Gravitational shortcut

[johannesbender]

You may remember me trying to use this type of concept before where i had a spring constantly balanced with a weight on the end of a lever ,which i then could lift 5 times higher than the weight on the other end but could not be reset , which is similar to the gravity counterbalanced ideas like the video above , however unlike the video above i did not support 360 degrees of rotation.

The next idea used a yoke to turn 360 degrees in to 180 degrees by converting the vertical of a rotational movement of an arm/wheel to turn a shaped pully 180 degrees which had a weight attached , not the cart and ox kind of yoke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoke , a scotch yoke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotch_yoke , just like the mechanism of the video above .

.........

In the image the green weight's force pulling on the purple shaped pully would be in near equilibrium with the weight on the arm's/wheel's torque via the scotch yoke and shaped pully.

The scotch yoke would connect with the purple pulley such that when the yoke moves up and down , it drives the pulley 180 degrees down and 180 degrees up (it never rotates past 6).

Typically in these type of concepts of gravity counterbalanced mechanism they would use a spring , however i went for to replace it with a weight because a weight has constant pull , and the pully could be designed to match the weight force easier than a spring .

.
.
As shown in the image , the green weight was to be in force equilibrium via the pulley to the scotch yoke against the torque of the red weight , such that when the red weight is on the left side from 6'clock to 12'clock , the green weight counter balances it in force .

There is however another blue weight , which is in balance with the red weight.

So the idea was that when the red is on the left , that either the green weight or the blue weight would provide a torque force while either the blue weight or green weight would provide a counter balance force to the red weight , "one or the other must apply its weight ..." , and was suppose to be a constant torque force against the red weight .

However the issue arises if the scotch yoke pin/crank is on the left side of the wheel/arm , as the red weight moves over to the right side , the counter balance of the green weight needs to be applied to the blue weight on the left side but the scotch yoke's pin/crank is on the opposed side , so there it needs a switch of the direction of the force though .

Eta , mixed up blue and red weight , with red i meant blue and with blue i meant red.

[johannesbender]

My images are all simple drawings...

So to follow up on that idea , i used another familiar alteration the same concept , which was to use a spring against a cam to provide an equilibrium force against the torque of a weight out on an arm/wheel , but the balance of force is controlled by the cam shape such that for 180 degrees its suppose to be in equilibrium and 180 degrees none or very little counter force .

Actually i meant to have two weights again , such that either the spring or extra weight on the other opposite end of the wheel/arm would provide torque and the other counter balance force .

However i was reminded of the "dominant flywheel" after drawing this one.

[johannesbender]

The following was a simple experimental idea , i had after looking at the jacob ladder toy one day , i think most of it is self explanatory (btw disclaimer , i don't believe in energy creation).

This idea used the concept of a KE chain of hammers falling and hitting each other , since each hammer starts from 12 and hits the next , each hammer has a certain amount of KE it could have after swinging from a 12'clock position , but since one hits the next with its KE , the next one must start off with more than zero KE , which would build up KE the more hammers you have.



I then took all hammers and put them on a single axle , where each hammer would hit a paddle on 6'oclock which would hit the next hammer at 12'clock ,"he receives a pat on the paw" "anvil receives many blows".

That the total distance (for example) fell by each hammer is 1 meter but the total KE can be ramped up depending on how much hammers you add to the axle.

But there is no real advantage here , i think it serves as a nice toy to demonstrate KE and the laws especially GPE , since the total KE reached at the last hammer in the chain , even though it could be very large , would still be less than a free falling mass which weighs the weight of all the hammers and falling in less the total height than the hammers could fall.

[johannesbender]

The following was just a mechanical idea i had for a RB that did not need a center post and could have wheels connected in-between the structures , and here is an example of a simple one , and one connected on a wheel axle too.

Scotch yoke replaced the typical connection.

[daxwc]

Heh JB; it is interesting. Reminds me of one of my concepts where multiple hammermen hit each other cascading on a Storkbill. Hoping to gain impact energy each hit, but nobody has come up with any math to prove something different is happening.

[daxwc]

So what is special that Bessler likes the Jacob’s Ladder; the double hinge, the cascading or the stress release?

[johannesbender]

Heh JB; it is interesting. Reminds me of one of my concepts where multiple hammermen hit each other cascading on a Storkbill. Hoping to gain impact energy each hit, but nobody has come up with any math to prove something different is happening.

It could be very similar to the domino chain effect if going to the side , but i also see no advantage if i were to imagine a sideward chain due to the total mass dropped .

So what is special that Bessler likes the Jacob’s Ladder; the double hinge, the cascading or the stress release?

With the TP i think we are looking at his principle

this principle, in itself so simple, and yet at the same time so deeply hidden, of everlasting motion, described in total detail and in mathematical simplicity, in praise of God’s boundless wisdom, and for the benefit of the entire world.

