Solved: Width for Height Conundrum

[Silvertiger]

I've been designing and testing levers of various principles including pulleys since early 2015 and finally solved the width for height problem this afternoon. Up until now none of them worked. But today I had a "what if" moment and successfully lifted a 20 lb load to a height of 15 inches with a counterweight of 5 lbs with a drop of 15 inches. Needless to say I'm pretty happy right now. Granted, it's a piece of a puzzle of many pieces, but an important one nonetheless imho. I've been working on it off and on: more off, since it isn't my main project. Just thought I'd share. :)

Note: The design is simple enough to look at and say "duh" and smack your head...but figuring out the creative mechanics to design it and make it work, good Lord. Of course I can't say HOW I did it. I'd like to at least make an attempt to work it into a wheel design first. Somehow.

[ovyyus]

Oh no, not again?

[Silvertiger]

Reads like you have a history with this sort of thing? Lol.

[eccentrically1]

You must have measured something wrong. 5 lbs. can't lift 15 lbs. unless it falls farther than the 15 lbs is raised.

[Silvertiger]

I can say this: So far, I have designed three completely different levers that work to output more than what gravity has to lend, and they all work on one general principle, which is that what is given by gravity must be used to store up energy SOMEwhere within the lever itself, whether it be the fulcrum, the load, the lever arm, or the effort. Among these four things, energy must be taken from gravity, stored, and then released. In all three, gravity is the just the source of the charge (as in energy storage) of the machine. In this machine, obviously, the 20 Lb load stores up the charge in the form of GPE and thus the charge has not yet been used. (The difference between the three designs is the method in which the charge is ABLE to be stored and released.)

Edit: This design just happens to be the only one of the three where I specifically addressed the width for height problem. The other two levers sidestep this issue.

[Silvertiger]

You must have measured something wrong. 5 lbs. can't lift 15 lbs. unless it falls farther than the 15 lbs is raised.

I lifted 20 lol. It's not a lever as a simple machine though; it's been modified into a complex machine.

[eccentrically1]

Oh, sorry, then you still measured something wrong.
5 lbs can't lift 20 lbs. unless it falls farther than the 20 lbs is raised.

[Silvertiger]

With a standard lever, you're correct.

[eccentrically1]

That you measured something wrong?

[Silvertiger]

Yes. Good thing I didn't design a standard lever, whew.

[Silvertiger]

Just measured it again. I kind of eyeballed the measurement before. If you want to get technical the 20 Lb load is 15.75 inches above the fulcrum and the 5 Lb effort is 15.75 inches below the fulcrum.

[Silvertiger]

I just lifted 30 Lbs with the 5 Lbs using the same lever design. All I did was make a slight modification to one of the components. Both weights are still equidistant from the fulcrum at opposite heights of 15.75 inches. I'd be excited if I wasn't sleepy. I work thirds at a die casting plant. Believe it or not, many of my ideas come from work-related applications, such as trying to find the easiest ways to move heavy loads, or how to properly grip a casting spray wand so that you don't injure your shoulders, wrists, and fingers.

[Fletcher]

Hi Silvertiger ..

I know I'm preaching to the converted but please humour me for the moment.

Just trying to understand what you are saying about solving the width for height conundrum (or breaking the law of levers).

For me, I don't so much think or worry about how much mass raises or falls over what vertical distances, with any type of lever, with a fixed fulcrum or pivot etc.

I view it has what causes one end to raise and the other to fall ? And in my experience (so far) it is that the 'system' CoM must lower its GPE overall to get any movement at any end of a lever, simple or complex.

That means we must ordinarily account for all parts (i.e. mass) of the complex machine except for the fixed fulcrum on a background.

Have you taken the levers and accessories mass fully into account ? Because what you are saying suggests that gravity provides the fuel which then enables the system CoM to be raised gaining system GPE overall. The opposite to what I would expect.

That would be a miraculous discovery.

[AB Hammer]

Silvertiger

It is a deceptive mechanism to appear to lift more than the moving weight.

I found such a thing and called Ralph about it back about 7 years ago, but mine had trouble working well in a wheel due to CF. I won't say the exact mechanism but I will give what you have to do.

Once the weight to be moved is naturalized by its own weight. It is easily moved by a lighter weight.

[Silvertiger]

@Fletcher. When I flip the lever over, naturally the 20 Lb weight lifts the 5 Lb weight. It's a complex machine, but I can still count on one hand the number of parts it has. Easy to account. May not work once I put some of these on a wheel. I'll have to work out some designs and sim them to see.