MT44 & MT45

[agor95]

Hello Ed

Dumping posts in the thread not related to the drawings. There are no belts in MT44 or 45?

However there was a clue; that being the number of Ball Bearings.

There are to many of them. That is another distraction.

In my analysis that I have shared even with these rouge posts going on.

If a reader of this thread looks how two B. Bearings move around the device.
Then you will see a problem that is fixed using the clues in the drawings and the AP wheel.

For those left brained members.

Use only one wheel to start with.

The drawing show different size wheel and other differences.

What is the same in these drawings?

Close tight boxes go up and the sloping boxes move around a down.

Do you notice the slop boxes in relation to the direction of rotation?

Have the B.Bearing at the 6 O'clock in the inner position.
This is in a close confined box as shown in the drawings.

As the wheel rotates this moves up towards 12 O'clock inner position.

The current 12 O'clock B. Bearing is also in the inner position.

Therefore this two B. Bearing device is balanced.

The top bearing rolls out horizontally alone a sloping guide as seen in the drawings.

However the outward bearing is also moving radially a radial line from the hub from it's start position to it's radial end position are different.

With the lower bearing does not change it's radial position in relation to the wheel as the wheel rotates.

So Ed what have you seen in these drawing?

Regards

[Trev]

The gearing of the cogs in both MT44 & MT45 appears to be wrong for the shown intended direction of rotation.

[Ed]

Hello Ed

…

So Ed what have you seen in these drawing?

Regards

Hi. It’s good to think about moving weights back into position when they take least effort to move, i.e. horizontally, but I see it being better to take advantage of a biased movement like in MT41’s side vertical levers. See how they are tapered? Imaging their movement if they were actually weighted levers. Same as MT59, etc.

[bruno]

Ho costruito un sistema simile a quello di Preoccupato dove nella figura usa le molle per ribaltare i pesi; al posto delle molle ho usato degli elastici; ho aggiunto una ruota interna in folle dove i pesi premono con il loro peso aumentato dagli elastici; il sistema è veloce e potente da alzare dei pesi; il problema ( mai risolto da me) è quello di spostare le molle nella posizione opposta nel momento opportuno. YT : " e allora 3".
Saluti da Bruno

[agor95]

Hi. It’s good to think about moving weights back into position when they take least effort to move, i.e. horizontally, but I see it being better to take advantage of a biased movement like in MT41’s side vertical levers. See how they are tapered? Imaging their movement if they were actually weighted levers. Same as MT59, etc.

Well I am happy to look at MT41 & MT59.

Would you like to create a new tread with that title or the Forum?

Thanks

[agor95]

The gearing of the cogs in both MT44 & MT45 appears to be wrong for the shown intended direction of rotation.

Well I skipped over that one by having only one wheel.
Therefore the cogs gearing and direction disappeared.

Saying that this would be a message.

I chose the message 'two wheel does not work go for one'.

There maybe others.

Regards

[agor95]

Hi Bruno

Questa è una bella costruzione e capisco che il problema dei pesi in movimento soffre di latenza inerziale.
Non arrivano alla posizione in cui vuoi che siano in tempo.

Forse ci sono opzioni per aiutarti.

Tuttavia questo ha bisogno di un nuovo thread per dargli l'analisi e l'aiuto.

'That is a lovely build and I understand the issue of moving weights suffer from inertial latency.

They do not get to the position you want them to be in time.

There maybe options to help you out.

However this needs a new thread to give it the analysis and help.'

Regards

[johannesbender]

"No. 44: The sphere-method is reintroduced here. The problem shows 2 wheels: A is the
main wheel, the axle of which has a gear at B. B drives the somewhat larger wheel C at
point D. At side E are spheres which fall out of side G at point H below and into wheel
C at point I and then out of C again into A at point F. This problem looks good, but as
sketched it does nothing special as long as no other application is present, for the wheel
A must revolve several times before C revolves a single time. Thus not enough spheres
move from the former into the latter."

"No. 45: This is the previous invention, except that the one wheel C is much smaller
than A. The explanation of the remaining letters C [sic], D and E are indicated by the
figure itself."

MT44 was designed to have wheel A as the driver , A is reduced in size compared to C, but the ratio from the MA between A(driver) and C(lifter) makes A rotate much further than C can.
MT45 is the inverse of MT44 , C is reduced in size compared to A , A (driver) C(lifter).

Typical Mechanical Advantage tradeoff and loss , you can have either force or distance advantage not both , this is why lever & typical OB designs dont work.

[agor95]

Thank you johannesbender

For your time in presenting your understanding of the drawings.

Also the reality of Mechanical Advantage of levers.

I can see why people walk passed MT44 & MT45.

Regards

[preoccupied]

I still want an opinion from Tarsier79 on my modification of Leafy's drawing here.

The spring should have enough strength to pull the weight up when its sitting at 90 degrees. How do I calculate whether it can reload? It looks like it would reload. I think some variation of this would work. This drawing is the least likely to work of the variations but it still might work. It has all of the weights on the loading side but the weights don't push directly down on the wheel so my main concern is how much force is necessary to reload the springs.

[WaltzCee]

I still want an opinion from Tarsier79 on my modification of Leafy's drawing here.
. .. .. .

You go, hero poster!!!
I'll say you're drawing skills have improved tremendously.

[preoccupied]

This drawing is more likely to work. How did you make the picture post so big on the thread?

The weights drop off on a ramp and reload so there is no counter load only the springs to reload.

[preoccupied]

This drawing is most likely to work.

A single weight falls and reloads itself. The spring can be less powerful so it's more likely to work. It falls and then stops abruptly and uses the whip lash to help bring it up and the spring does the rest so the spring is the strength to hold it at 90 degrees minus the strength of the whip lash. You only need to reload one spring at a time and one weight falls at a time. The most resistance the spring gives is at the beginning to reload it and the most leverage given is at the beginning of the fall on the left so it's almost proportional the driving weight and driven spring. I think that the previous drawing might not work I think it might be balanced. But this single weight reloading itself is not balanced, it should work because of the energy gained from the whip lash. There might be a more efficient way to harness a whip lash effect like this, if this whip lash effect works then others might work as well.