I think of the mechanisms as visual re-interpretations of certain qualities , kind of symbolic , It is however subject to interpretation without any direct explanations by Bessler , everyone may see something else , or in fact many of us may agree on what is obviously shown and couple words from Bessler to it , however perhaps we dont grasp a correct mechanical implementation or realization at the end of the day , or we are just not thinking the same as him.

Currently i am busy with another brain fart ,particularly on the TP , but as always i tend to not show or say too much until i satisfy my own curiosity.

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Johannesbender,
Est ce que sur une roue à cliquets, la chute d'un marteau provoqurait un déplacement angulaire suffisant pour amener le marteau suivant à chuter?

Hello Johannesbender,
On a ratchet wheel, would the fall of a hammer cause enough angular displacement to cause the next hammer to fall?

[johannesbender]

Not sure Shadow , but it could be a nice physics toy , it would be less energetic than dropping the same total weight for less the height.

[Roxaway59]

JB I suppose the hammer version would need to be a little along these lines to transfer the weight upwards.

Graham

[johannesbender]

Yes Graham it is very similar to the newton cradle except there would be so much energy losses down the chain due to collisions and friction and sound etc , that a free falling mass weighing the total of the hammers and falling less height than the hammers would have more kinetic energy than the highest kinetic energy in the chain.

In my mind i thought it would look nice as a toy with a lot of hammers , seeing the kinetic energy building up to the last in the chain , and not much more than that.

There is no advantage in losing height if the height cannot be restored or even more gained for less , and this is a nice mind demonstration of it .

Eta , we can sim a mass jumping up instantly to 12 as it reaches 6 , but we cant build that , this gives an effect similar to it even though it does not do the same thing and just drops a lot of mass for energy (nothing strange), but it would look good .

[sparkshade]

Rearranging the jacob's ladder gets you MT137 geometric arrangement as well as the same (similar I should say) movement for all edge points.

MT137 describes a in and out move for all "star" points.

If you hold the jacob's pivot of the first link (the one you rotate) between you thumb and finger and rotate CW/CCW. You'll see that one direction raises the ladder, the other lowers it. One "side" is heavy, the other is light. Like the hammer guys.

Hammer guys are describing direction.

If you rearrange the jacob's ladder to not have stops and arrange in a circle, you have something special.

[johannesbender]

Yes the JL is an interesting linkage in itself , there are a bunch of interesting things that can be done with it and the rest of the linkages on the TP and MT.

The spinning top is an odd one , because unlike the rest on the TP it appears to break the mechanical linkage theme and leans more towards an indication of physics and symbolism .

I am sure most here feel like the TP was Bessler trying to convey something (a principle) .

[johannesbender]

........
Currently i am busy with another brain fart ,particularly on the TP , but as always i tend to not show or say too much until i satisfy my own curiosity.

If you were to design something to lift or move something else , the laws being the laws , your input must lose more than the output can gain , for example by dropping or moving more height/mass to lift or move something at less height/mass .

If you remember the lever that was balanced with a spring force throughout its rotation i made a long time ago , disregarding the fact that i could not reset it , its advantage or rather its positive attribute was that the spring was not a mass that lost height .

So here is the thing i have been toying with in my mind , if there was a way to prevent the GPE of the wheel system being negatively affected by the the mechanism/weight/spring/thing/whatever is doing the work to move the weights about on the wheel system , then the GPE on the wheel system might be gained .

You can ofcourse use a spring on the wheel system which would not really affect the GPE negatively in a drastic manner , but not mass afaik.

This is an example of such a principle , i am trying to come up with something that lets the thing/stuff that loses GPE be off-system , this is the simplest example i could think of thus far.

F) a mass that slights along a slider , or something else (output)
E) pulley attached to wheel
D) pulley attached to wheel
C) pulley attached to a grounded post
B) pulley attached to a grounded post
A) input , pulled by a weight or spring or some mechanisms

Here , the wheel would be able to rotate ,and the mass at F could be pulled on by A lets say it lifts and therefore gains GPE and affects the wheel system , while A could lose GPE and it would not matter to the wheel system .

Of course this is just an example of the idea that something could be an off system source , as it works through the center axle line.

Even simpler is a mass hanging through the center axle line which GPE would also not negatively affect the wheel.
....

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Johannesbender,
Je travaille en ce moment sur le même concept mais dans mon idée l'ensemble est coté jante.
l'idée de base est d'utiliser le principe de la balance Roberval pour équilibrer un poids sur un levier horizontal avec un poids sur un levier vertical.
je pense que tu comprends l'objectif!!!!

Hello Johannesbender,
I’m working on the same concept but in my idea the whole thing is rim-rated.
the basic idea is to use the principle of Roberval balance to balance a weight on a horizontal lever with a weight on a vertical lever.
I think you understand the goal!!!!