Help required for a New Invention

[gcol]

The secret is in the actual mechanical design of such a device...

 

Fascinating things, mechanical devices. Not being rocket science, it involves areas of technical expertise often regarded as low tech and not worthy of serious attention.

 

From my own practical experience can I point out a couple of "obvious" things worthy of consideration:

 

1. There are self-lubricating plastics that obviate the need for any additional lubrication whatsoever.

 

2. Gear tooth profile design is important. Commercial gear design concentrates on smoothness, quietness, compactness and minimum production cost. Low friction often has a low priority. My lowest friction gear trains are the noisiest, using unlubricated metal to plastic bearings, and gear teeth that push rather than slide, and have very generous backlash. Lubricating the bearings and teeth raises friction losses considerably, no matter how thin the oil. Water is quite good, if everything is rustproof, of course.

[YT2095]

Teflon is a nice material to use in such things also, often eployed as shims, this need not Always be the case tough

there`s an element of backlash in most all gear trains anyway, it`s really all a question of Box-Shifting and tradeoffs.

[gcol]

there`s an element of backlash in most all gear trains anyway, it`s really all a question of Box-Shifting and tradeoffs.

.

 

Yes, but:

1. Backlash is reduced by closer fitting teeth, which increase the sliding motion which causes friction which for the purposes of this thread is completely undesirable. Backlash in a mechanism whose rotation is always in the same direction, and where there is no stop-start motion or overrun,is irrelevant. Remarkably friction-free gear tooth forms are available which are designed for one-way rotation only.

 

2. If an important design criterion is minimal friction, then the commercial technology developed for box-shifting and volume sales production is completely unsuitable.

[YT2095]

I think you misunderstand me with the term "Box-Shifting" it can apply to all sorts of things in life where a compromise is required, it`s a bit like the term Happy-Medium or Trade-Off.

not at all gear related

[gcol]

Oh dear, you must have thought I was talking about machinery designed to move boxes! I use good old muscle power for that, or get the wife to do it.

 

Wars have been fought over even smaller misunderstandings.

[YT2095]

LOL, either way, I simply cannot envisage Any system void of losses, there is a systen in france under some of the streets whereby a Huge flywheel is spun at fantastic speeds on magnetic bearings and evacuated surrounding encased in steel mesh concrete, these are used in emergencies as a form of power back-up, the wheel gets clamped and made to spin a generator.

these suckers go on for Ages from the initial spin (forget the exact details).

That`s about as close to perpetual motion I think anyone`s likely to get.

even so, it`s still only a storage mechanism.

[gcol]

Yep, realise all that, but Big Oz continually referred to friction losses as being important. The best he can do is keep those losses to a minimum, and there is more than one way to skin that cat. If his idea relies on absolute lack of friction, then whatever his theory, that is where it will fail. A completely frictionless mechanism that does some actual useful work? Now that would be some scientific breakthrough!

[bigOz]

Yep' date=' realise all that, but Big Oz continually referred to friction losses as being important. The best he can do is keep those losses to a minimum, and there is more than one way to skin that cat. If his idea relies on absolute lack of friction, then whatever his theory, that is where it will fail. A completely frictionless mechanism that does some actual useful work? Now that would be some scientific breakthrough!

[/quote']

You have provided me with some very valuable information and I am very grateful. Do you work with friction gears for a hobby (ie as in trains) or do you have any experience in the production / supply of such material?

[gcol]

Do you work with friction gears for a hobby (ie as in trains) or do you have any experience in the production / supply of such material?

 

Your phrase friction gears puzzles me. you either have a gear drive, or a friction drive. They are entirely different, though may be mixed in a compound mechanism.

 

It is not easy to answer your first question without becoming long winded and probably boring, but basically I wanted to see if I could make gear wheels by hand without a lathe, like the old time clock makers and wooden millwrights. Lack of precision meant they were a bit rattly and had oodles of backlash, so I thought I was wasting my time until I came accross an old Victorian industrial revolution engineering handbook that described a gearform designed for one-way continuous movement that had so much backlash that you could measure it with a standard ruler! Then using a falling weight drive system that I could vary from kilos to grammes, I compared my gears to standard commercial metal gears.....guess what? mine beat them hands down for low friction.

 

Second question: no, not commercially. Can't afford it, and they want to sell you what they have, not what is best for your job. My satisfaction comes from using materials which are to hand, or available easily and cheaply, then finding their strengths and weaknesses, and occasionally stumbling on something interesting and useful.

 

As for bearings, if you dont run them too fast so they judder and chatter, nor overload them so they overheat, it is surprising how loose and easy a fit (and thus low friction) you can get away with.

 

Have you tried googling plastic gears, cycloid and epicyclic gears, clock gears?

[bigOz]

Have you tried googling plastic gears' date=' cycloid and epicyclic gears, clock gears?[/quote']

 

Thanks for the information pal!

I am now looking into the different types of gears now and have found tons of info online.

Thanks again and I hope you continue having fun with your work...

[DaveC426913]

bigOz:

 

Why not cut to the chase?

 

If your principle is sound, this can be shown without concerning yourself with materials and gears (at least right away).

 

See a patent lawyer and get an expert to look at your design without fear of spilling the beans. Hopefully, rather than finding a "classic perpetual motion error", the expert might instead be confounded. This would suggest that your idea is sound in principle, thus justifying a prototype.

 

 

This is not meant to discourage you from pursuing it. Indeed, it is meant to ensure that, if you *are* serious, you use your time and resources wisely.

 

(On the other hand, if this is more a matter of being "in love with your idea", then you'll do what you can to delay the cut to the chase - by, say, fiddling with materials and gears as long as possible, where there is no upper limit on how long it could take to convince yourself.)

