• Welcome to engineeringclicks.com
  • Holy Grail of Mechanical Design?

    Discussion in 'The Leisure Lounge' started by Paul T, Oct 21, 2012.

    1. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      Hi everyone, been pondering things a while and getting settled in my new home.

      I'm ready to make my next move now.

      Here is what I am getting quoted for tomorrow:

      [​IMG]

      A few minor changes..... the quote will be for two pendulums initially but switching to steel arms that fix to the shaft with a grub screw or a better way?

      I could save cost by using the one way bearings I already have and getting the housings machined from steel with holes be bolted onto the flywheels.

      What would be the lowest friction guide rollers to use please?

      Is the piece that slides over the shafts available from McMaster Carr?

      The magnet assemblies will be made from aluminum.


      Me and the fabricators did some experiments with steel assemblies... The magnetism proved very difficult to control.



      This will be the first proof of concept that will work after initial push.

      I plan to open source it virally.

      What do you reckon?

      Best regards,

      Paul
       
    2.  
    3. maniacal_engineer

      maniacal_engineer Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2009
      Posts:
      137
      Likes Received:
      0
      The yellow rollers that run on the cam and reset the arms are just standard roller bearing cam followers. Get ones that aren't sealed, or take the seals out of them, to get low rolling friction. In this model the McMaster parts have their Mcmaster part numbers as their file names in the zip file I sent before

      define a machine. devise a definitive test for that machine. run the test. live with the results.

      perpetual motion, especially from a gravity machine, is a fools errand and it will suck all your money and leave you with nothing. You are better off trying to predict lottery numbers. The odds of winning the lottery are zero, the odds of a gravity powered perpetual motion machine are also zero. The first one is zero to 8 significant digits. the second one is identically zero.
       
    4. Dave Archer

      Dave Archer Active Member

      Joined:
      Jun 2014
      Posts:
      26
      Likes Received:
      0
      The sudden heavy inertia forces will bend and twist those flimsy brown slotted strips, and they will not slide along that grey
      slider bar very well.
      The whole contraption will just jam up.
       
    5. maniacal_engineer

      maniacal_engineer Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2009
      Posts:
      137
      Likes Received:
      0
      probably.

      yes the brown parts should be stronger. the loads will very depending on the shape of the cam and the speed at which it is turning. but this is a proof of concept model, so at a slow speed the loads will be small. Its a schematic, not an actual detailed design. the point is that with the adjustability this mechanism can implement any gravity/ overweight type wheel, and so it is a testbed to prove whether or not such a machine can be made to work
       
    6. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      Hi, here is a sneak preview before I release the new video.

      [​IMG]

      Just went through my prototype videos.

      Here is what I see.

      Prototype 1 spins for 12 seconds.... hardly any torque to stop it.
      Prototype 2 spins for 60 seconds.....quite a bit more torque.
      Prototype 3 was another breed... still not explained where I was going with that. Will revisit later.
      Prototype 4 spins for 2 minutes and has more torque than previous prototypes.

      I will call the latest one Prototype 5, even though there were a few changes during this one.
      Prototype 5 spins for over 3 minutes and has a lot more torque than all previous prototypes.

      The reason I believe this will work is because it takes less energy to push a pendulum on Prototype 5 to get a high torque.

      For example, today I went to the new engineering company that has 5 axis milling machine and CNC lathes.

      I was pushing the pendulums with two fingers and two men couldn't stop the main shaft.

      Were my two fingers stronger than two men?



      I thought you said it was a near frictionless design? Sounds like it needs beefing up quite a bit for the 11kg weights I have?..... I believe your design with 6 pendulums would have less friction that doing it with 2 big pendulums? Do you agree on that?

      When I went to the new engineering company today. The boss and one of the machinists were blown away!!!! They need dimensions and CAD drawings before we can move forward.


      Maybe I should just listen to the inventor and not have any cam mechanism. The discovery of the inventor with the kicker wheel is that the kicker wheel was not needed. The inventor said it was because most of the energy was coming from the inertia...... I'm guessing this won't sit right with all you university educated folks.

      So, instead I should perhaps have more pendulums to obtain a higher frequency of off balance. After all the inventor claims that his latest shown device continued running from the gravity, centrifugal force, leverage and inertia combination without the motor connected.

      Also Prototype 2 span a lot faster. I believe it was because the diameter was 450mm instead of 800mm. If I add another two pendulums the speed will increase by a factor. If instead I have 8 pendulums, 45 degrees apart. The speed should increase by a much higher factor. Maybe this will be enough to prove what the inventor claims perhaps.



      If a weight is in motion it needs less energy to increase its speed than if it was already stationary. I feel this is key to how this device amplifies any input. After all it is a giant rotating lever.

      Best regards,

      Paul
       
      Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2016
    7. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      Back to one of the inventors old videos before I release my latest.

       
      Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2016
    8. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      Thanks for that, much appreciated.


      It is not running from gravity alone.....I think that is impossible.
       
    9. Dave Archer

      Dave Archer Active Member

      Joined:
      Jun 2014
      Posts:
      26
      Likes Received:
      0
      .

      You don't need clunky cams and rollers to control the position of the weights.

      You can use stepper motors to keep the position of the weights in relation to the wheel at all times.
      A nice smooth action without crashing cams into a guide.


      See this for an example >>>

      Watch 720p at full screen

      Read the description in the video text box.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-2hPWhJQ_k&feature=youtu.be


      dave
       
    10. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      Thanks for that Dave. What a refreshing change :)

      The next becomes the best way to deliver the power to those stepper motors.

      I believe slip rings is the only way.

      Here is the inventors version of what you suggest:




      From 3 o'clock to 10 o'clock the version I have built allows gravity and centrifugal force to lever the pendulum.

      With a flick of a stepper motor it would be using very little input power as from around 10 o'clock the pendulum wants to swing out on its own. As it would already be in motion the input power would be minimal.


      The inventor started off with a similar design to what you present.

      What sort of current draw / voltage do these stepper motors utilise?

      Many thanks,

      Paul
       
      Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2016
    11. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      These were experiments that follow a similar track:

       
      Last edited by a moderator: Jun 17, 2016

    Share This Page

    1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
      Dismiss Notice