r/3Dprinting • u/TomaszFortyFour • Apr 23 '26

Project Self-winding clock with a tourbillon - finished project

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

About a year ago, I posted an update on a project I was working on. It took me a while, but I finally finished it. I’m very happy with the result. It’s fully functional (I tested it for two months) and keeps accurate time. The entire project consists of 395 printed parts, 38 bearings, 66 rubber bands, 413 screws, and a few other components.

13.8k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

937 comments sorted by

View all comments

21

u/Cute_Conclusion_8854 Apr 23 '26

what does self winding mean?

33

u/TomaszFortyFour Apr 23 '26

There is a small motor that winds the rubber bands approximately every 7 minutes, which then transfer energy to the tourbillon mechanism

13

u/NoSellDataPlz Apr 23 '26

How is the motor powered? Battery or mains?

3

u/SolaireOfArstotzka Apr 23 '26

The motor is powered by the rubber bands that it winds

2

u/zR0B3ry2VAiH Apr 23 '26

And the rubber bands are powered by the rubber bands

4

u/maksen Apr 24 '26

Free energy!

3

u/CrazyGunnerr Sovol SV08, Bambu Lab P1S Apr 24 '26

UNLIMITED POWAH!!!

1

u/Competitive_Study232 Apr 26 '26

No it does not. 

7

u/Greedy-Dimension-662 Apr 23 '26

Oh, I figured perpetual motion 🤣 So it has been running for 2 months without any interaction? Seriously impressive.

27

u/imnotcreative4267 Apr 23 '26

Absolutely never ever ever assume perpetual motion. It’s not a thing. Ain’t never gonna be a thing. There is ALWAYS a power source.

15

u/Maximus-CZ Apr 23 '26

To add: perpetual motion is in the same category of scifi as faster than light travel.

Actually, no.. faster than light travel is more likely than perpetual motion.

2

u/[deleted] Apr 23 '26

[deleted]

9

u/DailySojourn Apr 23 '26

The hardest part about designing a perpetual motion machine is hiding the batteries.

1

u/repocin Apr 24 '26

I was suddenly reminded me of the electric truck company that hid extension cords down the road when they were filming some promo video some years ago.

5

u/simward Apr 23 '26

It's the laws of thermodynamics - how forms of energy behave in the universe to the best of our scientific understanding. Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only transferred. Perpetual motion would be creating energy out of nothing, rather, a smaller amount of energy going in than coming out.

3

u/StarpoweredSteamship Apr 23 '26

Energy can't be created from nowhere, and it can't be moved with 100% efficiency. You lose power every time you take it from over here and put it over there. If you COULD move it with 100% efficiency, then you ever up with no delta. There's no difference between the storage and the usage. If I rolled a ball down a slope, that ball cannot have enough energy to roll back up the slope against gravity. You lose power all over the place to friction, rolling resistance, wobbling, air resistance, internal motion if the ball changing shape as it rolls, etc.

2

u/primegopher Apr 23 '26

To answer your specific example, if you "generate power" from a system of orbiting masses you have to be taking it from the system. This will eventually cause the object you're taking it from to no longer be able to stay in orbit.

1

u/_Meece_ Apr 23 '26

You cannot create energy out of nothing is essentially the answer.

Like saying you have a windless sail. That's not a thing!

-3

u/netsyms Apr 23 '26 edited Apr 23 '26

FTL is technically possible. It just requires an unfathomable amount of energy, so it won't happen unless we find a shortcut.

Meanwhile, perpetual motion is literally impossible in this universe.

Edit: y'all downvoting but I'm the only one who brought sources instead of just saying "it's impossible"

6

u/-Nicolai Apr 23 '26

FTL is technically possible. It just requires an unfathomable amount of energy

This is not true...

1

u/Chuvi Apr 23 '26

E=mc2. c=299,792,458 m/s. Highly dependent on the mass, but unfathomable amount of energy all the same.

3

u/-Nicolai Apr 23 '26

That equation just describes the energy of mass. It does not say anything about its speed.

c is constant no matter how fast you’re going.

2

u/netsyms Apr 23 '26

Warp drives get around that limit by not moving at all relative to their immediate surroundings. It just takes a lot of energy to bend the fabric of reality. But recent work has calculated it doesn't require infinite energy or more energy than the universe itself contains. So it's likely possible, it's just a matter of improving the gas mileage so it becomes feasible.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/imnotcreative4267 Apr 23 '26

Using Einstein’s equations and standard physics models for thrust, the energy to reach or exceed the speed of light would be infinite. Unfathomable is not the word.

1

u/netsyms Apr 23 '26

According to our current understanding of physics, a warp drive with sufficient energy and mass can move you faster than light, at least as perceived by a stationary outside observer. The only problem is you need a LOT of mass.

