechanism to rotate by periodically changing its condition. The Control Lever at the rear (connected to the Calibrated Spring) is the part that's periodically moved back and forth (3 to 5 degrees approx.) and is solid or fixed to the Main Axle (white) and Sun Sprocket (gold with white center) of the Planetary Chain and Sprocket arrangement. The Planet Sprocket (black, with the Pendulum that is fixed to it) is affected through the imbalancing action of the Sun Sprocket, transmitted to it by the Chain. There are a few differences that immediately come to mind when comparing this Mechanism to a conventional pendulum. This Pendulum.... 1. ....has been robbed of any natural periodicity normally associated with pendulous motion. In other words, it's rate of motion depends exclusively on the rate/frequency at which it is being periodically imbalanced. 2. ....unlike a simple pendulum which has two possible positions of equilibrium (one stable and one un-stable), this Mechanism actually has four possible positions of equilibrium (two stable and two un-stable). 3. ....does not swing back and forth in two directions like a simple pendulum with the well known accompanying periodic rise and fall of potential and kinetic energy levels as it begins, continues and ends each motional cycle. This Mechanism swings to one side, gaining kinetic energy as its potential energy diminishes, and then, by slightly changing the condition of the Mechanism at the appropriate time, it continues its swinging motion in the same direction to the other side without losing the kinetic energy it gained. I believe that's why it begins to rotate so quickly and forcefully. It's a pendulous Mechanism that rotates relatively forcefully at the first introduction of a relatively slight imbalancing force which is all that's necessary to begin, and then maintain an ongoing reaction to the un-changing or constant force of gravity. The magnitude of the imbalancing force that needs to be delivered to the system by means of the Control Lever in order to imbalance it is sensibly comparable in every way to standing a pencil on end, holding it at the top and moving it back and forth an inch or so (exactly what I feel during testing, almost nothing), a level of applied force that should be wholly insufficient to overcome the inertia of the relatively heavy Mechanism whether at rest or in motion, nor can it account for the immediate onset of rotation. The actual driving force needed to cause rotation of the Mechanism as a whole cannot be imparted to the Planet Sprocket by the Sun Sprocket via the Chain because the Sun Sprocket doesn't move in such a way as to be capable of imparting rotational motion to the Planet Sprocket, which leaves gravity as the only other driving force available to explain why it immediately begins to rotate in response to a slight imbalancing force delivered to the system by means of the Control Lever. It will rotate (start, speed up, slow down or speed up again) depending on the rate at which it's imbalanced. Whatever the rate of the imbalancing action is, the Mechanism will respond by rotating at the same rate. In other words, when initially imbalanced it begins to rotate. If the imbalancing action is being applied twenty times per minute, it will rotate at twenty revolutions per minute. If one then (while it's rotating twenty revolutions per minute) increases the rate of the applied imbalancing action from twenty times per minute to forty, it will, after a very slight delay, be rotating at forty revolutions per minute. While rotating at forty revolutions per minute, if one slows the rate of the applied imbalancing action back down to twenty per mimute, again, after a very slight delay, it will be rotating at twenty revolutions per minute. Analysis will continue as new ideas are formed and new parts are fitted. As far as looking into getting the mechanism itself to perform the periodic imbalancing action (a self sustaining reaction) I currently perform manually, I'll start going into that in the next stage of the analysis, "Stage Four".... I'll also be making more videos to augment the illustrations. Edited October 14, 2012 by Aemilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) I'm very close now, about a day, to being ready to begin "Stage Four - Timing" of the analysis. From now on after completing each stage of the analysis I'll repeat this summary, updated to include the latest completed stage of the analysis along with any objections and whether or not they were resolved so that people viewing the thread for the first time can see the status to date without having to read the whole thread from the beginning. There are no unresolved objections up to this point.... Using vectors, the diagram (below) illustrates both the direction and magnitude of the various forces arising from the various moving parts of the mechanism individually and shows (FIG. 4) how they ultimately cancel each other out. FIG. 1 - Schematic representation of the Chassis. FIG. 2 - The Chassis is fixed in this schematic. 