Priority Claim

[Dunesbury]

Why haven't you come up with a workable solution? Ovyyus has, but I guess you aren't invited?

[daxwc]

Well, after that outburst, I guess you can’t claim that I can’t get under your skin either anymore Triplock. 8P

The truth hurts the most and now you demand respect. You can’t of course strong arm veneration it has to be earned freely.

Why are you trying to be something you are not anyway? So you are not a numbers cruncher so be it, neither am I really. I just used the formulas given to get answers on tests or results for work. Rarely till the last 5 years, have I tried to figure out where some of the formulas come from and why and it is still not my strong suit. I imagine people such as Fletcher, Wubbly, Dwayne figured that out a long time ago. Do I run around insisting they pay attention to me and quit talking with formulas and numbers? Do I stipulate they need to regard me highly for my analytical skills because somebody else does?


PS, Triplock you have forgotten to mention your A- on the Grade 6 Science Fair Project. 8P

[Grimer]

Bill,

In order to get my influence off of Grimer's "Priority claim" thread, I have copied and will paste you post on the appropriate thread.

I , Chris and anyone posting material irrelevant to this thread topic should give consideration to Grimer.

Ralph

That's nice of you Ralph but you needn't worry about me. I used to enjoy watching fights in the playground and always joined in with the yells of,
FIGHT! - FIGHT!

Unlike Trevor, I don't believe anyone owns a thread and so I just lay back and think of England. ;-)

[Fletcher]

dax .. what I don't get with zealot Conservation Laws crusaders is what is it they are saving us from that causes them such ire that they simply must find a soap box & save us.

It must be they don't want people to waste a few hours thinking about someone's ideas, or perhaps saving them from a trip to the local junk yard, or spending a few dollars perhaps they can't afford, to build an experiment to test something out that peaks their interest.

It's not like we've seen any RAR scale designs here in a while, in which case they might have a point.

P.S your breaking MA anology was a good one.

[ovyyus]

Self-belief is the ultimate delusion :)

[Fletcher]

Well, that's true Bill - it also explains people on crusades who berate but don't share their own ideas to back up their positions - clearly if you don't share you have no right to preach.

[Grimer]

dax .. what I don't get with zealot Conservation Laws crusaders is what is it they are saving us from that causes them such ire that they simply must find a soap box & save us.

It must be they don't want people to waste a few hours thinking about someone's ideas, or perhaps saving them from a trip to the local junk yard, or spending a few dollars perhaps they can't afford, to build an experiment to test something out that peaks their interest.

It's not like we've seen any RAR scale designs here in a while, in which case they might have a point.

P.S your breaking MA analogy was a good one.

Can you give me a link to the "breaking MA analogy", please?

[Grimer]

I've realised what that intermediate pendulum, IP represents.

It's an escapement mechanism between the high short period SP and the long period CP. The CP is close to overbalance by its very nature. When it reaches that point the rotations (Ersatz Gravity field) steadily build up to an equilibrium point as in the Bessler.

The oscillating inner wheel of the Keenie has the same function of transmitting energy from the falling weights (stringless pendulums) to the outer power wheel.

One can see the process as transducing energy from the inexhaustible spring of Newtonian Gravity to the rotating field of Ersatz Gravity, the inverse of a pendulum clock action where the flow is the other way around.

I was almost there 3 years ago when I saw we were dealing with a clock.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 3631#83631

Fortunately we now have the possibility of modifying Kaine's sim to prove the principle.

More later.

[cloud camper]

I think you have made a major realization there Frank.

Any time we have a secondary oscillator system we then require an escapement mechanism of some type to keep the primary going.

The Milkovic oscillator uses a human finger to perform this function.

I am using a form of the following escapement in my current project:



The secondary oscillator (not shown) keeps a spring wound that then supplies torque to the escapement wheel.

Was this the spring that JB used in his wheel?

[Grimer]

I think you have made a major realization there Frank.
...

Let's hope so. :-)

I always believe in being optimistic and assuming that when one reaches the top of the mountain one isn't going to see a still higher peak in the distance.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi CC,Chris, Ovyyus,

CC, what drives the cams?

Chris, I have the IP on 2 mechanisms that prove the laws of levers can be broken.

This back ups my theory's that output gains can be made by reset efficiency of more than 50%, energy does not need to be created.

Ovyyus, you are one of the most deluded on this forum.

[triplock]

Trevor
In general I am not a great fan of compounded mechanisms, whether they be pendulums or levers. In isolation it may appear that an advantage is gained but this is normally through the sacrifice of energy from an attached system.

Take compounded pendulums, which seems to be getting a lot of press lately. It is fair to say that , in snap shot, the swing of one pendulum will impact on the actions of another, but globally , the energy is still going down.

It matters not if you place springs, ratchets or escapement mechs within this interplay and exchange of energy, overall, there cannot be reset.

The same can be said for compounded levers . You can amplify force, but you sacrifice distance . The symmetry remains unbroken.

In terms of your IP, may I suggest that in future you concentrate on just producing ideas that produce an unusual mechanical advantage within a non rotating reference frame. At the heart of any idea , when you take away all the dressing and application , will lie a very simple arrangement indeed. It is that you want to protect, not the specific industrial application.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, you have the potential to be very innovative indeed; just fight that urge to duplicate and scale up for impact.

Chris

[Ed]

Yeah Trevor, everyone should strive to own the IP to a line of slime.

Make your mark in the sand, and if the tide keeps washing it away, jump into a tar pit.

"There's a fossil that's trapped in a low tar wall..."

Now there's an epitaph!

[triplock]

Talking of fossils, hello Ed.

Overall, it's not a bad attempt at a put down. Tbh.

Ed, You started off well, but got over excited on the keyboard half way through ( not for the first time I bet ;-) ).

