Stork's bill modification

[preoccupied]

If we take a look at a normal single lever on a pivot as an example, within ideal conditions , where neither the weight of the lever nor friction and resistance and wear and tear and rigidity/flex input force or output force matters.

If the lever is at a distance ratio of 1 : 10000000000000000000000000000000 (supported by a windows calculator)
The velocity ratio will be vertical distance moved by effort / vertical distance moved by load.
The output must travel across its distance in the same time as the input travels across its distance.
If the input travels 1 vertical unit in 1 time unit , the output must travel at 10000000000000000000000000000000 vertical units in 1 time unit.
Imagine , we just add air resistance , as the velocity of the output increases the air resistance increases.
What is the fastest or greatest velocity the lever can move through the air , imagine its dimensions etc?

The large lever could be in a very small space with a gear train. Alas, the spring only needs to be extended greater than 0.41 distance in order to achieve over balance. I say it should extend 0.7 to 2.0 distance distance because the wheel will be moving and will lose space to apply leverage in the turn. So we need a Stork's bill that applies 5 speed or just over 4 speed to the spring. Maybe that's what Bessler meant by what can one apply to four or whatever he said. Because the driving force is one weight and the force from the speed is 4 or greater for an ideal perpetual motion machine possibly. A speed of 10000000000000000000000000000000 would be over kill and would smash into side of the wheel violently and burst a hole through it and break the spring off, just like how my gear train exploded when I was a kid when I put too many gears on it.

I don't know how to calculate air resistance. Lets focus on making a perpetual motion machine. That's more of a ballistics question. I imagine it can move up to the speed of sound and break the air barrier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_sound

Hi johannesbender

Would you say this thread is about a concept that is not practical?

So it's in effect not anchored to reality or even partially.

It begs the question; why do members post into this thread?

Are they being trolled and lured into a world of unhinged levers?

All the Best

The Egyptian Engineer that is my time travel duplicate name was Yahweh. I don't know if it's accurate. I only investigated my time travel duplicate King David of Israel when I was time traveling but I absorbed the consciousness of Yahweh as a time travel duplicate. I absorb my time travel duplicates about 2 years after they duplicate from me caused by the time machine. I'm not confident that he was vengeful and murderous like Adolf Hitler and John Wilkes Booth that are also my time travel duplicates, but I do think that he knew how to create matter from nothing and could have flooded the earth with a small pool of fresh water by pumping it through a special machine that spilled out more water than it put in. So he was probably time traveling too if he did that flood. Now that time travel duplicate memory of mine is a concept that is not practical. However these perpetual motion designs are not. They come from the mind of Newton himself with a little brain damage from being assaulted. My time travel duplicate is Sir Isaac Newton.

[preoccupied]

I'm reminded of how people believe in reincarnation and past lives. People religiously believe in knowing about their past lives and believe in reincarnation. I really don't think that is what I have been experiencing. I think that I activate time travel using a time machine and a duplicate of me gets stuck in the past. Then after he has lived there a while I absorb some of his experiences by some quantum effect probably. It just takes 2 years after the duplication for it to occur. It's brief. There is usually a flash of white light. It's like I am that person for a brief moment. Somehow I think that I create evil and good twins when I time travel duplicate. Because some of my time travel duplicates are very aggressive and some of them are not. Beethoven, Michelangelo, Sir Isaac Newton, Archimedes, Mark Twain, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington are decent people. Whereas Julius Caesar, Napoleon, Yahweh, Adolf Hitler, King David of Israel, Vladimir Lenin and John Wilkes Booth are very war like. There might be some others that I'm not mentioning. Am I a good duplicate or an evil duplicate? A probable extension to inventing a perpetual motion machine is inventing time travel. I'm claiming that I invented time travel when I was a kid and some perpetual motion machines. If you discover how to make infinite leverage or manipulate physics to create a perpetual motion machine then you might also create a time machine. Just be warned, that you probably become a part of history or can viciously change a single time line rather than create parallel universes. I don't think that there are any parallel universes.