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. A series of schematic diagrams (below) show how the equal and opposite forces B and C cancel each other out at various points around 360 degrees (the sun sprocket is fixed for this part of the analysis), presented here as an animation.... In order to render the mechanism purturbable the sun sprocket must be free to move. When it's free to move the mechanism's equilbrium (which was stable at all points around 360 degrees when the sun sprocket was fixed) can be purturbed via the chain by a slight change in the position of the sun sprocket by means of the control lever, which is fixed to the same axle as the sun sprocket. This is also the condition in which four distinct positions of equlibrium emerge. I found a video of an older model (balanced the very same way as the current model) that clearly demonstrates the four possible positions of equilibrium that arise when the sun sprocked is freed to rotate (two stable and two un-stable), appearing in the same order as listed below the video. The video also shows how the mechanism can be caused to rotate as easily in one directon as the other.... 1. Pendulum horizontal to the left, stable equilibrium.... the mechanism can't be caused to rotate by the action of the control lever from this position. 2. Pendulum horizontal to the right, stable equilibrium.... the mechanism can't be caused to rotate by the action of the control lever from this position. 3. Pendulum down vertically, un-stable equilibrium.... the mechanism can be caused to rotate by the action of the control lever from this position. 4. Pendulum up vertically, un-stable equilibrium.... the mechanism can be caused to rotate by the action of the control lever from this position. This constitutes a perturbable form of balance that can result in immediate onset of rotation (in either direction), presented here as an animation.... A problem then arises as a direct result of the sun sprocket being freed to rotate for the purpose of perturbing the mechanism's equilibrium via the chain. The varying forces arising from changing mass distribution during rotation that was formerly transmitted directly to the stand when the sun sprocket was fixed now come to bear on the control lever instead. The diagram (below) 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. That's where the calibrated spring comes in.... it's mounted on the back of the Mechanism (depicted to the right in the diagram below). 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 (below) 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 a state of compensated equilibrium, the sum of all forces acting on the control lever is zero. I want to minimize the magnitude of the input force needed to perturb the system.... the calibrated spring variably compensates for and cancels out the varying force coming to bear on the control lever due to changing mass distribution. The sum of the equal and opposite forces I and J coming to bear on the control lever equals zero at all times during rotation as shown (below). This constitutes a compensatory form of balance. It reduces the input force needed to cause immediate onset of rotation to the level of that needed to overcome only frictional resistance, presented here as an animation.... Coming up.... Timing. Edited October 27, 2012 by Aemilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbalka Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 Brilliant!!! I can easily see how that will work but as you said timing will be a bit annoying lol and by timing meaning the right spring for the job lol too tight wont work too loose wont work... You got your hands full lol but i am sure you will get it! Can't wait to see it fully functioning! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 27, 2012 Report Share Posted October 27, 2012 (edited) Brilliant!!! I can easily see how that will work but as you said timing will be a bit annoying lol and by timing meaning the right spring for the job lol too tight wont work too loose wont work... You got your hands full lol but i am sure you will get it! Can't wait to see it fully functioning! to be clear, the mechanism is already built and "working". the problem i have -and the others if i may speak for them- is the claim the mechanism is "gravity driven". my contention is that gravity is not driving the mechanism, rather emile is driving the mechanism by moving the [imbalancing] lever. it does not matter how far or how easy he moves the lever, as levers are as levers do. see saw margery daw,jack shall have a new master;jack shall earn but a penny a day,because he can't work any faster. the diagrams and explantions notwithstanding, i still see the mechanism as nothing more than an escapement. a clever and unique escapement, but an escapement nonetheless. just my two cents of course. lol Edited October 27, 2012 by Turtle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbalka Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 I am guessing you are not acknowledging the springs used to prevent emile's hand from doing the work? I am quite aware that it was working previously to this post. But i thank you anyway for helping me out if i were not in the loop. I am not saying that its going to be simple to get the spring working properly! But it is not impossible... Just frustrating as hell to match perfectly lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 I am guessing you are not acknowledging the springs used to prevent emile's hand from doing the work? I am quite aware that it was working previously to this post. But i thank you anyway for helping me out if i were not in the loop. I am not saying that its going to be simple to get the spring working properly! But it is not impossible... Just frustrating as hell to match perfectly lol the spring notwithstanding, emile is doing the work. period. no emile and the mechanism stops. moreover, the spring is doing just what he intends it to do...perfectly matched