. With any put down you must try to stick to one theme else you'll loose your audience . Bless you though for trying to be big and brave with your little squeaky , uncontrolled voice . . It's quite sweet really.

I did like the inclusion of a link to another comment I made. That was a nice technical touch and showed that not all your marbles have rolled down the ramp. . Overall though, there is room for improvement but I'll give you 6/10 nevertheless > pat on head <


Anyway Trevor, as I was saying , we all, without exception, want to have a 'priority claim' to an idea and to be recognized as the author ( there's nothing wrong with that ). If that idea can be turned into cash along the way, then all the better :) we all choose our own paths. You may get derided for it by the starched fops , but it matters not tbh.



Chris

[FunWithGravity2]

Ed, you could always easily insult Trip by using his own words, there is this bit of hilarity on the internet that pretty well sums up what his intellect is. I just giggle when i picture him "standing on his own two feet" like a big boy in front of national companies pitching this.

http://www.google.com/url?url=http://ww ... 9P5UE8j4iA


Energy-Free Actuation and Inversion of Gravitationally-Equalised Sub-
Structure
Chris Harper-Mears 30th September 2012 © UK Copyright Services-Proposal-Section Only. All Rights
Reserved.
Copyright-Proposal Text and Images Only © 2012 Christopher Harper-Mears. All Rights Reserved.
UK Copyright Service. Registration Number: 284660855
Abstract—This paper will attempt to show how it is possible to invert a statically stable sub-structure
a full 180 degrees and still maintain its equitable properties at the two global-positions. This ability to
invert is a prerequisite, in my mind, to designing a mechanism that will, in theory, induce a state of
continuous over-balance to a free to rotate device. Moreover, in terms of radial displacement, I’ll
show how a small mass can at R can elevate a larger mass > R.
1.Introduction:
Statically balanced (gravity-equalised) mechanisms are mechanisms which have one or more
conservative forces are acting on them, such that the mechanism is in static equilibrium throughout
its range of motion, rather than in a single point or a limited number of positions (even in the total
absence of friction).
The most common example is the full elimination of the influence of gravity on pivoted beams, by
using counterweights, but this can add undue weight to the overall support structure.
Alternatively, gravity balancing can be accomplished by using springs, thus avoiding the additional
weight and inertia of counterweights. Springs can also be used to balance other springs. An overview
of literature on statically balanced mechanisms can be found in the reference section below.
In the design of statically balanced spring mechanisms, zero-free-length springs are often used. Ideal
springs are defined as tension springs in which the force is proportional to the spring length (rather
than its elongation), and have a constant spring rate, limitless strain, and forces acting along their
centreline.
By way of a starting point, a simple spring to mass gravityequalising
structure can be seen opposite (Herder).
The zero-free-length spring shown, in conjunction with other
conditions, creates a perfectly statically balanced mechanism
whereby the support mass can be positioned anywhere within
the arc of travel of the beam arrangement and stay there.
Furthermore, we can modify this simple arrangement above by
adding a second spring. This new arrangement (by Herder, and
shown opposite) will maintain its stabilised state as long as the
spring tension of both is ½ that of the spring used in the single
spring set-up above. The 2nd spring is identical to its opposite, but
just turned 180 degrees and affixed.
Energy-Free Actuation and Inversion of Gravitationally-Equalised Sub-
Structure
Chris Harper-Mears 30th September 2012 © UK Copyright Services-Proposal-Section Only. All Rights
Reserved.
Copyright-Proposal Text and Images Only © 2012 Christopher Harper-Mears. All Rights Reserved.
UK Copyright Service. Registration Number: 284660855
2.Proposal- Invert-ability
To date, almost without exception, whenever gravity equalised arrangements are used, they are
either firmly anchored to a non-moving structure (such as a floor or wall) or affixed a vehicle (in the
broadest sense) moving in a linear path. There are also arrangements whereby free-energy
adjustments can be made to automatically compensate for a
variation in load to maintain that required stable state.
But I want to deliberately create over-balance and imbalance
from a balanced state.
Firstly, I believe that the fitment of a small weight to the end of
the short lever arm will create an imbalance to that statically
balanced sub-structure, enabling an ‘energy-free’ elevation of
the much heavier supported mass opposite. This, of course, will
restrict the elevated mass to one final position. ©
Secondly, I propose that it is possible to affix the above
arrangement, or similar, to a free to rotate back structure, so
that, upon 180 degree global-inversion, the statically stable
structure will still retain its balance, thus allowing a repeatable
actuated elevation of the large mass by a small falling weight.
I believe this inversion, and subsequent re-elevation of the
supported heavy mass, every 180 degrees only, to be possible
because all balance state parameters remain the same every
180 degrees, thus allowing the actuator to operate as
intended.
Furthermore, if we extrapolate the principle, we can show that we have a unique variant of the
Roberval balance. In line with that original balance it is invertible, but my variant can elevate a
heavier mass to a greater radius from COR than the opposing fall of a lighter actuation mass, whose
radius from COR is much less.
Energy-Free Actuation and Inversion of Gravitationally-Equalised Sub-
Structure
Chris Harper-Mears 30th September 2012 © UK Copyright Services-Proposal-Section Only. All Rights
Reserved.
Copyright-Proposal Text and Images Only © 2012 Christopher Harper-Mears. All Rights Reserved.
UK Copyright Service. Registration Number: 284660855
Also, we can adjust the mechanism so that the large and small mass retain an equal, and
diametrically opposite, radial displacement upon a full inversion. This is particularly useful for the
theory of continuous induced Over-Balance to a cyclic mechanism.




Its also obvious the Trip thinks that using a copyright protect service is the same as filing a patent, LMAO