Fletcher wrote: ↑Mon Dec 12, 2022 7:51 am
mryy wrote:>> But my wheel isn't the typical "tethered" OOB build. It resets the center of gravity cog each time a free flying weight lands at 2:00. That makes a big difference I think. The wheel has a new cog to act upon multiple times per rotation. A build out will determine if my theory is correct.
It would reset a new COG/COM each time a red flying weight lands at 2.00 pm etc. What would happen is that the system COM would follow an oval shape (circular..ish), with a rapid climbing of the COG/COM when the red weight flies upwards. The questions as I see them are is there going to be asymmetric torque i.e. more positive torque than negative torque ? Does the circular COM path spend all its time on the descending side of the axle or some of the time ? The next question is that it is an APPLIED leverage driven machine (simple machine) - can the yellow weights set the catches and springs so that the levers can fling the red weights high enough (gain sufficient GPE) to complete the cycle ? If so it would on the face of it seem to be breaking Law of Levers, imo. Believe me I want you to succeed.
A build will be required to answer these questions ultimately.
No circular-ish path of the COM. Only 1 red weight (out of 5) is flying in any one instance and the release-and-catch process happens very fast. So I predict the COM to be in similar (not same) positions throughout the wheel's rotation. You equated my concept to other OOB wheels so I shouldn't really expect too high of a successful outcome. ;)
mryy wrote:>> If that was the issue at hand, W. would not have remarked "that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required task." I'm sure W. knew what MA (Leverage) is but that was not what was being addressed.
He does, and discusses it in great detail in the critiques.
If so W. wouldn't need to refute the wheel's ability to raise more than one pound for every dropped pound. The issue in XXI (b) was clearly not about leverage as you insist. In an earlier post you seemed to acknowledge that if I am not wrong:
"My Point ?! .. for Wagner to be correct that no mechanical implement is sufficient for the task, but Bessler says he is also right, then there must be a Prime Mover physical structure which is NOT a 'mechanical implement'."
I feel the context of the translated XXI passage makes more sense with my explanation of a riddle. Pay attention to the wording of these sentences:
"But did I not, in Part One, devote more than one line to a discussion of the type of 'excess impetus' that people should look for in my devices? Once more I will humbly extol the virtues of this passage to my next worthy reader. He writes that, to date, no one has ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: 'Now I understand!' ”
B. says "He's right!" with an exclamation mark. W.'s stance is the undeniable truth. B. soon follows with "So am I" as an affirmation that seems secondary/subordinate to the first. B. and W. are simultaneously right about the ability of mechanical arrangements.
So how can this apparent paradox be? The answer is at the end when it elicits a reaction of "Now I understand!" with an exclamation mark -- implying a surprised, unexpected understanding. A riddle can do that.
IMO your explanation doesn't quite dovetail with the contextual information.
You speak of prime mover and simple machines. These two are supposedly different entities and cannot produce responses of a paradoxical nature.
A simple machine APPLIES leverage i.e changes forces in and out, usually to do Work.
N.B. as Bill said above that always requires an ENERGY source to be leveraged into Mechanical Work Output of a usable kind.
If a Prime Mover 'unit' has inherent leverage mechanics but DOES NOT
physically apply (by direct contact) that MA to the wheel internals, then it is NOT a simple machine. Because the leverage is NOT APPLIED to change forces or convert an energy input source to mechanical energy output. But yet the wheel gains momentum from excess-impetus force. The paradox of different responses in my mind is answered because one is a Simple Machine, and the other is not ! IMO !
Not sure I follow. The term "Rüst-Zeuge" is used several times in the XXI passage whether it is linked to B. or to W. B. used it to describe the implement that keeps his wheel turning. He just knew of a workable way to apply it. His "Rüst-Zeuge" I would assume falls within some broad(?) category as the "Rüst-Zeuge" that W. speaks off.
Let's entertain for a moment your position that the passage is referring to a prime mover unit which is not a simple machine. Contextually can it draw out a reaction from people exclaiming 'Now I understand!' ? This reaction is one of a surprised yet familiar nature -- one involving an understanding arrived at
via a different perspective. I would say no.
