Does this break any of Newton's laws ?

[preoccupied]

The comparison of the concept is illustrated by the words; your gizmo proposes to maintain equilibrium through a cycle. So did triplock's. The only difference in your gizmo is instead of using springs to balance the gizmo, you are using counterweights.

It's a seductive idea, but it boils down to leverage in both cases, and your gizmo has impressive leverage in a small space. Leverage is great, but it won't turn a wheel. Even if you divert some or all of the leverage back to the trigger force, and remove yourself from the equation.

By the way, it isn't necessary to post all of those pictures. It makes it difficult to reply when a post is that long. If I didn't reply to something you've said, that's why, sorry about that.

Hey, no excuses. A picture is worth a thousand words. Your criticism of Aemilius is a buzz kill. You might as well be saying "I don't want to communicate, and I'm right - so your mama".

[eccentrically1]

A few words is worth ten pictures in this case.
That's how I communicate.
I'm sorry if that kills your buzz.

[Aemilius]

preoccupied "The rotation amount you state for your device is similar, but his is spinning faster...."

So does a lawnmower.

preoccupied "His centripetal fly wheel also has to be timed correctly."

So does a V8 engine.

preoccupied "You might agree that centripetal force is the category of inertia your mechanism specifically falls into."

Sorry.... I don't see any similarity between my mechanism which relies on gravity and a plastic ring with a bunch of rubber bands on it being flung around a short piece of pipe.

eccentrically1 "The comparison of the concept is illustrated by the words...."

Yeah, that's a good analytic methodology.... doesn't illustrate anything.

eccentrically1"....your gizmo proposes to maintain equilibrium through a cycle. So did triplock's."

My mechanism doesn't propose to maintain equilibrium through a cycle, it DOES maintain equilibrium through a cycle, as shown by both vector analysis and empirical observation.

eccentrically1 "The only difference in your gizmo is instead of using springs to balance the gizmo, you are using counterweights."

No.... that's not the only difference. My "gizmo" as you so eloquently put it is a pendulous (not counterweight) gravity driven mechanism that remains in relative equilibrium due to the action of the calibrated spring as it rotates under the influence of gravity by means of a near effortless periodically introduced imbalancing change in its condition.... a conclusion confirmed empirically by actually building it and extensively testing it.

eccentrically1 "It's a seductive idea, but it boils down to leverage in both cases...."

So does a car jack. Lots of things boil down to leverage, that doesn't make them all the same.

eccentrically1 "Leverage is great, but it won't turn a wheel. Even if you divert some or all of the leverage back to the trigger force, and remove yourself from the equation."

Did you figure all that out using your new revolutionary word illustration analysis methodology?

eccentrically1 "By the way, it isn't necessary to post all of those pictures. It makes it difficult to reply when a post is that long. If I didn't reply to something you've said, that's why, sorry about that."

Yeah right.... now that I know the limitations of your attention span I'll be extra careful to limit future communications to less than ten one syllable words and a single picture per post.

eccentrically1 "A few words is worth ten pictures in this case."

I think you have that backwards, I like the original "A picture is worth a thousand words." version. A few words could never be worth ten pictures.... in any case.

eccentrically1 "That's how I communicate."

No wonder you're not getting anywhere.

eccentrically1 "I'm sorry if that kills your buzz."

Worry about your own "buzz".... Emile

[preoccupied]

Sorry.... I don't see any similarity between my mechanism which relies on gravity and a plastic ring with a bunch of rubber bands on it being flung around a short piece of pipe.

I agree. I totally pulled that video out of my Angle Side Side. And your mechanism is much more interesting than his rubber band and pipe combination.

I guess I wasn't thinking. I thought I saw a similarity but I don't remember. Touche!

[Aemilius]

Sorry preoccupied, I shouldn't have come on so strong.... I guess diplomacy isn't one of my strong points.

By the way eccentrically1, where's the picture of the carnival ride you say develops force in a fashion similar to my mechanism? Can you post it or not?

Emile

[preoccupied]

Sorry preoccupied, I shouldn't have come on so strong.... I guess diplomacy isn't one of my strong points.

By the way eccentrically1, where's the picture of the carnival ride you say develops force in a fashion similar to my mechanism? Can you post it or not?

Emile

I have ideas that I perceive to be plausible. By appearing to be a smug douche bag, I think I will enjoy it more if I am correct. Does that make me a bad person? Yes.

[eccentrically1]

Yeah, that's a good analytic methodology.... doesn't illustrate anything.

It illustrates your lack of imagination.

My mechanism doesn't propose to maintain equilibrium through a cycle, it DOES maintain equilibrium through a cycle, as shown by both vector analysis and empirical observation.

As I said before, your vector analysis is incomplete. The chains between the sprockets are contributing to the equilibrium thru a cycle.

No.... that's not the only difference. My "gizmo" as you so eloquently put it is a pendulous (not counterweight) gravity driven mechanism that remains in relative equilibrium due to the action of the calibrated spring as it rotates under the influence of gravity by means of a near effortless periodically introduced imbalancing change in its condition.... a conclusion confirmed empirically by actually building it and extensively testing it.

It's not gravity driven; you are driving it with your finger.

Triplock's gizmo counterbalanced with zero length springs. So if your gizmo "remains in relative equilibrium due to the action of the calibrated spring" then there are no differences between the two gizmos.

So does a car jack. Lots of things boil down to leverage, that doesn't make them all the same.

They are all the same if that is their underlying principle. Simple machines. Levers; inclined planes.

Did you figure all that out using your new revolutionary word illustration analysis methodology?

Crow isn't very appetizing, is it?

