Another claim to a working device...

[Unbalanced]

Although I applaud this guy's animation efforts, he should have taken a bit more time in studying the various iterations of the original, especially regarding the way that the con-rod is connected to the crank. Quite different than the original.

[Furcurequs]

I believe the fellow may have mentioned in that forum that it wasn't really an accurate representation. Is there more wrong there than the dimensions of the crank arm and stuff, though? Looking at the drawing that shows all the mechanisms gets me all cross eyed and confused.

Dwayne

[Unbalanced]

What mainly strikes me as different is the manner in which the animator shows an articulating part (light green) where as the actual devise doesn't articulate.

The purple part in RAR's drawing which is shown as the light green part in the animation, is fixed by the dark green parallelagram, top left, in RAR's drawing.

[Furcurequs]

Okay, I think I understand what you are saying, but I'm not sure if that's the case.

Doesn't this picture where I tried to black out all but one full mechanism pretty much agree with the animation? The upper spoke of what would be the "purple part" here doesn't align with the vertical portion of the parallelogram.




If you look at some of the pictures near the end of my album, though, where only a single mechanism is depicted in the drawings, most all of them do show the upper spoke of the "purple part" in a vertical orientation so that it actually does appear to be a part of the parallelogram.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?u=2144

I had assumed that the purple part did rotate or articulate and that the vertical part of the parallelogram was there to provide a stop for it, maybe. Otherwise, I'm not sure that the parallelogram would even be necessary unless for just additional weight. Of course, though, in that animation the upper spoke of the light green purple part rotates beyond it, anyway.

I don't know. I'm not so good with puzzles. ...especially when the pieces keep changing. ...lol

ETA:

Okay, I went back and looked at some of the early construction photos that I had not seen for quite some time and it looks like in those the four spoked purple part was free to rotate while not being fixed to the vertical part of the parallelogram nor the connecting rod. In more recent photos, though, it looks like the lower spoke could possibly be somehow attached to the connecting rod. In the mechanisms I can see, it looks like they are at least in alignment.

...in other words, I'm more confused than ever. ...lol

[Grimer]

...
There is most of the problem right there, Frank, belief. I didn't say anything about my beliefs. I also didn't say I think PM is a delusion. I thought it was obvious I was saying that most people throughout history have fallen on one side or the other. They were either deluded or full of crap, and you can see that same trend today, so why would any rational person give RAR the benefit of the doubt? Is it because you "believe" you see something of your own ideas in the "workings" of their machine?
...

Yes it is. More specifically the asymmetric action of Gravity.

I've just a moment ago written about this on another thread so I will post a quote here.

Hi all,

Just build it and show it, no one will believe its real anyway!

Regards Trevor

Well, I haven't built it - but I've shown how the Gravity Pulse Motor (GPM) works and so far no one believes that.

Even worse, RAR have actually built a Mark 1 RAR and are in the process of building a Mark 2 RAR and no one on this forum (apart from your's truly) seems to believe them either.

Whatford is therefore absolutely correct. Even if I had the skills necessary to build a GPM and put a video of it working on YouTube everyone would shout fraud since as Ed pointed out (his post can be seen on the other Trevor's thread) videos can easily be faked.

Fortunately, thanks to developing the theme of some previous posts on the falling stick and coins experiment I now understand how the RAR Mark 2 works. It's essentially a more complicated version of the GPM and uses the same asymmetric action of the gravitational wind.

After I've prepared the necessary diagrams I will be putting the explanation on my blog.

It's funny (peculiar not ha-ha) how strong cognitive dissonance is when it comes to the gravity wheel - even among members of this forum where one would expect some inclination to belief.

I'm reminded of the man who stood a Piccadilly Circus trying to give away £10 pound notes. He found very few takers - no one gives away money do they - they must be fakes.

[Tarsier79]

More specifically the asymmetric action of Gravity.

There is no asymmetry of gravity.

Fortunately, thanks to developing the theme of some previous posts on the falling stick and coins experiment I now understand how the RAR Mark 2 works.

Any idiot can theorise how it works. Personally, I want proof before I drop to my knees in worship.

Well, I haven't built it - but I've shown how the Gravity Pulse Motor (GPM) works and so far no one believes that.

It doesn't work, because you haven't built it. In fact, you have no physical proof it would work, only your theories you are unwilling to back up mathematically, or physically. So, we are supposed to believe your intuition and hope?