to the mechanism after considerable trial & error by his own account. without equivocation, would you call this a gravity driven mechanism chewey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Turtle "The problem i have -and the others if i may speak for them- is the claim the mechanism is "gravity driven". My contention is that gravity is not driving the mechanism, rather emile is driving the mechanism by moving the [imbalancing] lever. it does not matter how far or how easy he moves the lever, as levers are as levers do." Recognizing that an objection has been raised, I won't continue with the analysis until it's been resolved. What I'll do is illustrate here the distinction I'm making between between what an imbalancing force consists of and what a driving force consists of to resolve the objection. Give me a couple of hours.... Emile Edited October 28, 2012 by Aemilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Turtle "The problem i have -and the others if i may speak for them- is the claim the mechanism is "gravity driven". My contention is that gravity is not driving the mechanism, rather emile is driving the mechanism by moving the [imbalancing] lever. it does not matter how far or how easy he moves the lever, as levers are as levers do." Recognizing that an objection has been raised, I won't continue with the analysis until it's been resolved. What I'll do is illustrate here the distinction I'm making between between what an imbalancing force consists of and what a driving force consists of to resolve the objection. Give me a couple of hours.... Emile roger emile. mind you this is the same objection i raised early on, and as we apparently could not even reach agreement on classifying locks as gravity driven mechanisms, you needn't bother stalling your current exposition on my account. if you think it will clarify things for craig et al, why go right ahead with your distinction of forces of course. if i may go slightly off-topic, i admire your mechanical ability and i have been thinking of you from time to time in regards a mechanism i attempted building & ultimately quit due to a bad attitude. anyway, i will send you a pm with a link and you can have a look or no and respond there or no if you care to comment or have a go yourself. thanks for your efforts here in any regard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbalka Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Turtle i admit the introduction of a spring will not be an easy task. And will probably wear down eventually over time and require another tedious attempt of re calibration. At the moment it is emile controling the device so it would not be gravity driven. But once the spring is in place and functioning it can be referred to as a gravity driven device. Or as you were putting it an escapement device... But i would lean more so to gravity due to the fact that at a guess 90% of all the created energy in the device is caused by the weights acting with gravity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Turtle i admit the introduction of a spring will not be an easy task. And will probably wear down eventually over time and require another tedious attempt of re calibration. At the moment it is emile controling the device so it would not be gravity driven. But once the spring is in place and functioning it can be referred to as a gravity driven device. Or as you were putting it an escapement device... But i would lean more so to gravity due to the fact that at a guess 90% of all the created energy in the device is caused by the weights acting with gravity. again...the spring is in place and it is working as emile intends in the constructed device as seen operating in his videos. you simply can't see the spring in every case because it is behind the sun gear assembly, which is why emile has done exploded drawings after the fact and posted the side-view image in post #108. i'll just be an observer on the discussion of "created" energy until or unless i have something to add. done & done. :lol: Edited October 28, 2012 by Turtle CraigD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aemilius Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 (edited) Turtle "To be clear, the mechanism is already built and "working"." I've been thinking about that, and I don't think one can really say that the mechanism is "working" or "not working" at this point.... only that it's testable. Turtle "The problem I have -and the others if I may speak for them- is the claim the mechanism is "gravity driven". My contention is that gravity is not driving the mechanism, rather Emile is driving the mechanism by moving the [imbalancing] lever." I'll try to better explain what I mean by that and the distnction I make between an imbalancing force and a driving force. With reference to the diagram below, look at the inverted pendulum at the top. It's in a state un-stable equilibrium, and if left balanced in that position it will remain just as it is, balanced.... but un-stable. If one touches the right side of the weight in the diagram with just enough force to overcome the inertia of the weight, moving it one degree, it will disturb the condition of balanced unstable equilibrium and the pendulum will begin to move to the left under the influence of gravity through the other four positions shown, settling (ultimately) in a position of stable equilibrium at the bottom. So to my mind there are two forces at play here.... the first is the imbalancing force that moves the