Yeah right.... now that I know the limitations of your attention span I'll be extra careful to limit future communications to less than ten one syllable words and a single picture per post.

That's great, my limited attention span thanks you.

[bilbo]

Right Guys

I have a rod moving up and down in a sleeve and it is running on bearings to reduce friction.

If I apply 5kg load vertically onto the rod, the 5kg foce will be transmitted to the bottom of the rod.

What would happen if the 5Kg load was applied to the top of the rod and say 20cm to the side ?

The question I am wondering is can you create a lever effect to put more load on the rod when the pivot and fulcrum is moving vertically downwards with the rod ?

Depending on the angle that the load is applied, I appear to have increased it slightly but I am unsure if this is possible?

[Aemilius]

eccentrically1 "As I said before, your vector analysis is incomplete. The chains between the sprockets are contributing to the equilibrium thru a cycle."

Yeah? Well as I said before, the Planetary Sprocket with the Pendulum that's fixed to it, the Chain and half the weight of the Chassis all combine to make up the force D shown in the diagram, and the influence of the force D on the mechanism as a whole is clearly described at all points around 360 degrees....



eccentrically1 "It's not gravity driven; you are driving it with your finger."

The 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 acting on the Sun Sprocket via the main axle.

eccentrically1 "Triplock's gizmo counterbalanced with zero length springs. So if your gizmo "remains in relative equilibrium due to the action of the calibrated spring" then there are no differences between the two gizmos."

Triplock's gizmo isn't counterbalanced with anything because there is no "triplock gizmo" (except in your mind maybe). Nothing was ever built or tested. Extensive ongoing theoretical speculation and conjecture that isn't followed through with by empirical experimental investigative confirmation is useless (at least you've illustrated one thing clearly).

eccentrically1 "They are all the same if that is their underlying principle. Simple machines. Levers; inclined planes."

A car transmission and a grandfather clock both have gears, that doesn't make them the same. All machines are not the same just because they share an underlying mechanical principle, and I think most would agree that anyone who thinks so is an idiot (that would be you).

eccentrically1 "Crow isn't very appetizing, is it?"

I wouldn't know.... all you've served up so far is a big plate of unsubstantiated balony.

Emile

[Aemilius]

Hey bilbo....

I'd like to apoligize to you. I started out on topic but somehow things got all turned around and your thread got hijacked. I'll review it and try to make it up to you with some kind of meaningful contribution.

Again, very sorry for the distraction.... Emile

[Aemilius]

bilbo "I have looked at the previous designs and my design is different from them."

Right, so I started out by responding to that by asking "What does it look like? Is there a picture or drawing of it?"

You then wrote....

bilbo "Will know within the next couple of hours if it actually does what I hope it does but it does involve a wheel and weights- fingers crossed..."

That was followed by....

bilbo "It does involve a wheel which is ovebalanced and levers and weights and I just need to finalise one last bit and then I will know if it works."

I don't see your description of the results.... What happened? It would be helpful if you could post a schematic image of the design or a photograph of the build (preferably both) for the purpose of evaluation.

Even a crude single image of either the design or the build can convey information that might otherwise take many pages to convey in written form and also dramatically reduces the possiblity of confusion about the details.

Emile

[preoccupied]

Right Guys

I have a rod moving up and down in a sleeve and it is running on bearings to reduce friction.

If I apply 5kg load vertically onto the rod, the 5kg foce will be transmitted to the bottom of the rod.

What would happen if the 5Kg load was applied to the top of the rod and say 20cm to the side ?

The question I am wondering is can you create a lever effect to put more load on the rod when the pivot and fulcrum is moving vertically downwards with the rod ?

Depending on the angle that the load is applied, I appear to have increased it slightly but I am unsure if this is possible?

When you put weights on away from the rod on a vertical fall, they do not express more force down than if they were close to the rod. Any advantage you find or whatever, will be due to some amount of fulcrum usage. A wheel or lever uses a fulcrum to cause the length of the lever to have an advantage. But starting at the furthest point on the lever, to the lowest point after a fall it averages its force out to as if it were just falling vertically alternatively. Emile's mechanism appears to flip where the fall goes to on the levers, thereby allowing him to restart it right away, like an efficient flopping pendulum.

Hey Aemilius, Have you seen the two stage oscillator?
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html
It could inspire a means to apply your mechanism or one like it to produce work. I only say so because your mechanism is pendulous.

[bilbo]

Apologies for my earlier posts but I am still trying to improve on the concept and will post the images and operating principles soon..

[bilbo]

Thanks for your comments and image Preoccupied- It really is appreciated.

You said - Quote "When you put weights on away from the rod on a vertical fall, they do not express more force down than if they were close to the rod. Any advantage you find or whatever, will be due to some amount of fulcrum usage. A wheel or lever uses a fulcrum to cause the length of the lever to have an advantage. But starting at the furthest point on the lever, to the lowest point after a fall it averages its force out to as if it were just falling vertically alternatively. "


If I hang a weight on a chain for example and the chain goes round two sprockets that are arranged vertically, the weight will turn the sprockets with a force of X Newtons.
If I move the weight further away from the chain and set up some type of lever action and use bearings to compensate the sideways force on the chain- is it possible to increase the force now acting on the sprockets?

[preoccupied]

Hi Bilbo

Show me a drawing.

You might come across something that I invented that I have used throughout millions of years. Usually people don't look in areas you are now because it's less likely to to be fruitful since the well established physical laws make it silly to even speculate about. As long as you don't get eaten by a whale, you won't have to eat your own legs to survive.

Do you live in a Shire? Because Hobbits are neat.