The Cole Mechanism

[Aemilius]

Hello everyone....

An Exploratory Research Mechanism



Comments/Discussion welcome here... and at emile@anglamarke.com for non-members.



Uninterupted analysis and video at THE COLE MECHANISM

[Aemilius]

A uniquely balanced 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 (even the Chain rotates).

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 (respectively) 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.

This is a pendulous Mechanism that rotates relatively forcefully at the first introduction of even a very slight imbalancing, or "trigger" force which is all that's necessary to begin, and then maintain, an ongoing reaction to the un-changing gravitational field.

The magnitude of the very slight imbalancing force delivered to the system by means of the Control Lever 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. When the imbalancing action is removed, it simply comes to a stop.

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.

I would have posted the plans here, but there aren't any. There were no preliminary sketches, no actual measurements were made.... I just built it based on a visualization (there was lots of trial and error, for example forming the spring eleven times before finally getting the calibration right).

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 (self sustaining reaction) I currently perform by hand, I'll start going into that in the next stage of the analysis, "Stage Four".

Emile

[Aemilius]

I was just thinking....

Commission members of the Serbian Academy of Inventors and Scientists “....the oscillations are more efficient than rotation and therefore the possible invention, currently when used in stationary machines (pumps, compressors, power generators, etc.), is more important than the wheel, can be fully acknowledged."

Well, that may be an accurate statement in a narrow sense as far as the Milkovic arrangement is concerned, but to generate real power you've got to have speed. The elepahant in the room here is that the Milkovic arrangement is inherently slow.... in other words it's limited to a working speed that corresponds to the natural periodicity of the pendulum being employed. Another problem with it is that as it's sized up its motion will become even more slow and lumbering. My machine has no such restrictions.... it can go from a dead stop to rotating at 100 rotations per minute after just five or six well timed repetitions of a relatively small (3 to 5 degrees) back and forth imbalancing action performed on the Control Lever.

Video "The World of Pendulum Power"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Do_dTI_Ow

I watched the video.... Computer animations are always a red flag for me as a builder, there are millions of "working Bessler Wheel" animations and we all know how that turned out. The video actually helps prove my point though.... the first generator shown with the swinging pendulum clearly moves too slowly to generate any kind of useful voltage or current, and the next one shown, the one with the "hammer" swinging around 360 degrees also obviously moves too slowly to be considered as a practical machine when it comes to power generation. None of the arrangements shown can be either speeded up or sized up which is a brick wall across the road to viability. The sized up pendulum in the oil pumping arrangement amply illustrates how the motion becomes even slower and more lumbering when attempting to size up the arrangement. The pump application seems plausible enough, since speed is not a factor in the application.

Similarities between our machines....

1. Both the Milkovic Two-Stage Oscillator and The Cole Mechanism employ pendulous motion.

2. Both the Milkovic Two-Stage Oscillator and The Cole Mechanism require relatively little input of energy.

Differences between our machines....

1. The Milkovic Two-Stage Oscillator cannot be speeded up because it's limited to a working speed that corresponds to the natural periodicity of the pendulum being employed.... The Cole Mechanism can be speeded up because it isn't limited by the natural periodicity of the pendulum being employed.

2. The Milkovic Two-Stage Oscillator cannot be sized up without becoming slow and lumbering.... The Cole Mechanism can be sized up without losing the important element of speed that a practical machine needs to be effective.

There are other differences too, but I think those are two of the most significant.... Emile

[Aemilius]

Uninterupted Analysis at....
http://thecolemechanism.blogspot.com/

Range of Motion Video (profile)....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_vF3...layer_embedded

Range of Motion Video (front)....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=E7CEwnOFnCk

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 at this time....

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....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OoF3zUu8G9s]Images

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 inertia and frictional resistance, presented here as an animation....

[Tom C]

so exactly what are you trying to do? are you planning on a prime mover of some type? what is the ultimate goal of your device? seems to be speed? the 2 stage oscillator is not about speed it is about mechanical force compounding to do work.

Tom C

[Aemilius]

Hi there Tom C (nice to meet you)....

What I'm aiming for (and have actually achieved) is the engineering of a mechanism that rotates immediately, forcefully and rapidly in response to an introduced imbalancing force that is as small as possible. It's about speed and power. It's not complete yet, but if I find that the rotational force arising from the influence of gravity on the mechanism as a result of being imbalanced is greater than the force needed to imbalance it (which at this point consists of overcoming only negligible inertial and frictional resistance) I will attempt self rotation. Given the long history of failure to achieve that I'm not confident it's possible, but I won't allow that to stop me from trying. Barring that, I have ideas for other applications too.... I'm just not there yet.

Emile

[Tom C]

it seems when you add the spring to the equasion your net energy input VS output becomes zero? the principle of gear ratios comes into play here with the planetary gear being at 2 to 1 I do understand this. also I see the spring as additive when the weights rotate down and destructive when they rotate upwards. it appears the mechanism needs to compress the spring which would lead to a net loss of energy.

Tom C

[Aaron Murakami]

the rotational force arising from the influence of gravity on the mechanism as a result of being imbalanced is greater than the force needed to imbalance it

If that is the case and you have 4 points of equilibrium in the rotation, then I think you are on to something big. I hope you succeed with your project.

I'm not sure about a spring but in any case, you are showing a pendulum where the pivot point changes and that seems to be somewhat of a common denominator in these mechanical amplifiers that actually work.

[Aemilius]

Can I ask you a question Aaron?

[Tom C]

could this device simply be a force multiplier, perhaps using something as simple as an SG pendulum to begin oscillations?

Tom C

[Aaron Murakami]

Can I ask you a question Aaron?

Of course. Just saw this today.

[Aemilius]

Actually a couple questions. You seem to be at the forefront of this sort of thing.... Have you ever seen anything like it (my mechanism) as far as the configuration goes and the way it's balanced? And the other question.... Do you know what ever became of Ted Ewerts efforts? He was building a large machine that at least seemed to share some characteristics with mine.... just curious.

Thanks

[Aaron Murakami]

I haven't seen anything like your configuration.

I don't recall the last I saw of Ted Ewert's work. Almost remember he was doing a Bedini/Veljko hybrid with a coil pulsing the pendulum or something. Been a while.

[Aemilius]

Thanks Aaron....

Timing.... the stage of the analysis that illustrates the variable timing function of the adjustable Cam and Standing Lever. The diagram below shows the Cam that's located directly behind the Sun Sprocket. It's fixed to the Chassis and rotates with it. The Standing Lever (visible in the videos as a second lever moving back and forth in front of the Control Lever) and the corresponding position of the Cam that's moving it are depicted to the left.

The Planet Sprocket with its attached Pendulum, the Chassis and the Sun Sprocket are all free to rotate in the following schematic diagrams, presented as an animation....

By linking the Standing Lever to the Control Lever the mechanism's position can be synchronized with the position of the Control Lever at all points around 360 degrees.