Current work

[Georg Künstler]

Bessler can say "nothing is hanging from the axle",
because the mechanism is a walking mechanism, an octagon walking around.

It has no fix axle where someting is fastened.
The mechanism does clearly make steps.
All is going around, together in the same direction.
From physic point is is an tilting forward mechanism in a positive feedback loop.

What makes it difficult to understand is the relative speed difference between the inner walking mechanism and the outer Hamstercage.

When the hamster cage is turned the walking octagon will fall over, tilting.

When you make the same with an square, the energy is wasted.
If you do it with an octagon it is driving the wheel, that is the wording "correct angle" from Bessler.

I will repeat here an sentence from physic:
Overturning an object: if the center of gravity of an unsupported object is perpendicular outside its stand, the object overturns.
The further outside the center of gravity, the faster the object tilts and shifts its center of gravity even further outwards.


A moving stand surface is an Hamster cage

[johannesbender]

i think if you were to place your head on the chopping block , for what you have to say , then you would be carefull to speak or write only facts.

These come in pairs, such that as one of them takes up an outer position, the othertakes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time.

the only axle Bessler ever talks about is the wheel.

[johannesbender]

question to others now , by looking at the example i showed , is torque difference a mechanical advantage then , when the lengths of the levers , from their pivots are the same ?

i say i think yes , and i tried to confirm it too.

[Jon J Hutton]

Johannesbender,

I played with that idea years ago....it is very interesting, but. The most i could come up with was a peddle powered swing for children and a self powered foucault pendulum.... with a small battery.

I found something interesting in it all though.

[johannesbender]

I will repeat here an sentence from physic:
Overturning an object: if the center of gravity of an unsupported object is perpendicular outside its stand, the object overturns.
The further outside the center of gravity, the faster the object tilts and shifts its center of gravity even further outwards.

@George sounds true to me , hope you achieve what your after


@jon , that sounds like fun projects , i have actually never tried using anything else than gravity to drive something in relation to bessler's work.

now this quick quote from wikipedia just for thought.

The lever is a movable bar that pivots on a fulcrum attached to a fixed point. The lever operates by applying forces at different distances from the fulcrum, or a pivot.
Assuming the lever does not dissipate or store energy, the
power into the lever must equal the power out of the lever. As the lever rotates around the fulcrum, points farther from this pivot move faster than points closer to the pivot. Therefore, a force applied to a point farther from the pivot must be less than the force located at a point closer in, because power is the product of force and velocity

where is the speed difference in the example ?

well anyway , sorry to budge in to the conversation here , hope im not intruding.

[Fletcher]

@johannesbender .. you bring up some good points and some questions for me.

First how are you animating the sim so well ? What's your process and does it take much time and effort to do ? An animation is superior to a series of screen grabs for sure, so I'd like to know how you are doing it ?

Here's my experiences and the conclusions I reached with Robervals. I have literally built thousands of them in sim world over the last 20 years. I've built real world ones too. They are fascinating to play around with.

Looking back at your sim (animated) based on MT143, from the previous page, my mind automatically begins to compute what it will do and why. And I remind myself of what I found with my sims of similar arrangements.

When I first simmed MT143 I made all the levers the same length and mass, and mass distribution, just as you did. BTW instead of adding equal weights to the ends (if you chose to) you can change the mass distribution using >Windows>COM (turn off Auto and manually adjust the position of the CoM).

If the levers in the two sets started at the same angles from the horizon then there was no tendency to move (equilibrium of forces). The two sets of levers can be at any angle and don't have to be the same angle, as long as the two levers on each side are at mirror angles etc (e.g. +20 degs & -20 degs).

Taking one set. If the levers are at different angles there is a tendency to move (not in equilibrium of forces). This is what your sim shows.

From my experiments I kind of reached a universal conclusion about all Mechanical Advantages and Leverage Systems etc, which I occasionally mention. It is this.

The object that can lose the most GPE will win over the counterpoised object in opposition. IOW's regardless of what method you use the object losing GPE will lose more GPE than the other object gains GPE, every time.

When the potential loss and gain of GPE is equal there is equilibrium of forces and nothing happens, no movement.

This potential to lose and gain GPE imo applies to all leverage systems and is the ruling consideration, regardless of Leverage System used.

