Stork's bill modification

[preoccupied]

I was going to save this to share with Mark but he doesn't seem to be getting his money very fast to start his 3D printing business. I don't think he will be able to build my wheel soon enough.

This drawing is artistically similar to other drawings on Bessler Wheel. The utility of the design is what is important. I want a wheel that launches a weight horizontally as powerfully as possible. I don't care if the driving weight needs to be heavier or use a larger lever or diamond or triangle. It needs to be able to launch a weight out to push out a spring that is strong enough to lift the weight back up on the bottom. I don't know if the angles of the stork's bill is ideal. It's at 90 degrees at the start which seems to be popular here. I came across this idea because I was making several attempts to reload weights using springs but it was always double the effort to reload them and I could only make them balanced with my best efforts. With the Stork's bill it's different. I can store the energy from launching a weight using the spring.

[Tarsier79]

OK. Lets look at the basics. You need to extend the weight out at 3:00, and compress the spring enough to shoot the weight up at the bottom. Moving the weight itself out can take very little energy, but shooting it back up requires the same energy you will get from rotation. Your heavier weight needs to drop the equivalent of the mass at the radius vertically, that is if a perfect spring existed.

Energy come < energy go + friction..... You do not have a runner in my opinion.

Thanks for sharing.

Kaine.

[preoccupied]

Well, you only need to have the weight launched out for some amount of turn for it to work. You don't need the weight extended out on the spring the full 90 degrees turn to the bottom. The wheel could turn 45 degrees and then the spring could reload the weight to its natural position. Just to clarify. If the spring can extend any amount it would produce extra force on the wheel and it only needs to turn with the wheel an amount not as much as possible necessarily. At 45 degrees the weight only weighs 0.707 on the ramp so the spring can be of a strength of just over 0.707 to lift it up at that position or a little earlier. There is a lot to look into mathematically before assuming it's all balanced based on your assumptions Tarsier79.

[Tarsier79]

Compressing the spring takes an amount of energy. regardless of where you make that happen, you still need to supply the energy to do so. My analasys was on a "best case scenario" assuming perfect energy conversions. My view was that it compressed very quickly at 3, then using 0 energy to latch it until release at 6:00.

The weight at the bottom in rotation additionally has inertia (CF). Your spring will also need to push against this. You could get it to help compress your spring, but then when will you release it?

Without the addition of a (potential) game-changer, I would not invest my time building this.

[preoccupied]

The inertia would cause the weight to push back into its natural position somewhere later on the turn where the angle creates a ramp and makes the weight lighter. At maximum inertia (CF), if the wheel were to wildly spin at incredible speed, it might be placed above the horizontal position before it slides back into its natural position. I think that the weight can extend/compress more easily given the force if the angle is lower than horizontal like if this were happenings at 22.5 degrees sloping downward the force necessary to extend/compress the spring would be less. The force necessary to extend/compress the spring would also be less if the spring retracts back into its natural position earlier than later like if it begins launching at 22.5 degree slope downwards and begins to retract back into its natural position at 45 degree slope or earlier. The point is really that it only needs to be extended for an amount of time to put extra force on the wheel, it doesn't have to be extended for the maximum amount of time. Plus without doing the math you are taking two unrelated forces and saying they are equal. The torque pushing the weight and spring using the Stork's bill horizontally or down a ramp is not connected to the axle of the wheel turning. It is not a lever on a lever so it's not necessarily equal.

[preoccupied]

The driving weight in the center is offset, if it were perfectly balanced then any amount of spring extension would cause over unity. If the length of the lever on the triangle is 1 then on the left side it's offset by 0.707 twice or 1.414 and on the right it's driving with 1 distance. So the amount the spring needs to extend is greater than 0.414 and it's over unity. If there are more diamonds it will move faster and I think the relationship is almost acceleration equals force because the force required to push the weight along a horizontal axis is almost nothing. So the more diamond shapes there are the more acceleration and the more likely to get the required force from acceleration to extend the spring. I was going to make that point clear with drawings but I don't have big enough MS Paint documents and drawing a wheel with more diamonds is very large. I believe that I drew my stork's bill in E size paper and I don't have an ANSI standard sized MS Paint document larger than that. I want to draw in ANSI Standard paper. The point is that eventually with enough diamond shaped levers the acceleration will surpass the force needed to extend the spring 0.414 distance.

[Tarsier79]

Plus without doing the math you are taking two unrelated forces and saying they are equal....

Yes, but in actual fact, you need much more energy to store in a real spring than you will ever get out of it.

Do you agree that if your wheel didn't have springs, the energy required for the 6:00 lift is the same you get from the OB drop?
The lift is the amount of energy you need in the spring in a perfect world. Lift=drop=spring.

[preoccupied]

I agree that if my wheel didn't have springs that the energy required for the 6:00 lift is the same as any horizontal shift. It's a relative force in horizontal shift with the spring though not a distance change for a lever. A longer stork's bill would produce more acceleration. I don't know how long the stork's bill has to be but it could be any length or infinity and it would eventually at some size produce enough acceleration to extend the spring to an overbalanced position because the force required to move the weight along a horizontal plane is almost nothing.

[Tarsier79]

A spring is not magical. Nor is a storks bill. To accelerate the horizontal mass great enough to compress the spring, you have to accelerate the mass with enough energy to do so. Again energy in=energy out.