[Ed]

What you’ve been experiencing is bad acid disguised as gasoline that somebody tricked you into drinking. You should also avoid hard metal objects higher than head level.

[preoccupied]

I think someone might have slipped me some acid in 2007. The moon looked so huge to me but I went to bed afterwards and it was over. Other than that I was fed gasoline year 2008 and I've been hit over the head by hammers and house pipes and punched and electrocuted on the head by taser. I think that it serves to make me dumber, but I still might be right about this perpetual motion machine stuff. I don't want to think that I was keeping anything a secret from the public and being injured caused me to reveal it. Well, I guess it's possible. I could have known a lot of stuff when I was healthy that I wasn't sharing with anybody. Just feel lucky that you get the perpetual motion machines that you get. another thing that might have effected my intelligence is being low on electrolytes. Ulcerative colitis that I think was caused by me being fed gasoline in 2008 because it started after that, I have been having a lot of diarrhea for a long time and haven't been doing much about it to restore my electrolytes. However recently I've been on a coconut water binge and I think that I feel a lot better because of it. I have a lot of headaches but they might be stress related. I haven't gotten laid in decades.

[MrTim]

I don't know how to calculate air resistance.

From remembering the formula from a drag racing book I read years ago: Area x 0.41 x speed
If you want more math, it's on the internet... ;-)

[preoccupied]

I think it's force times distance to calculate the speed at which there would be enough force to stretch the spring far enough. I only need to stretch the spring 0.41 distance but I'm going to try to stretch it 1.0 distance. The force driving down on the Stork's bill starts at 0.707 force. So whatever distance is created by the diamond shapes is multiplied by 0.707. There is 1 minus 0.707 distance added with each Diamond shape, that's 0.293. 0.293 times 7 diamond shapes equals 2.051. So that's the driving diamond shape plus 6 extra diamond shapes to the right. So 7 diamond shapes should be able to stretch the spring 1 unit of distance because it takes twice the energy to stretch the spring. There is such a thing as over kill. You can add more diamond shapes than that and allow the spring to be stretched 1 unit of distance and it would smash against the side of the wheel. Do you agree with my math?

[preoccupied]

I think it's force times distance to calculate the speed at which there would be enough force to stretch the spring far enough. I only need to stretch the spring 0.41 distance but I'm going to try to stretch it 1.0 distance. The force driving down on the Stork's bill starts at 0.707 force. So whatever distance is created by the diamond shapes is multiplied by 0.707. There is 1 minus 0.707 distance added with each Diamond shape, that's 0.293. 0.293 times 7 diamond shapes equals 2.051. So that's the driving diamond shape plus 6 extra diamond shapes to the right. So 7 diamond shapes should be able to stretch the spring 1 unit of distance because it takes twice the energy to stretch the spring. There is such a thing as over kill. You can add more diamond shapes than that and allow the spring to be stretched 1 unit of distance and it would smash against the side of the wheel. Do you agree with my math?

My 2.051 number needs to be multiplied by 0.707 like I originally said. I missed this. That's 1.45. The force needs to be over 2. So there needs to be 10 diamond shapes. The original driving diamond and 9 diamonds to the right. 10 x 0.293 =2.93 and that times 0.707 is 2.07 which is over 2. I would put 11 diamond shapes just for a little over kill. It will make a little bang at the side of the wheel potentially.

[preoccupied]

