Grease power

[SHADOW]

0 position de départ
1 position réelle
2 position théorique

0 starting position
1 effective position
2 theoretical position

[preoccupied]

Hey SHADOW

I tried to fix my drawing because I saw that I made a mistake. I added a weight in the corner, this allows for even more preponderance of weight on the left side of the wheel. As you can see the red line or string attached between opposite ends is in a better place now. For some reason that is beyond me my last drawing had my string between the boxes wrong. I supposed I just confused myself.

[SHADOW]

Votre système de cordes ne fonctionne pas!

Your rope system is not working!

[SHADOW]

Modification des cordes.

String modification.

[preoccupied]

Hey SHADOW
Can algodoo limit the range of motion to the 45 degree turn intended in my drawing? Then to see if the whole mechanism would work it requires 8 locations for the ramps instead of 4.

Based on my recollection I had property, a house, in which contained rare diaries one of which was information about Bessler. The only thing I remember from the diary actually is the octagon around a circle with points or two squares around a circle. This ramp method design uses two locations the ramp would exist at, so it's a circle with a square around it offset 45 degrees making an octagon shape with two squares around it if the two locations the squares would rotate are drawn over each other. If I can get my property back I might be able to locate the diary which I paid 5 billion dollars for when I was a kid. So far I am out of contact with my house and my trust, which is a trust that is a very large bank. In fact, it's likely the largest bank in the world. I don't speak lightly. It's loaded with cash. Although it's not a loaner of money, it invests in businesses and has good cash flow. I remember its name but I can't do anything about it because my resources are so slim right now and my brain function is very limited and I'm not sure the next step to take.

[SHADOW]

C'est vrai que les banquiers américain sont des escrocs, je suis moi même en contentieux avec une banque US!
It is true that American bankers are crooks, I am myself in contencious with a US bank!

[preoccupied]

I believe I ran my bank requiring me to contact it and it doesn't contact me. So I say it did no wrong doing. But I was injured and I am still kind of injured. I'm not sure the next step to take because I can't think of it and I'm stupid. I am somewhat recovering from a long series of assaults that gave me some kind of brain injury. I believe I had seizures in my sleep or I'm confident absolutely that I did for almost two decades starting from one of the initial assaults in 2001/2002. This last year I feel like I didn't have that issue. But that's such a short period of time to be expected to recover from such a devastating situation. I think my bank can do no wrong and it's full of Ivy League professionals like myself which I have high regard for. Myself having likely gotten University education near kindergarten age which is what I remember but my adopted mother who claims to be my real mother isn't aware of it or my trust. I am not being scammed unless someone lied to manipulate my bank because my bank itself is not scamming me.

[phj]

I’m really sorry to hear about what you’re going through. It sounds like you've been through a lot, and it's understandable that you might feel overwhelmed and uncertain about the next steps. It’s important to be kind to yourself, especially as you recover from such significant challenges.

Regarding your bank, it might be helpful to talk to a trusted friend, family member, or a financial advisor who can assist you in understanding your situation better. They might offer a fresh perspective and help you navigate any complexities.

It’s also important to take care of your health and well-being. Reaching out to a healthcare professional or a counselor could provide you with support and strategies to manage your recovery more effectively.

Remember, you're not alone in this, and s

[preoccupied]

I put a 3:1 ratio between the far left box and the bottom right box. Perhaps when Bessler made is 4:1 commentary he was being sarcastic because 3:1 is the actual relevant gear ratio, since of course we don't know if he was arguing with people about the inner workings of his wheel, we all assume that he didn't tell people about the inner working of his wheel but he might have talked about his wheel in detail and argued about it too which might have made the sarcastic 4:1 ratio argument about if the real gear ratio was 3:1. If in German then if people knew he was talking about a ramp at right angles to the ramp if that was a clue about a ramp by him saying right angles to the axis as a clue.

On the left side of this wheel the weights hang perfect center and the box turns 135 degrees till it reaches the bottom, so the three to one ratio is for 45 degree turn on the left for a 135 degree turn on the bottom right. It will be over balanced in the starred locations and the green arrow location rolls out of balance.

The weight rolling on the ramp might need to be a little heavier than the weight in the corner.

Sincerely,
Jon Perry

[preoccupied]

How do I describe this mess? Well the box on the left actually totally rotates 135 degrees. So the position on the bottom left can help and the position on the top left also does something and the position on the very left does something, they all take their positions to try to lift the bottom right box back into place.

So there might need to be springs attached to these lines because in fact they do need to stretch or be blocked somehow because they will have a limited frame to turn at in that each colored line would give 45 degrees of support at a time to lift the bottom right box back into position. So connected from the top left the bottom middle location would be tugged on and simultaneously the blue location is tugged on from the far left box to the bottom middle box. And the bottom left box tugs on the bottom middle box at the same time also, until they are supported by springs in the limited axis of rotation of the box. The box has a 135 degree axis of rotation available. If 3 boxes on the left push the box on the bottom right then the 3:1 ratio is realistic.

EDIT
I think that he strings might just hang loose until they are needed and there won't need to be any springs on the lines.

