His Secret Is In The Levers

[james.lindgard]

@All,
It has been said by some of the forum leaders that levers do not and can not give a mechanical advantage. In time I will be able to build. The only thing in my opinion that will be acceptable where I am concerned is a working wheel. Other people have been considered credible while alluding to having something that works. And yes, math does prove the over balance before building. This is known when a person takes the time to consider the math.
And with me, half of the fun is calculating things like Moment of Inertia, acceleration, etc. as this helps to predict how fast a wheel might rotate and the number 1 interest in here is how fast does it go.

Jim

p.s., 1 in. lb. = .11 n-m
or 9 in. lb. = 1 n-m
This allows for SAE torque
to be easily converted to metric.

[eccentrically1]

I might not be a forum leader but I don't think anyone ever said levers don't or can't give mechanical advantage. If anyone did, they were wrong. But it's not a secret that levers can't be his secret, that's been established in many different ways.

[Tarsier79]

I think he is talking about me. I often say leverage can't give you an advantage, but I should be saying a gain in energy. Some don't understand that the mechanical advantage (x distance) required for sustained rotation is an energy gain.

[ME]

@All,
It has been said by some of the forum leaders that: <insert statement>

At some point in time for some obscure reason some post(s) made enough sense for someone to hit the author's green.
But such acknowledgement doesn't always mean it's an indicator for being knowledgeable on everything, or such indicator correlates with everyone's sense of 'sense'.
As long as the search for PMM is still an open question and the world we live in still allows us to express our own free thoughts then I don't see why you want to correlate your own solution-under-investigation with someone's unrelated decision on yet another one's (probably unrelated) contribution. That's so confusing...
(This post is likely one of those which doesn't make much sense and "leads" to nowhere...)

Leverage is basically the definition of mechanical advantage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_machine

For any kind of mechanical advantage the base premise could be something like this:
When some weight drops from some height and falls until it hits the ground, then: What did it accomplish? It could have done so much more in the meantime!
So we let it hit a doorknob, a lever, the side of some wheel. We could attach a rope with some counter weight, or redirect things sideways. These are all "simple machines" being invented to get the most out of the initial drop, dropping at least considerably slower on interaction... but still dropping... which is a problem.
Perhaps some force/energy is lost by sound and heat when activating the mechanism, but at least it activates something: that's the "win" and "advantage".
But now we want to do this again by some intelligent design and using the (now) internal forces/energy we hopefully still have somewhere.
We can simplify this problem by the following question: how to stop the drop!, and its follow-up: Does it still work when it stops?

We know when we finally got something that works.
Until then: nobody knows.
In the meantime: have fun.

[Andyb]

Just to be clear i am one of those members who believes there is a way to use a falling weight on the outside to lift a heavier weight on a nearer orbit that nearer orbit being the bl in principle, what i also believe is the design has to reset and return the weight back to it's original position in the lower half of the wheel,i remember hearing that they where amazed at the speed that the weight flew upwards at the btdc, this makes perfect sense to me ,everything i have made shows that this is the only way to go ,but hey i have been so wrong so many times ,but as they say ,you live and learn .

[Fcdriver]

Yes F=MA
A fast moving lever and its weight, easily lifts slower lifting levers and weight!
The key is keeping the lift constant and equally low force, compared to the faster more leveraged downward force

[justsomeone]

Fcdriver, paint dry yet?

[james.lindgard]

Just to be clear i am one of those members who believes there is a way to use a falling weight on the outside to lift a heavier weight on a nearer orbit that nearer orbit being the bl in principle, what i also believe is the design has to reset and return the weight back to it's original position in the lower half of the wheel,i remember hearing that they where amazed at the speed that the weight flew upwards at the btdc, this makes perfect sense to me ,everything i have made shows that this is the only way to go ,but hey i have been so wrong so many times ,but as they say ,you live and learn .

Andyb,
One thing I have noticed is that f something can't be shown right away, then that person is wrong. The math is simpler than the build. With levers, when they rotate 180°, they automatically reset.
The principle is something I've considered for a while now. My building helped me to understand it. And in some of Bessler's drawings it would only take changing the lengths of 2 things to allow that drawing to work.
I can't build until next year (health) so am not sure if making the principle known would matter.


Jim

p.s. tarsier79, I wasn't talking about you but enough people
think levers alone can't allow a constant over balance. This might be why
I'm one of the few people who kept working with levers in various configurations. That does show in my builds and designs.


edited to change "his" to "Bessler's".