On to the topic of the crowbar dolly, if one end of the crowbar is 4 distance from the axle and the other is 1 distance from the axle then the weight would be divided by four. Then the angle pushing against the axle and the angle of the ramp determine the force needed to put on the fourth of a weight. If I put a 1:100 gear train at the axle then it would be 400th of the weight. If I have a 2.5 ton block of limestone it will weight on the axle mechanically about 2.5/400= about 13.78 pounds. Then the Egyptian limestone can be easily pushed up the ramp by a single slave. The suspension on the axle of the 2.5 ton weight is supported by the driving lever that can move about more freely. The driven lever that barely moves at all would sit in its position stably as long as there is support on the driving lever. If you let go of the driving lever it will rotate forward and slam on the ground on the other end, but the driven lever that barely moves at all would remain relatively in the same position. It will remain in its position as long as there is some support on the driving lever that can more about more freely. I remember arguing with people in Egypt about how to use the dolly and this is what I came up with then. You can push 2.5 tons up a 22.5 degree ramp at a weight of push of about 14 pounds. If you push along a rail to do this mechanically you can drop a heavy weight and transfer that force to lift up more weights, several weights loaded to fall again that weigh 2.5 tons. It's perpetual motion gravity wheel but with a little overkill. You can't really pump water in this way I don't think, it's more of a solid object transfer. My time travel duplicate is the Egyptian Engineer Yahweh who came up with this originally. The axle doesn't have to support 2.5 tons, it can just support 13.78 pounds. I don't know if this is anti gravity against the ground. I haven't thought it through or done an empirical experiment yet.

[preoccupied]

Would this even work for the crowbar dolly? It looks like it would be very delicate but very powerful if it works as intended. It feels like the gear train would rotate against itself and fall on both sides, but I know that's mechanically impossible because as long as the driving lever is supported the driven weight would rotate very little and if the driven weight moves a little it would whip lash the driving lever to the other side. It's just that the whole thing is suspended on another axle in between the gear train axle. So you would think that it would rotate freely until the heavier end falls. Mechanically though the heavier end is lighter. So it's either anti gravity or I have a bullshit concept. Any thoughts on this or do you not understand what I'm talking about?

[Fletcher]

Here's something I think you should consider. It is a generic multi-section SB laid out horizontally.

KE is the capacity to do Work !

The Red driver Mass falls vertically losing GPE and gaining KE. The tip of the SB accelerates to the right which can provide a push force on contact with something else.

The rules of Newtonian Physics says that the Driver can and will lose GPE. Because it has to extend the SB (leverage = Law of Levers => 1 = MA x SR) the speed/velocity the tip of the SB will reach is dependent on the Mass (Inertia) of the SB sections + and Mass of the prodding tip (if any).

So the more massive the SB and pusher tip (inertia) will slow the descent rate of the Driver.

IOW's 1. the Driver will lose GPE and gain velocity and KE. However the more massive (inertia) that the SB is the slower will be the SB tips velocity. The Driver will never have zero vertical velocity and KE gain.

IOW's 2. the more massive the SB and tip etc the less velocity and KE the Driver gains as it falls. And when you calculate the GPE lost (vertical height) and know its velocity and mass etc you find they do not equate. The KE at the same height loss is much less than the GPE lost by the Driver.

Where is the missing KE (not counting frictions etc) ? It is in the SB and tip. Driver KE + SB KE = Driver GPE lost !

IOW's 3. the maximum amount of KE (to do Work ( f x d )) is Driver GPE lost - Driver KE gained.

Or looked at another way Energy is conserved !

If you haven't done so already I suggest you do some experiments to try and prove the math wrong. I think you will find that a SB is just another type of Lever - a linear one mostly. Mechanical Advantage and Speed Ratio still apply imo.

[preoccupied]

I guess it will come down to a physical test because you are brain washed. How can you explain that a gear train can explode from a small amount of input force? I remember arranging a gear train that was very long and the last gear in the gear train exploded because it moved so fast but I only inputted a small amount of force to cause a very violent explosion. I think that the fact that the weight being pushed is resting on a ramp is important. I'm not sure how important but it is a feature that I think plays a role. When the ramp produces an inclined plane facing downwards the weight will begin to roll by itself without the input of the Stork's Bill. You are doing the math backwards though too. You are not calculating the physical components actions, you are calculating conservation of energy first like some kind of limited simulator computer program. If you were a structural engineer, you would be able to calculate the individual levers actions and their forces and stresses. That's the kind of math that I want to see. I don't know how to do it. I did play with some Stork's Bill's when I was a kid and they accelerated really well without much weight on them. I think that the force pressed driving the Stork's Bill is 0.707 weight because of the angle of the levers. I think that if all of the levers in the Stork's bill are the same length that it's 1:1 leverage ratio all of the way to the weight being driven. The weight being driven has zero counter torque by being on a horizontal plane and has negative counter torque facing down an inclined plane facing downwards. I think that the real reason that this perpetual motion machine hasn't been discovered before is not because of the conservation of energy but that it appeared to be useless to shoot a weight in one direction. If someone had considered trying to reload weights entirely using springs this would have probably been invented by someone else. If the Stork's Bill doesn't work as I've intended it to work then certainly a gear train would be able to do it. I just have to do a physical test to prove that a Stork's Bill is similar to a gear train because you are brain washed.

