Spring on a lever

[Sam Peppiatt]

Preoccupied, Yes, you are quite right. I screwed up. I should have said 10 levers, 5 weights below the axle and six levers, 3 weights above. Perhaps I'm wrong. Compartment; half way between two black spokes----------------------------Sam

[preoccupied]

The wheel will be heaviest just before the weight swings when there is only one spring tugging on the wheel. I'm not sure if you think that the weights are creating an overbalance or if you think that the springs are driving the wheel. On the right side of the wheel you can basically disregard most of the weights and just calculate the strength of the spring because the gear ratio negates the weights and makes it the lever spring. There is no weight on the spring lever. The levers are not connected to the wheel they are free falling on the axle so they don't actually pull on the wheel except for the one spot where the spring is connected to the frame of the wheel.

Anyways, any gear ratio can be used here. Right now I have the minimal possible gear ratio to simply enough cause a working design a 4:1 gear ratio because there are 3 weights on the rising side of the wheel. When there is only one spring tugging on the wheel there will be 4 force on the wheel and only less than 3 force on the other side. If you were using this to do heavy work you could use a higher gear ratio and a stronger spring like a 10 strength spring. Then you could immediately continuously tug on a larger load. The wheel will spin out of control very quickly so some kind of control mechanism like a pendulum might be useful to halt the wheel somehow to prevent it from spinning out of control. Just like Bessler's wheel. Am I right? Other clues that this might be Bessler's wheel include that the left side looks like a peacocks tail and that two weights are working together to drive the wheel and not more than that. Weights line up together at the 4:30 oclock position. I also think when Bessler said that springs were employed that what he meant is that springs were necessary. If that was the real translation, it fits that my design is even more likely to be the actual Bessler's wheel.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Preoccupied, I'm worried about something else. The green lever is trying to turn the wheel. It acts like a resistance. Suppose you held it; the green lever so it can't turn. The black lever / weight, through the 4 to 1 reduction, is trying to turn the green one, right? But, I think with you holding it, it would then try to turn the wheel backwards. I don't know for sure but, I think all of the forces could cancel out.

The dam able thing is; the only way to know for sure would be to try it. If you could just build one section, you would find out right away--Sam

[preoccupied]

Hi Preoccupied, I'm worried about something else. The green lever is trying to turn the wheel. It acts like a resistance. Suppose you held it; the green lever so it can't turn. The black lever / weight, through the 4 to 1 reduction, is trying to turn the green one, right? But, I think with you holding it, it would then try to turn the wheel backwards. I don't know for sure but, I think all of the forces could cancel out.

The dam able thing is; the only way to know for sure would be to try it. If you could just build one section, you would find out right away--Sam

If you held the green lever the spring is contracting to become smaller... You seem to think it's pushing outwards. The spring starts completely small and then is pulled on and stretches. While it is stretched, it will only pull into a smaller shape if the green lever is held steady. If you let the green lever go the other direction then it would compress smaller in the other direction. You have to either lose the weight or push in the opposite direction with a force to do what you're worried about.

[preoccupied]

Now that I've thought about it a little more, I think that the spring and weights wouldn't fall so far before applying force because the force that they are driving is less than the force its producing. If there were 100 weight on the left side and it couldn't be moved, the black lever weight would fall all of the way down 90 degrees and the green spring lever would fall 1/4 the distance. But because it's pulling on a weight less than the tension of the spring, I think that it will begin to pull on the wheel right away and race to the bottom without being able to pull the gear ratio as far as I've drawn it, but I think it will still drive the wheel, it's just not exactly as I've drawn it. The way that I've drawn it is more like for demonstration of the idea, I guess. I don't know what will try to fall faster the gear ratio or the wheel. Obviously it has to be the gear ratio that falls faster but it's probably not by very much. The speed of the energy transfer in the spring would be the delay in time between gear and spring and the frame of the wheel. Is there something wrong with the design because it might do this? Do I need the spring extended a certain amount for it to work and can't achieve that if it moves too quickly?

[preoccupied]

I realize that because the load is less than the spring tension that the spring wouldn't extend at all and the gear ratio would remain at a tension of 1:1 with the lever weight and the spring lever perfectly together for the entire wheel. IN ORDER TO gain access to the power from the gear ratio and the spring I would need to block the wheel and allow the levers to fully fall and then release the wheel and the levers would then pull on the wheel for 90 degrees. So I would need an escapement to block the wheel while the levers fall in order to use the levers. I give up! I don't know how to make grandfather clocks. That was Bessler's thing. My working perpetual motion concept, not my clock mechanism necessary to make it operate. I'm not done I'm just a little stuck on this last part that I won't be able to design.

[preoccupied]

Not only will it not expand the spring if the load is not heavier than it, it would only move the wheel once it's expanded by 1/4 distance because the wheel will turn independent of the gears and the lever spring and the lever weight will not come together. The levers will stay in position and the wheel would turn into the spring and combine with the top of the spring so it only moves 1/4 distance. Sorry for misleading everyone. I didn't know how my connections would interact that I was making in my design.

Now that I know how far it will pull on the wheel with a four to one gear ratio, my new plan is to make two weights fall on a single gear thereby doubling the distance that it falls, by having the gears on a ratchet and turning off the ratchet on the second lever that falls when the first lever falls and turning off the ratchet on the first lever after it falls when the second lever falls. So I would do the same thing as I've been drawing except instead of one weight falling on the mechanism there will be two weights falling on after the other on the same gear. If it's on a ratchet it will go all of the way to the bottom and retract 45 degrees before combining with the spring. The spring will be pulled 22.5 degrees twice for a total of 45 degrees. It will be held in position and the wheel will roll into the position of the lever spring. Anyways I don't have a picture right now but that's my plan. The technical details of making a ratchet turn off is intimidating and confusing to me. Because this is such a good idea I would love some engineering talent. I actually don't think that the ratchet itself is a perpetual motion machine invention but the concept that I came up with to have one. There could be a lot of ratchet designs, that's not unique, that's not novel except in the sense that it's a ratchet, what I'm describing here is the perpetual motion machine.

[preoccupied]

This is a drawing of my new concept with 2:1 gear ratio but there are two levers so I guess it's a 4:1 gear ratio collectively in terms of distance. Only it's not. It has a distance carried of 90 degrees. I don't know it's confusing. Do you like my ms Painting guys? I'm sorry Tarsier79. I think that you do care, you just always have something negative to say. I respect that.