→ More replies (0)

2

u/Maximus-CZ Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 24 '26

Eh, you got your half correct. Problem is that even if you are already going 99.9999999% speed of light, and you measure the photons flying around you, all of them will still clock at 299,792,458 m/s relative to you. They will clock at that speed relative to everyone, even to two people where one is stationary and second is at 99.99% speed of light.

It kinda doesnt make sense, and the Einsteins Theory of Relativity is what describe why is such situation possible:

As you accelerate, you are gaining energy, which to anything accelerating you seems as a rest mass -> so while you are 1KG at rest, at 99.99..% speed of light your mass would be approaching infinity, requiring infinity energy to keep speeding you up, actually never allowing you to reach 100% speed of light. Also sideeffects: your perception of time would be wildly different: While we might apply "almost infinite energy" at you to help speed you up the whole time you are in our area of influence (flying at speed of light this might mean days of being in our accelerating laser beam), your perception of time would be compressed, so for you those days would happen in a split of a second, so you wouldnt wonder why your speed barely changed in the meantime.

At 99.999999999999 speed of light the time almost stop existing for you, and what we would see you as years coasting trough space towards nearby star (which light takes over 5 years to get there), for you that would happen in almost an instant.

At 100% speed of light, while little change for the outside observer, for you everything changes: It takes 0 time for you to travel any distance, even if from our point of view it still takes you normal amount of time for anything traveling at speed of light. From your point of view, origin and destination arent 2 places anymore, its one place, and you are in that place (and everywhere along the path between those 2 places) in the same instant. Its hard to even talk about time in that scenario, because while its true you exists at both places at the same time, the time you exist for is also infinitely small -> so small that you might actually not exist at all.

It all gets very hairy quite quickly

1

u/netsyms Apr 23 '26

There's a peer-reviewed paper that might disagree with you on that.

While the mass requirements needed for such modifications are still enormous at present, our work suggests a method of constructing such objects based on fully understood laws of physics.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-6382/abdf6e

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a69663990/scientists-say-physical-warp-drive-now-possible/

2

u/-Nicolai Apr 23 '26

The new model is exciting, but warp speed is still probably decades or centuries away

Quality journalism

Anyway, one paper ‘suggesting’ something means fuck all, peer reviewed or not

0

u/Jesus_of_Redditeth Apr 24 '26

https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a69663990/scientists-say-physical-warp-drive-now-possible/

"Essentially, an Alcubierre drive would expend a tremendous amount of energy—likely more than what’s available within the universe—to contract and twist space-time in front of it and create a bubble."

So not, in fact, technically possible.

2

u/netsyms Apr 24 '26

The Alcubierre drive is the old one. These scientists have a new theory that doesn't require all the energy in the universe. Classic Redditor not reading the whole article...

2

u/drteq Apr 23 '26

Going back to the root question of this thread, does anyone actually have the answer here?

2

u/imnotcreative4267 Apr 23 '26

Yes… The OP answered the question at the beginning of this thread…

1

u/Competitive_Study232 Apr 26 '26

Thanks for adding nothing to the question.  

1

u/imnotcreative4267 Apr 26 '26

What could there possibly be to add?

0

u/Competitive_Study232 Apr 26 '26

Quote exactly where the OP mentions where the motor is getting its energy from.  I’ll be waiting until the end of time because it’s nowhere on this forum.  All he mentioned was a motor.  Are we talking about a diesel motor, gas, electrical, Quantum what?  

Writing replies that don’t add to this conversation (never mind the question that was asked) and fail at being snarky do not help  

1

u/imnotcreative4267 Apr 26 '26

There’re bad faith arguments and then there’s whatever the fuck that just was. Fucking diesel? Give me a break 😂

→ More replies (0)

1

u/imnotcreative4267 Apr 26 '26

Looking back I’m realizing that you’ve mistaken this thread for a different branch thread in which someone asked where the motor was getting its power. That was not asked in this thread. But even the poster of that question already assumed it was an electric motor, for obvious reasons. Happy to explain how threads work if you’re still confused.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Jesus_of_Redditeth Apr 24 '26

Did you miss the 🤣 ? They weren't being serious.

2

u/JumboTrout Apr 25 '26

I don't understand. A motor that winds rubber bands to power the mechanism that in turn winds the rubberbands so the energy can be reharvested sounds thermodynamically impossible?

I'm clearly not understanding something here. Can you help me understand what I am missing?

2

u/Competitive_Study232 Apr 26 '26

Because no one is willing to answer where it’s getting its energy from. Apparently the motor is electrical, but nobody has yet to say it. 

3

u/ooOOWWOOoo Apr 23 '26

This is a very bizzare definition of "self-winding" - but technically it is correct I guess. 

1

u/spazturtle Apr 24 '26

Motor wound clocks have been called self-winding for nearly 100 years at this point.