[Fletcher]

That's the thing with Laws - they have never been proved to be wrong.

That's the thing with Theories (like yours) - they could be right or they could be wrong. We all have theories so you are not alone on that.

The point is to prove empirically your theory with experiments before you brainwash yourself into thinking it is already a Law and there is no need for any pesky experiments.


I'm brainwashed ?! - probably !

But I've also done extensive research on SB's used in many different ways. That's why I think I grasp their limitations, and why.

The onus is on you to find out for yourself. Good luck !

[preoccupied]

I don't know how to calculate the Stork's Bill. I think in the worst case scenario it would have to multiply 0.707 times each diamond shape.

For five diamond shapes that would be 0.707^5=0.1766 leverage pushing on the weight. It might be like this. I don't know. It would explain why lifting a weight vertically would be problematic with more diamond shapes. So it's probably like this. However horizontally the weight on the ramp is still zero or nearly zero rolling on the ramp. So 0.1766 leverage should be able to be pushed freely against zero load. I don't know how to calculate the KE needed to stretch the spring, but it should be relative to velocity by itself times the weight and because the load is zero it should be able to reach almost any velocity with additional diamond shapes.

[Fletcher]

The SB diamonds change shape as they are expanded or contracted. So the Mechanical Advantage (MA) is always changing with the angle change. At the same time the Speed Ratio (SR) is also changing with angle change.

Remembering that 1 = MA x SR

This means that SR = 1 / MA or IOW's MA and SR are inverse relationships. When the diamond is set like a square a small movement by the Driver has a large movement in the Load (or where the Load would be pushed). When the diamond is low and flat the Driver has a large movement relative to the push velocity of the Load etc (shape of diamond means they are inverses). Have a look at Sine angles etc if you are really keen to manually work it out and build a spreadsheet etc. Ask Mr Google and YouTube.

Then remember the SB parts have inertia to overcome. Lighter is better. They have frictions to overcome. Less is best. If trying to accelerate a Load Mass with your multi-diamond SB then the Load also has inertia. If just trying to compress a spring then a spring does not have much inertia (it has some). But it does have a K value which gives us its strength and elasticity. This is equivalent to a real Load Mass having inertia to overcome.

Or you can learn sim program. Or build a small experiment. Or believe that Driver GPE lost in Joules cannot give more KE in Joules in a Load lifted or pushed sideways than the Driver has lost. No matter how many diamonds or segments there are, or what angles they are at. And altho you are not actually accelerating a Load the spring being compressed or extended gives it EPE (Elastic PE) to be later converted to KE.

And Spring EPE => Load KE is not greater than Driver GPE lost.

Beer o'clock here ;7)

[johannesbender]

When and if you do learn to use sim software , same mechanic's mathematical models and equations already defined and accepted by the field , those mathematical models include losses (if you use them) , however , when you encounter some sort of gain in a sim , you should ask yourself "what went wrong" or investigate the situation closer because the mathematical models inside the sim is not suppose to produce excess energy when everything works correct.

If you have a sim that convinced you there may be something special about the mechanics , then remember to build it or some part of it , sims are fully capable of producing odd results , a real build will show you instantly without mathematical errors or collision errors or end user error or accuracy error what the real behavior is.