[Grimer]

The words I used were "the asymmetric action of Gravity" which is clearly demonstrated in the GPM.

Gravity acts on the simple pendulum by accelerating it, clockwise, towards the earth.
It is prevented from acting on the compound pendulum by an equal and opposite earth action, an earth re-action.

If the earth action is removed then the gravity action would be symmetric, i.e. it would act on the simple pendulum by accelerating it clockwise to the earth and it would also act on the compound pendulum by accelerating it counter-clockwise to the earth.[/b]

[johannesbender]

this thing looks useless to me , it appears as
a piece of junk termed as art , I find it strange
how long this thing has been build and stil
it is going on ?

people build engines and constructions of more
intricate design faster than this piece of crap .

and yet it amuses me that this thread even
keeps going , rar is only days away ...

there's no proof of it working or even not working
we could just as well start posting on aliens or
such bs .

edit : oh and yes of course I don't read this mambo jumbo ...

[Ed]

Frank, your one pound pendulum it at nearly its least amount of torque when it encounters the spring. By itself, it can't lift another one pounds at nine o'clock. The "compound pendulum" has much greater torque at this point. The only hope you've got is the momentum built up in the swing from three o'clock until the spring, but this will be rapidly used up in: frictional losses, impact, compressing of the spring, losses in the spring.

Then, even giving you the benefit of the doubt, that the "compound pendulum" even gets lifted as you've indicated, you "believe" that the spring will return the single pendulum from six all the way back to the point you indicated, which is still not the end of the cycle.

A detailed analysis is really not necessary, but I guess it's the only way to sway belief.

[Grimer]

Frank, your one pound pendulum it at nearly its least amount of torque when it encounters the spring. By itself, it can't lift another one pounds at nine o'clock. The "compound pendulum" has much greater torque at this point. The only hope you've got is the momentum built up in the swing from three o'clock until the spring, but this will be rapidly used up in: frictional losses, impact, compressing of the spring, losses in the spring.

Then, even giving you the benefit of the doubt, that the "compound pendulum" even gets lifted as you've indicated, you "believe" that the spring will return the single pendulum from six all the way back to the point you indicated, which is still not the end of the cycle.

A detailed analysis is really not necessary, but I guess it's the only way to sway belief.

From your PMs I imagined we were going to go through the rationale on my Forum. But if you prefer doing it this way that's fine by me.

I'll start with your first sentence.

Frank, your one pound pendulum is at nearly its least amount of torque when it encounters the spring.

The simple pendulum is free to rotate at its pivot. Therefore it is never at any "amount of torque" - ever.

The spring transfers the torque - but I prefer the look at things in terms of impact and treat the spring as the arm of a very stiff crank which transfers the impact to the compound pendulum weights. I only used a stiff spring because I felt losses would be less. Jim and others pointed this out when I first started posting on the Keenie years ago.

I have to go - but I'll be back. :-)

[Tarsier79]

Quick mockup of the basic building blocks of Grimers pulse motor: http://youtu.be/XvoZloDccNg

The falling weight + the block it impacts against has an elasticity of 1 in the simulation.

[Ed]

Kaine, nice job. What happens when you set the elasticity to less than one, to, as Frank might say, nought point nine?

Frank, yes I still want to go through it with you on your forum, but you made some specific comments on the outside, I had a minute and I suddenly wanted to address it. Sorry. :-)

[Grimer]

Ed, I apologise for thinking you were chickening out. :-)

[Grimer]

Quick mockup of the basic building blocks of Grimers pulse motor: http://youtu.be/XvoZloDccNg

The falling weight + the block it impacts against has an elasticity of 1 in the simulation.

Good start. Thanks for that, Kaine.

Ermm.... When I step through it frame by frame the action is rather jerky. For instance: in some cases the simple pendulum (SP) doesn't move from one frame to the next. Also, on the first swing the SP doesn't make contact, etc.

But it's certainly heading in the right direction.

Thanks again. I appreciate it. Especially since you think its a load of bollocks. ;-)

Very open minded of you.

Edit: I've got to get up early tomorrow so I'm off to bye byes. !-o

[Dunesbury]

Impact motor need superballs !
Absent minded professor 's Flubber!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119137/plo ... tt_stry_pl