[Fcdriver]

Fcdriver, paint dry yet?

Yep paint is dry! But testing keeps causing for more testing!

[Fcdriver]

Just to be clear i am one of those members who believes there is a way to use a falling weight on the outside to lift a heavier weight on a nearer orbit that nearer orbit being the bl in principle, what i also believe is the design has to reset and return the weight back to it's original position in the lower half of the wheel,i remember hearing that they where amazed at the speed that the weight flew upwards at the btdc, this makes perfect sense to me ,everything i have made shows that this is the only way to go ,but hey i have been so wrong so many times ,but as they say ,you live and learn .

Andyb,
One thing I have noticed is that f something can't be shown right away, then that person is wrong. The math is simpler than the build. With levers, when they rotate 180°, they automatically reset.
The principle is something I've considered for a while now. My building helped me to understand it. And in some of Bessler's drawings it would only take changing the lengths of 2 things to allow that drawing to work.
I can't build until next year (health) so am not sure if making the principle known would matter.


Jim

p.s. tarsier79, I wasn't talking about you but enough people
think levers alone can't allow a constant over balance. This might be why
I'm one of the few people who kept working with levers in various configurations. That does show in my builds and designs.


edited to change "his" to "Bessler's".

Multiple levers not just two! 6 levers only need to move the wheeel 60 degrees each, 8 levers 45 degrees each! Yes the levers can move 180 degrees but only 90 degrees of drop provide power! A lever dropping 110 degrees with a slight overlap of the next falling smooths the harmonic motion, to cause a constant forward motion. No need to try 180 degrees of drop, the top and bottom 45 degrees give 0 benefit!

[daanopperman]

Hi Trevor

While I am in the mood ,

There is only one test , and 2 answers ,

The test is does it self rotate

The 2 answers is 1 yes 2 no

[daanopperman]

If a wheel have 6 parts ,

You can build a permutation of 720 designs .

a rim
spokes
1 weight on left side
1 wei!ght on right side
pendulum
axel

Almost 2 years @ one wheel a day .

[james.lindgard]

@All,
I know there will be many critics. Yet the proof can be had in a simple test.
And both weighted levers work together to lift both weights.
And if you don't use the SAE in. lbs. but use metric, 1 in. lb. = .011 n-m.

With the drawing, if 2 opposing weights are lifted 4 1/2 inches each and the weights weigh 1 lb. each, this requires 9 in. lbs. of work.
If each weighted lever has a 1 lb. weight and the weight drops 6 inches, this creates 12 in. lbs. of work. This allows for 3 in. lbs. of force to move the 2 weights being lifted.
Yet there is only a net force of 4 1/2 in. lbs., right ? Since only one lever is out of balance (not 90° to the axle/weights being lifted), we need to account for that imbalance.
If 2/3 of the weighted lever is to one side of the axle, then it takes 1/2 the torque to rotate the weighted lever. And this means that an imbalance of 6 in. lbs. will require 3 in. lbs. of work to rotate and reset. That's what everyone has missed. And Mt 31 is the same engineering but it rotates weights instead of having them move between top and bottom in a straight line.


I guess it might be simplified that 2 levers dropping 6 inches can lift 2 weights up to 6 inches. By dropping 6 inches and lifting weights 4 1/2 inches, then 3 in. lbs. of force is available, 1 1/2 x 2.
And if the fulcrum is 2 times further from the axle than it's weight on the other side of the axle, it will take 1/2 the energy to rotate the weight 180 ° which resets the weighted levers.

Jim

edited to correct a ratio and add with this, if rolling weights are used then more work can be performed. This gets into Mt 26 and the spinning child's toy.

[ME]

The math is simpler than the build. With levers, when they rotate 180°, they automatically reset.

Multiple levers not just two! 6 levers only need to move the wheeel 60 degrees each, 8 levers 45 degrees each!

The math is simple: things need to be slightly more.

For example, consider a pendulum stuck at 12 o'clock.
It needs some slight offset (N) to start moving clockwise or anti. Perhaps N=0.00001 degrees.
The pendulum will rotate (360-2*N) degrees at its mathematical best, before it reverses rotation.
Hence a lever needs an additional trick to induce an action which results in a gain of at least (2*N), no matter how the lever is partitioned.

[Fcdriver]

Well that is not how I'm doing it, the levers do not rotate around on the wheel, the wheel is separate! My levers only move up and down, as the wheel spins.