THE wheel fatal flaw that no one notice

[Fletcher]

If that gets you across the finish line then all power to you spinner.

Try and keep a sense of humour mate. Check the post by Tarsier above my reply that offends you. I assume we are all seeing the same posts in chronological order, so it was hard to miss.

It was a joke with Tarsier .. TP = Toy's Page .. tho some might believe it has little value.

[thx4]

The real question, "but where does the energy come from?"
We know that its creation is impossible, so a simple triggering of an imbalance (esoteric) could keep its wheel moving. As long as man has known how to use a hammer, there have been no accidents that would contradict the laws of physics.
So for it to really turn you have to draw water from the well...
B from my point of view understood that the water was already there, and only in this case everything becomes possible.
The stork's beak is very efficient, I even think that well adjusted it could lift a weight faster than it could lower itself by gravity alone.
Everything I say is still conditional, but after endless discussions with a friend on the subject, it is my deep conviction.
The energy and in the weights in a constant way, so already there, it is enough to make the effort to understand in several MT that B shows us an ingenious mechanical escapement allowing the reset by fragment of weight to manage to maintain its wheel.
A++

[Fletcher]

Well, he does sing SB's virtues in MT, thx4. And they are a main feature in the TP with its special outcomes. -Connection-.

MT38 .. "but here is not the place to show the correct application of the stork's bills"

MT41 .. "I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills"

I'd say there has to be a correct application (what it's used for) to see first hand what's special about their influence on the outcome. They are fun to build and experiment with.

[johannesbender]

This was also one of my failures .

This was one design I tried based on the concept of offsetting inner and outer radiuses for mass while maintaining the mechanical advantage between the radiuses , and to always use a fall action from a small radius to a larger and from a larger radius to a smaller , by using a principle similar to the RB where the position of mass along the arm extensions does not matter .

So the idea was to keep the amount of work from small and larger (or vise versa) radius down by using gravity to simply let the masses fall , but it seems you simply cannot bypass lift , the lift is inevitable and the lift can be done but only if the arms are oriented correct , the torque of rotating the the arms to keep them oriented correctly is its demise , if it were possible a cancelation of the arms torques could have done some magic .

BTW interesting thing about conservative forces ,

A conservative force depends only on the position of the object.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_force , as in the initial and final position which is partly what inspired this idea .

[johannesbender]

This was the same concept and also a failure , a pendulum design to switch from a large radius to a smaller radius without climbing up at 6, by being at the same height of the inner radius position while actually being part of the outer radius (based on the RB concept) ,then switch over to the small radius at 6 , such that when momentum conservation has to occur , swing the mass over 12 along a small radius with a massive force , however it works perfect if you place the mass along a bar at its end (large radius) then move it in at 6 to the small radius , but it doesn't apply to a RB type (parallelogram) mechanism .

The need for extra or removal of negative forces ,simply cannot be dismissed.

[agor95]

This was the same concept and also a failure , a pendulum design to switch from a large radius to a smaller radius without climbing up at 6 ...

Thanks for the demo for it get a person thinking; were is the twist.

You know I like to think in three dimensions.

The toy page, central toys, one with heavy hammers and the other with the hammers twisting in their action.
[possibly]

There are possibilities

Regards

[spinner361]

Fletcher, it is all good. I just want to know if I am being annoying or not.

[johannesbender]

This was also a RB type principle , which also was suppose to swap between 2 different radiuses or lever distances and maintain its respective mechanical advantage by not moving the weight in and out , I did not test this as a rotational build yet for obvious reasons it was too complicated , and I cant remember why I dropped this particular design right now .

The 3d and 2d were two different versions...

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, it is all good. I just want to know if I am being annoying or not.

Not to me .. this is annoying .. the other day a friend lent me his book on anti-gravity to explain B's. wheels .. damm .. it's impossible to put down.

[spinner361]

Fletcher, that is really funny from retrospect. I had just finished a really long shift and I did not take the time to read through everything. IF nothing else can teach me, embarrassment will.

I am sure that anti-gravity is very interesting. What is anti-gravity?

[spinner361]

I found it on Wikipedia. According to the definition, this is something that I am very good at. Maybe. I am in the process of proving this.

[Tarsier79]

IF Besslers wheel ran on an inertial/momentum gain, theoretically the same principle should be able to be implemented in inertial propulsion, anti gravity, and my favourite, a small powerful CF engine. It would truly open up the floodgates for technology.

If it ran on stealing Earth momentum, we probably wouldn't want to make them too powerful or numerous.

JB, I would be interested if you explained your designs.

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .

Try and keep a sense of humour mate. Check the post by Tarsier above my reply that offends you. I assume we are all seeing the same posts in chronological order, so it was hard to miss.
. .. .. .

Weird, yet that's exactly where my mind went when Kaine asked.

I have more to say, however I'm just going to keep it too mysefe.

Of cause. I know big words two.

Please discuss. I'm just a spec-tater.

[spinner361]

I make a lot of mistakes with communication. I am quite terrible at it.

[Fletcher]

IF Besslers wheel ran on an inertial/momentum gain, theoretically the same principle should be able to be implemented in inertial propulsion, anti gravity, and my favourite, a small powerful CF engine. It would truly open up the floodgates for technology.

If it ran on stealing Earth momentum, we probably wouldn't want to make them too powerful or numerous.

It's 1 of 2 competing theories I have Tarsier. Ockham's says it will be the simpler one. The second (less favoured atm) relates to physically creating a physics paradox around time - the ol' asymmetric manipulation of .. mv = ft. Yes, I know the arguments against it. Oh the vicissitudes (one for Walt to discuss ;7) of unconfirmed theories.