weight one degree to the left, and the second is the force of gravity which takes over from there and causes the weight to move the other one hundred and seventy-nine degrees (ultimately) to a position of stable equilibrium at the bottom. So let me see now if I understand your take.... you seem to be saying that (open to correction) but for my having disturbed the balanced state of un-stable equilibrium the pendulum was in, the pendulum would not have moved and because of that I'm the driving force behind it's movement.... no matter what happens after the imbalancing action, that single touch on the right side of the weight is the driving force since nothing would have happened without it. Imbalancing the mechanism, imbalancing the inverted pendulum.... Am I close? Almost an hour later my brother was still laughing about that! Turtle "The diagrams and explantions notwithstanding, I still see the mechanism as nothing more than an escapement. A clever and unique escapement, but an escapement nonetheless." I can respect that (thanks for "clever and unique" part), anyone is free to call it whatever they want.... I've actually decided to just to continue calling it what I've always called it.... a balanced experimental mechanism. The diagrams and explanations notwithstanding? Just because you say so? Why, because you can't rebut them? I don't think so. Turtle "The spring notwithstanding, Emile is doing the work. Period." I agree with you.... to a point. In acting to imbalance the mechanism work is unquestionably being done by me, that's a fact. I disagree though that I'm doing all the work.... consider that the mechanism can't be imbalanced and won't rotate without the force of gravity. If I was doing all the work, it would rotate whether there was gravity or not the same way a coffee grinder mechanism would rotate without the force of gravity if one turned the crank. Even with gravity, when the mechanism is laid on it's back the effect disappears completely. Turtle "No Emile and the mechanism stops." That's true.... It always seems like you expect it to run itself. I guess the object of this all along has really been to see how much work can be done for the least amount of input (I wouldn't mind achieving self rotation though). At this point I have a mechanism weighing about a pound that can go from zero to a hundred rotations per minute after just five to seven repetitions moving a lever back and forth two and a half to three and a half degrees each way from the vertical, and the sum of all the forces on the lever during all this is.... zero. Turtle "Moreover, the spring is doing just what he intends it to do...perfectly matched to the mechanism after considerable trial & error by his own account." That's right, the calibrated spring is why (clearly shown by vector analysis) the force on the control lever remains at zero during rotation even as the mechanism is being imbalanced. Turtle "Mind you this is the same objection I raised early on...." Right, but at that time we hadn't yet agreed on a mutually understandable "vocabulary" we could use. My vector analysis backs up my contention that gravity plays a significant part in this and shows what's happening and why, but for some reason you're not using it (vectors) to rebut my conclusions, which renders your current objections as weightless as your previous objections.... nothing more than subjective opinion. The fact is that not one calculation from that blog (so far) has been rebutted by you or anyone else on forums or by email. Why not?You're welcome to continue voicing your opinion as often as like but don't fool yourself or think you're fooling anyone else into thinking it constitutes any kind of rebuttal because it doesn't. Turtle "I'll just be an observer on the discussion of "created" energy until or unless i have something to add. done & done." Yeah right, since you haven't been able to disprove anything using any kind of logical analysis similar to what we talked about earlier, that's probably a good idea. Emile Edited October 28, 2012 by Aemilius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 Turtle "To be clear, the mechanism is already built and "working"." I've been thinking about that, and I don't think one can really say that the mechanism is "working" or "not working" at this point.... only that it's testable....Yeah right, since you haven't been able to disprove anything using any kind of logical analysis similar to what we talked about earlier, that's probably a good idea. Emile i am bemused that you neg-repped my last post, as all-in-all i was simply correcting chewy's misunderstanding that the spring was not already in your device and doing what you intend. while i have proved nothing regarding the "nature" of the device, neither have you. (not that it is at all clear what you mean to prove.) testable, operating, working, whatever; the device is built. as it is your device, the onus is on you to characterize it in terms agreeable and per se understandable to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chewbalka Posted October 28, 2012 Report Share Posted October 28, 2012 I was under the influence that emile was attempting to make this device capable of self functioning... What i saw was a device that had a pivoting spring mech that would cause a pull and push for the arms normally controlled by emiles hand... Apparently i am out of the loop on this topic lol... You were right the first time turtle... My bad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.