[Fletcher]

P.S. is there a consensus from you fellows about whether B. was telling the naked truth about everything must turn with the wheel, and nothing hangs from the axle ?

I get the feeling we all think the door is still open somewhat ?

[johannesbender]

@johannesbender .. you bring up some good points and some questions for me.

First how are you animating the sim so well ? What's your process and does it take much time and effort to do ? An animation is superior to a series of screen grabs for sure, so I'd like to know how you are doing it ?

Fletcher , there are a couple of steps i go through , it all will depend on what software you use on your pc , or what online web tools ,but here is what i do.

if i were to use a sim:

1) i first track the simulation , a length of frames or time that i think will be sufficient for visual purposes.

remember that , the more frames you have to record , the bigger the file size will be.

so i try to be conservative about the length ,and skip frames as needed in the sim.

2. i now record the playback of the sim , with a screen recorder application to avi.

i recommend the use of, screen recorder software , to capture the playback of your sim , or frankly anything you want to capture as a video.

there are various free and paid software for screen recording , it needs to be able to capture your windows desktop ,and not just games or such (most are tailored to capture games from screen buffers other that the window desktop)

i recommend bandicam mostly , because you can set the screen capture to a specific area on the screen , instead of capturing the complete screen for every frame (this helps with file size).

3) usually screen recorders record out to avi or a chosen supported format , so if i do not want avi , i then use a converter or image editor like gimp or photoshop , to convert the avi to gif.

some avi recordings are small enough to not even care about,.
there are lots of video converters as online tools , and lots you can download too.

if i were to convert to gif my method , involves , importing the avi to an image editor that support avi , to convert/edit the frames before exporting to gif.

and the end result :
https://ibb.co/z62Q2ZV

P.S. is there a consensus from you fellows about whether B. was telling the naked truth about everything must turn with the wheel, and nothing hangs from the axle ?

i like to think he was telling the truth because i am working on trying to accomplish this myself.

but i just dont know , i guess for the time being i am leaning towards being convinced that he was telling the truth on that, 90% .

would love to hear what others think.

Here's my experiences and the conclusions I reached with Robervals. I have literally built thousands of them in sim world over the last 20 years. I've built real world ones too. They are fascinating to play around with.

they are quite interesting , i am not very much drawn towards them though as a mechanism type of thing , but for testing out concepts which require to remove the effects of say leverage.

From my experiments I kind of reached a universal conclusion about all Mechanical Advantages and Leverage Systems etc, which I occasionally mention. It is this.

The object that can lose the most GPE will win over the counterpoised object in opposition. IOW's regardless of what method you use the object losing GPE will lose more GPE than the other object gains GPE, every time.

When the potential loss and gain of GPE is equal there is equilibrium of forces and nothing happens, no movement.

This potential to lose and gain GPE imo applies to all leverage systems and is the ruling consideration, regardless of Leverage System used.

yes , this is a very important aspect , what i am currently busy with is to try and achieve this.

my concept that i am working on ,is completely different from the example i gave here , i do not wish to show it ,so i thought i could ask something related with another example.

i have already proven by physical experimentation that it works as a lifting device , i still need to convince myself by more experimentation that my lifting distances are correct.

so anyway , GPE loss vs gain ,do you mean like in the screen shots i have here ?

[Georg Künstler]

johannesbender asked:

Fletcher wrote:

P.S. is there a consensus from you fellows about whether B. was telling the naked truth about everything must turn with the wheel, and nothing hangs from the axle ?

i like to think he was telling the truth because i am working on trying to accomplish this myself.

but i just dont know , i guess for the time being i am leaning towards being convinced that he was telling the truth on that, 90% .

would love to hear what others think.

Bessler is telling 100% the truth.
He is describing a wandering COG. A fix axle does not allow this movment.
The pivot point is not fixed, this also means that the pivot Point is able to move.

A moving pivot point automatically generates different lever lengths.

[Fletcher]

so anyway, GPE loss vs gain, do you mean like in the screen shots i have here ?

Not quite. In WM there is a way to know what the System KE is at any frame/time. Just create an Empty Output and call it Sys KE. In the empty field put in this 'formula' KE()

Now it will sum all KE's for you instead of tracking and adding Outputs for everything with a mass in motion.