[preoccupied]

This version of the design has 2:1 ratio which will be easier to move on the bottom right because the ramp weight will roll out of place right away starting at the bottom middle as the wheel moves. So on the bottom middle it will start to rotate its box, the ramp weight will roll out of place and the corner weight would be lifted by four weights, the top left box and the middle leftmost box would would work together to lift the bottom middle box into the bottom right position. Four weights will lift one. This is possibly what Bessler meant if we found his wheel in this drawing when he said four weights lifting one. It is also a 2:1 ratio so it's like 2 weights are lifting one in Mechanical Advantage. AFTER the weights are in place they will be positions on the top right for an overbalanced position, because the rising side will be closer to the axle, its weights will be. So the difference between this drawing and the last one is that the bottom middle box doesn't fall from the bottom left to the bottom middle position, instead it is limited to 90 degrees of movement and locks in place from the force of gravity at the bottom left position. The top left position rotates into the middle left position and the middle left position rotates into the bottom left position but the bottom left position stops rotating and is stuck as it goes into the middle bottom position. It would be hard to guess if this would work without a simulation by an expert because the boxes torques would require the box to not be fully down like I've drawn them, they will stick out some before they completely rotate the bottom right position into place. I have them drawn all of the way down on the left side but they won't be in an actual model. They will be sticking in some towards the center of the wheel in order to gain torque enough to turn the bottom right box. But they absolutely would be further out than their counterparts on the top right boxes. Then also bottom right box would have its corner weight further out before its moved into position and I don't know if the combination of the left boxes being in some and the bottom right box being a little bit out would make the wheel more balanced and it not work. I'm open for collaboration. Anybody who wants to help me simulate this would be appreciated a lot.

[preoccupied]

I emboldened in my MS painting the start of the pull on the box on the bottom to where they are connected and pulling on the left. I also starred in bold the overbalanced positions on the right that are closer to the axle. This both increases the number of weights lifting the box on the bottom to 8 and doubles the overbalanced positions on the top right. If I were to again double the number of boxes I would have 8 overbalanced positions on the top right and 16 weights lifting the one weight on the bottom middle. Good progress on the idea here I think. But I think 8 Boxes might be overbalanced if it's minimalized, because I know that 16+ boxes would definitely be as drawn. Please help. This is a good idea.

EDIT
the colored lines indicate where it starts pulling. They pull a total of <=90 degrees but should not start pulling until they reach their emboldened color. I don't know if I made a mistake in the schematics there. I mean I have a hard time visualizing it. I think that there is two strings that are supposed to be there but I have four drawn. What did I do wrong? If it starts to pull at the top left then it will turn a total of 90 degrees but that is too much, it must only pull for 45 degree turn and then activate a new string. I've confused myself. There has to be like two strings man and one string needs to top application on the box while another string takes its place in the new position 45 degrees offset because the driving weight is supposed to turn 45 degrees and the lifted box 90 degrees in my drawing. Well maybe it would work one to one ratio plus another 2:1 ratio as a second string. I have to reboot this whole idea now and look into what I did wrong.

Sincerely,
Jon Perry

[preoccupied]

I've come up with a quick solution to my problem with my strings. If the gearing has a spring with more resistance than is required to lift the box into place on the bottom of the drawing, it will be pulled CCW but would push CW on the left side, so the spring expand and cancel out the winding of the springs on the bottom. Because I gain extra string being pulled because of the gear ratio, I can pull a spring and then the spring would help pull another spring, and this would just serve to compensate for pulling extra distance on the boxes on the left. So if this were to be simulated or built, the gear would be connected to a spring but the range of motion would be locked at 90 degrees, when the 2:1 ratio causes more than 90 degrees to be moved or 180 degrees the spring is there for 90 degrees of it or it could bet here for 180 degrees of it, but it's there and is needed because of the extra distance that the driving weights will fall to work together.

[preoccupied]

I have some complicated reasoning for how the spring works to allow the 2:1 ratio, if the driving weight turns twice as much as necessary sometimes. So I will try to split up the description into logical steps.

1. the spring holds onto the box with 1/8th the force needed because there will be 8 driving boxes on the left at a time before the lifted box reaches the end of its range of motion at 90 degree turn.

2. the driving box will continue to rotate after its line begins to stretch on a string with a spring on it too until it reaches its end of its range of motion at 90 degrees turn.

3. The lifted box will stop early at a 90 degree range of motion in the 2:1 ratio, twice as fast as the weights falling. There are extra connections to the lifted box because the spring can stretch to make room for it.

4. The spring can be directly on the line, part of those lines in the drawing could be a spring. The spring has to be 1/8th the force resistance of lifting the box at least because there are 8 driving boxes lifting the one box at the bottom at a time and then the driving box rotates against the springs resistance which is 1/8th its weight pressure so it doesn't pull out of place due to the spring at all, I don't think so anyways.

5. There is 4 springs connections against the driving box that will recoil it after it goes 45 degrees, and it reaches this point when the lifted boxes reach their range of motion limit, but it is 1/8th the strength each so that's like 0.5 the force to pull the driving box out of place ruining the overbalance if it does. With two weights on the box that is 0.25 against it. The weighted driving box should stay in place with the spring force recoiling it.

This might work without the weight on the ramp but only because there are so many right angle movements. The weight on the ramp helps but only is needed for a wheel with less boxes, I think.

[preoccupied]

In this drawing and my recent drawings I am trying to use more than one lever to lift one lever on the bottom right. the previous drawings also used a ramp and weight but this drawing is the same model but with just a lever with a weight on it. In my mind I wanted to use a spring. How that would work is the force of the red and blue lines on the bottom right would be divided by two, to meet the force necessary to lift the weight. The levers would fall to about 50% of the distance required to lift the lever, and they would both be that distance from their axles, I'm referring to the driving weights. then the spring would load the bottom weight up. So as you can see, both levers are not working in this drawing but a little bit of a turn of the wheel both levers will be in action and the lever will lift. the red lines lever is actually straight down in the picture so a little more of a turn and both weights will be working. It might be overbalanced but it's so close I don't know. Under the design with more locations for the levers or boxes the spring can be divided by more and you can have more weights that hang further form the axle on the left or closer to the levers own axle, because less force is resisting it. You know what I mean right?

EDIT
I did make a mistake in my drawing, I think it's supposed to be one to one ratios and not the two to one ratio that I drew. It's the spring that is divided in force not the ratios for gears.