Solved: Width for Height Conundrum

[Fletcher]

Good luck with the test.

Just as a point of interest. I'm not an engineer but I did take math at school.

IIRC the x-plane was the page/screen horizontal, the y-plane the screen vertical, and so the z-plane therefore must be screen front to back ? IOW's the 3 spacial dimensions x,y,z.

I was reading a post of Ralph's the other day and he had it completely different; and I remembered a discussion where engineers label it differently than mathematicians. It gets confusing for me often, or maybe I'm just lazy. Doctors and pilots call them different again.

Perhaps we could all just explain in simple terms what we mean that everybody can recognise (in relation to gravity force direction and screen orientation) ? e.g. horizontal, vertical, normal; or width, height, and depth; or horizontal, vertical, and depth.

[preoccupied]

I shouldn't assume that you have anything similar to me. I feel contentious.

[ME]

I have no idea what this lever is all about... so eeh good luck I guess. So is it "solved" or not?
When it failed to work, perhaps reveal the intended idea behind your "38 inputs, more than half of which were friction scripts".

Anyway, I came here to agree with Fletcher.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, it isn't hidden from you.

You should still have the 1-4 lever wm2d files I sent you a while back. I went with my original load shifter design; not the second. I made two changes to the shifter that allowed it to finally work both upright and upside down.

Theses two changes removed the need for a latching mech while preserving the intended action to successfully shift it when flipped. But it must be flipped by rotating the system about the X-axis, not the z-axis, as the shifter only works if bound to the Y-axis of the plane of the wheel, hence the need for a gimbal mount, which will change the Y-axis to circular plane.

I will attempt to test the gimbal approach this week.

No, it wasn't hidden from me.

Sorry for being blunt, but do you intend to put up in this thread your 'unhidden' mech for general discussion here ? I would prefer it but if not I understand.

I think it is well known over the years that I am generally quite happy to discuss with certain people 'things' and act when able as a sounding board behind the scenes, to a point. I am not always able to add anything of value to the contributor other than a different perspective.

I also equally advocate free, open, and meaningful discussion of ideas at BW.com. Especially as there is a wealth of talented people well able to contribute meaningfully with full disclosure of an idea worth exploring (which is often in the eye of the beholder). A problem shared is a problem halved or whatever metaphor you like. Then again some people want to go it alone and that's fine with me.

[Silvertiger]

I have no idea what this lever is all about... so eeh good luck I guess. So is it "solved" or not? When it failed to work, perhaps reveal the intended idea behind your "38 inputs, more than half of which were friction scripts".

You're referring to the "redesign overhaul" I did on page 5 of this thread. I went back to the original lever design, so the 38 resistance inputs does not apply.

Edit: The Y-vector is solved, but that is only half of it: I am now working on the rotational dynamics of the Y-Vector as it rotates about the X-Axis.

[Silvertiger]

Perhaps we could all just explain in simple terms what we mean that everybody can recognise (in relation to gravity force direction and screen orientation) ? e.g. horizontal, vertical, normal; or width, height, and depth; or horizontal, vertical, and depth.

The best way to do it for a wheel is to make the front face of the wheel the XY-Plane, and axle the Z-Axis. The X-Axis is horizontal and the Y-Axis is vertical. I'll put up one image that shows all axes, and another that shows how the shifter gets restricted to the YZ-Plane in the gimbal configuration.

[Silvertiger]

Ok, I finished my first test simulation. Here's the video. Next I'll place a load on it and see how it does.

[raj]

The weights are just swinging. There is no lifting, no 360 degrees vertical rotation.

[Silvertiger]

Raj, the red weight is FOUR pounds, and the blue weight is ONE pound. Every time that red weight makes it to the top, it has been lifted. If NO lifting is going on, then how can the red weight and the panel make it to the top-vertical on the oscillation? Wouldn't the heavier weight - the red weight - make it bottom out? Think about that. Look up "self-oscillation" on google or Wikipedia raj. If the feedback keeps an oscillation going, then that's power. It doesn't have to spin 360 degrees. In fact, in most of my designs, I find that I get more power when I don't cause a mechanism to rotate 360 degrees. I have one design that does rotate, but I get more resets and more power if I oscillate it like a pendulum.

[raj]

Just follow closely the motion of the gimbal, and the motion of the red weight.

The motions are unusual , but not rotary motions.

[Silvertiger]

Think about what you just said.

[raj]

Yes, I said unusual, but not rotary motion.

Unusual, simply because the weights act simply as a pendulum with the red weight as a bob, swinging on two axles simultaneously.

Your video starts with the red (4 lbs) weight already on top with PE, and the blue (1 lb) below.

Then it's normal for it to fall, lifting the smaller while falling, rotating on ONE axle.

Falling from top, on a single axle, will allow the red heavy weight to come right down and move past the 6 o'clock position, almost, but not quite reaching the top 12 o'clock position, which can be interpreted as the small 1 lb weight lifting the 4 lb weight.

But then your arrangement allow the 4 lb weight to SWING on the second axle, transferring its falling/swinging back motion, to return to it's starting position, giving the illusory perception it is turning in the same direction.

I am sure that your video will show your concept as it is, without the 1 lb weight, with just ONE weight/bob.

[Silvertiger]

Here you go Raj. I made this just for you.

This is the most information I've ever revealed to anyone on any of my designs in a public forum.

[raj]

Thank you Silvertiger. Beautiful job.

Forgive me, if I say I am NOT convinced with your computer SIMULATION.

This is a just a wobbling wheel turning on an axle. The 1 lb weight cannot provide torque to lift the 4 lb opposite weight.

Anyhow, I wish you the best of luck.

Raj

[Silvertiger]

Thanks. And as for not being convinced, you are not the first, and you will not be the last. People always blame the program...even if it is two completely different ones.