[CPL.Luke]

^also if your machine is indeed above unity, when fricition isn't taken into account, then you have something significant. A friction error can only explain away devices that are at Unity.

[bigOz]

bigOz:

 

Why not cut to the chase?

 

If your principle is sound' date=' this can be shown without concerning yourself with materials and gears (at least right away).

 

See a patent lawyer and get an expert to look at your design without fear of spilling the beans. Hopefully, rather than finding a "classic perpetual motion error", the expert might instead be confounded. This would suggest that your idea is sound in principle, thus justifying a prototype.

 

This is not meant to discourage you from pursuing it. Indeed, it is meant to ensure that, if you *are* serious, you use your time and resources [i']wisely[/i].

 

(On the other hand, if this is more a matter of being "in love with your idea", then you'll do what you can to delay the cut to the chase - by, say, fiddling with materials and gears as long as possible, where there is no upper limit on how long it could take to convince yourself.)

 

OK. I have already looked into it ; talking to patent solicitors and getting a product internationally patented will cost thousands of pounds. That is worth it if the finished product will bring in revenue.

 

The problem with such an invention is and has always been - the inventor will never afford to create a national power grid to use his invention as the source of supply (worth hundreds of billions!), and the current power sources are not going to drop their highly profitable investments and infrastructure overnight (or in any foreseeable future) in preference to an alternative cheaper and cleaner source because they are good samaritans!

 

This is why, whether they are hydrogen powered cars (already produced), or alternative energy ideas, they will fail to be mass produced or applied on a mass scale Hence no financing is available for such inventions or projects.

 

Powergen Energy Lab's offer of £50,000 is a needle in a haystack, only if your idea is chosen to be the best one out of so many applicants (no guarantees).

I had enquired and received confirmation that Powergen Energy Lab does not need to know commercially patentable detailed workings of the idea.

 

So I hope you understand why there is no point in me spending thousands on patenting the idea at this time. If in the next decade or two we start running of oil and there is genuine interest in better alternative energy sources, then my idea will be patented and made public. Meanwhile, I'll keep it safe for my children to have...

[CPL.Luke]

essentially any device that outputs energy in some form can be used to make electricity and be plugged into the power grid. if it truly generates energy without any need of fuel then it would probably produce energy more cheaply than nuclear and maybe even coal, and thus would easily gain a strong hold in the energy market. The economics in the energy industry boil down to the price per kilowatt-hour, and if your product produces energy for less money than the currently available means it will catch on in a big way (just think you would be selling energy for the same amount as everybody else, but you would be making it for half the money, economics don't get much better than that)

 

The only thing that could commercially hurt it would be that it may produce only very small amounts of power, but even then the ability to produce power without need of input energy would result in a huge number of towns and cities wanting at least part of their power to be generated in that way.

[bigOz]

essentially any device that outputs energy in some form can be used to make electricity and be plugged into the power grid. if it truly generates energy without any need of fuel then it would probably produce energy more cheaply than nuclear and maybe even coal' date=' and thus would easily gain a strong hold in the energy market. The economics in the energy industry boil down to the price per kilowatt-hour, and if your product produces energy for less money than the currently available means it will catch on in a big way (just think you would be selling energy for the same amount as everybody else, but you would be making it for half the money, economics don't get much better than that)

 

The only thing that could commercially hurt it would be that it may produce only very small amounts of power, but even then the ability to produce power without need of input energy would result in a huge number of towns and cities wanting at least part of their power to be generated in that way.[/quote']

I stand to be corrected! I agree with everything you said above, probably that is why wind turbines are becoming more useful. But I can't help feeling its because their production is a drop in the ocean.

 

If the government, who depend so much on tax revenue from fuel, and their spin doctors wanted to maintain dependance on oil (also to protect major international consortiums such as BP), it would only take couple of weeks of media publicity about the impending dangers of having nuclear power stations and the natural disaters wind turbines might cause, to set off great upheaval and major protests by the public.

[gcol]

If the government' date=' who depend so much on tax revenue from fuel, and their spin doctors wanted to maintain dependance on oil (also to protect major international consortiums such as BP), it would only take couple of weeks of media publicity about the impending dangers of having nuclear power stations and the natural disaters wind turbines might cause, to set off great upheaval and major protests by the public.[/quote']

 

To me, it seems like only yesterday that the direction of official spin was all in favour of nuclear power. That changed to being all against, now it is wavering. If we recognise the spin direction, we can begin to apply some opposing force. Something like (Shakespeare to the rescue) ......"By taking arms against a sea of troubles, oppose them". (quoted from an imperfect memory).

[bigOz]

To me' date=' it seems like only yesterday that the direction of official spin was all in favour of nuclear power. That changed to being all against, now it is wavering. If we recognise the spin direction, we can begin to apply some opposing force. Something like (Shakespeare to the rescue) ......"By taking arms against a sea of troubles, oppose them". (quoted from an imperfect memory).

[/quote']

:-)

That was really funny. Just to top up my last reply to CPL.Luke, I hope everyone has read the news about the protests concerning Selby (coal) Power Station. If not click on:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5300560.stm?ls

[Phi for All]

Something like (Shakespeare to the rescue) ......"By taking arms against a sea of troubles, oppose them". (quoted from an imperfect memory).

(Shakespeare Nazi to the rescue) "Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?"

 

IMO, spin may keep us paying higher prices for oil a bit longer than we should, but ultimately the market will demand a new energy source. Distribution of goods guarantees it will be a top priority. I think nuclear will win through eventually so they shouldn't make it *too* scary.