AFAIK there isn't an equivalent 'formula' for GPE of all masses. You have to build this Output the long and tedious way. But if you do then you need to have GPE Outputs for ALL masses in the sim. Then sum them etc.

Back to the leverage and mech technicalities. If you build a mech for example and you want to lift Mass B with Mass A etc via some form of leverage etc, then you have to build a GPE budget for the mech. This includes ALL parts with mass. N.B. GPE automatically takes account of mass and vertical height above (0,0) coordinate. Ok, that's our start position and System Net GPE Output. We run the sim and at end of run we note the new System Net GPE Output. If only enabled from gravity force there will be a drop in System Net GPE.

You can see in the Outputs how much GPE Mass A lost, and how much GPE Mass B gained. But we can't forget about the rest of the mech if we want to be accurate.

In your example you have two circles, 6 and 7. Doing some sums for start of sim rum and at the end we can see a result. Net GPE gains by 0.203 J's. Net Position gains vertically by 0.045 meters.

That would not normally happen if all parts of the mech are accounted for, and gravity is the only influencer (force in action).

So what I'm saying is that regardless of what leverage system you use, let's say 2 masses on 4 to 1 pulleys with massless ropes and pulleys for example, one mass will gain GPE and the other lose GPE. The direction of movement is in favour of the mass most able to lose more GPE than the other gains.

Good luck with your mech etc.

[Georg Künstler]

Fletcher wrote:

So what I'm saying is that regardless of what leverage system you use, let's say 2 masses on 4 to 1 pulleys with massless ropes and pulleys for example, one mass will gain GPE and the other lose GPE. The direction of movement is in favour of the mass most able to lose more GPE than the other gains.

That is true for a system with an fix axle.
With a loose axle it is a different game.
Then the complete mass will be moved sidewards without loosing GPE, generating torque.
The sum of GPE's are constant, there is no loose of GPE.
The pivot point is different. The pivot point is wandering.

[johannesbender]

ah i think i see what you mean, i will try to use your advice to get an accurate measure of GPE , as soon as i have time again

thanks in advance.

[Fletcher]

I figure the reason there is no System GPE formula is because symmetry is assumed.

If a wheel under gravity alone gains System KE then that must be at the expense of System GPE. 1 for 1.

Trouble is when you have a motor or torque force added to your sim then that GPE-KE relationship becomes meaningless.

So you have to do the long hand energy budget approach, imo.

If no fake force or energy involved, or energy losses to frictions etc, and only gravity in play, then assumptions can be made about KE gained and GPE lost, imo.

[johannesbender]

Not quite. In WM there is a way to know what the System KE is at any frame/time. Just create an Empty Output and call it Sys KE. In the empty field put in this 'formula' KE()

fletcher ,i must be doing something wrong , the KE() thing is not accepted as a formula when i enter it.

i just did a GPE and KE for each mass , since i dont care about rotation of a wheel at this point , i did everything above the y axis .

the application of the method i am working on ,can be applied in different forms , its like when you understand a concept ,you can apply different mechanisms and designs based on it .

so i did a version which does not care for rotation.

anyway , like they say , dont put the cart before the horse.

i dont know if this is all relative measures needed from a sim.

ps. i do not really want to bother other people with my own problems on their topics actually ,so i am just posting this up , theres no need for anyone to respond.
.......

fyi , i see there is a free screen recorder named Sharex , and as i have read you can add custom watermarking too.

@george i am not very familiar with such designs , i did have one many years ago which used a pendulum but i gave up on persuing such designs.

i do however have a new idea, about the axle issue Fletcher speaks of , but at this time its just thoughts.

i havent spend much time dwelling on the words about hanging weight yet , i am still open minded about a lot of things.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Fletcher,
you overlook some evident Point.

The octagon walker has GPE and KE.
The complete internal System is under stress from gravity.

Every spring has KE, the most KE is stored in the springs at the Bottom,
because they have to carry the total weights above.

There will be always one, max 2 feet on the hamster Cage.
You only have to activate the first fall.

There are some Special construction Details which must be observed.
The cylindrical weights are pierced in the middle. They do not roll !! But they can turn.
They act as a teeth in a gear in Connection with the Hamster Cage.

You can see the construction as a pendulum,
as Long it is not forced to tilt once.
If is tilts, then it runs.

It is a tilt swing in a positive Feedback loop.