[preoccupied]

There is no mechanical leverage loss to adding a longer Stork's bill if what you're pushing is along a horizontal plane or a sloping plane facing downwards. A longer Stork's bill will create more acceleration. It would be force equals acceleration because you can assume no mechanical loss for pushing along a horizontal plane or a sloping plane facing downwards. You could with no friction create an infinitely long Stork's bill with infinite force in acceleration with a horizontal plane or a sloping plane facing downwards. There should be nothing wrong with this because this by itself doesn't produce perpetual motion machine, you can do it with magnets; I can make an infinitely long magnetic chain reaction and infinite force in acceleration but it doesn't produce energy by itself. The spring is key because it can store some energy and use it to reposition the weight so that one side of the wheel is further from the axle than the other side of the wheel along the spring.

[johannesbender]

There is no mechanical leverage loss to adding a longer Stork's bill if what you're pushing is along a horizontal plane or a sloping plane facing downwards. A longer Stork's bill will create more acceleration. It would be force equals acceleration because you can assume no mechanical loss for pushing along a horizontal plane or a sloping plane facing downwards. You could with no friction create an infinitely long Stork's bill with infinite force in acceleration with a horizontal plane or a sloping plane facing downwards. There should be nothing wrong with this because this by itself doesn't produce perpetual motion machine, you can do it with magnets; I can make an infinitely long magnetic chain reaction and infinite force in acceleration but it doesn't produce energy by itself. The spring is key because it can store some energy and use it to reposition the weight so that one side of the wheel is further from the axle than the other side of the wheel along the spring.

Stork bills have friction and a lot of it too in every direction you point it in to though.
There is however also mechanical advantage loss , its distance out versus distance in and force out versus force in , the output force is reduced as the total output distance increases , and vice versa working from the other end the output force is increased as the total output distance is decreased .
In the horizontal alignment the stork bills links of which it is made up , that link's weight , does not act against the leverage as much as it does in the vertical however it still contributes to the amount of mass /inertia at either ends.

[johannesbender]

dp

[preoccupied]

There is no mechanical leverage loss to adding a longer Stork's bill if what you're pushing is along a horizontal plane or a sloping plane facing downwards. A longer Stork's bill will create more acceleration. It would be force equals acceleration because you can assume no mechanical loss for pushing along a horizontal plane or a sloping plane facing downwards. You could with no friction create an infinitely long Stork's bill with infinite force in acceleration with a horizontal plane or a sloping plane facing downwards. There should be nothing wrong with this because this by itself doesn't produce perpetual motion machine, you can do it with magnets; I can make an infinitely long magnetic chain reaction and infinite force in acceleration but it doesn't produce energy by itself. The spring is key because it can store some energy and use it to reposition the weight so that one side of the wheel is further from the axle than the other side of the wheel along the spring.

Stork bills have friction and a lot of it too in every direction you point it in to though.
There is however also mechanical advantage loss , its distance out versus distance in and force out versus force in , the output force is reduced as the total output distance increases , and vice versa working from the other end the output force is increased as the total output distance is decreased .
In the horizontal alignment the stork bills links of which it is made up , that link's weight , does not act against the leverage as much as it does in the vertical however it still contributes to the amount of mass /inertia at either ends.

I'm not sure if the output force is reduced as the total distance increases. It might be like a gear train where if you move something really fast that the leverage is weaker if there is a load, but you are still moving something very fast and it has force if you launch it. The launching force is what we are looking at not how hard the Stork's bill can push additionally onto something. It's force equals acceleration with no load along a horizontal plane or an inclined plane facing downwards. With no friction an infinitely long Stork's bill could launch something infinitely faster.

[johannesbender]

I'm not sure if the output force is reduced as the total distance increases. It might be like a gear train where if you move something really fast that the leverage is weaker if there is a load, but you are still moving something very fast and it has force if you launch it. The launching force is what we are looking at not how hard the Stork's bill can push additionally onto something. It's force equals acceleration with no load along a horizontal plane or an inclined plane facing downwards. With no friction an infinitely long Stork's bill could launch something infinitely faster.

what i mean is total input distance vs total output distance , if output distance is more than input distance the output force decreases and vice versa , and if you add more diamonds to ramp up the total distance you also decrease the output force (levers) and increase the amount of input force required .

if your total output distance = 1000000 meters (when expanded), and your input distance = 1 meter (needed to expand the output) ,if you ignore rigidity & friction & resistance , perfect no losses ,
and had a weight of 1Kg on the output end , you would need the input force to equal 1kg * 1000000 ,
to be able to expand the output weight 1000000 meters outwards.

If you are looking at it in terms of actual-mechanical-advantage (AMA) and not ideal-mechanical-advantage (IMA) , you would need more than 1kg * 1000000 to expand the output weight over the distance 1000000 meters away.

So in simple terms im saying to launch something infinitely faster you still need a equivalent ratio'd force determined by the MA at the input.
As for the speed of expansion , or KE , i am not really inferring anything about that , good luck.

[agor95]

Hey johannesbender

There are some members who have put 'preoccupied' in our ignore list.

So think of others when you start copying the post we have blocked.

For irony sack; I beg your too consider.

All the Best