Grease power

[preoccupied]

I think that I just thought of something. Tell me if you think it's a good idea.

What if I cause the spring to cancel itself out early and then it still has pressure on the levers, so there would be constant pressure on the levers but manipulation the position of the spring could cancel out early. If I have the springs lever turn 180 degrees on 4:1 ratio with the lever with the weight on it then I can pull it out that 180 degrees and then have it tug back on the next gear for 180 degrees at 4:1 ratio by switching the gears connections. Then if there is constant force on the levers by the spring then I have another 135 degrees turn worth of spring that has phantom distance on the levers because the levers are geared to move slower. The levers move slower and are being pulled on by the spring and the spring is geared to move faster but only applies to the wheels overbalance early.

Spring turns 180 degrees but has constant pressure on the levers turning 1/4th of that. Then the gears reverse and the spring pulls on the wheel 180 degrees, the gears finish tugging on the wheel but still apply pressure to the slower geared to move levers. The levers are geared to the catch and the wheel. They will move 1 to 1 ratio with the wheel in order to separate and when this happens the spring is geared to the catch and wheel 4:1 ratio. This creates a phantom distance because the levers and gears move in the same direction so when the levers switch to a slower gear ratio the constant pressure from the spring will apply to the slower gear ratio through this phantom distance. It reverses direction and the 4:1 ratio is applied back to the wheel then stops and still has constant pressure on the levers for 135 degree turn of the wheel while the levers are geared to the catch and wheel at a slower gear ratio. Can this be possible? can a lever and spring move in the same direction and then you just change the speed of the levers when directions are switched with constant force from the spring for extra 135 degrees of the wheel having free spring action?

The animation would be closer to my original drawing with the blue circles in the center of the wheel because the spring would apply 4:1 to the wheel and the only difference in that drawing would be that the levers would be geared to move slower also so blue circles in the center and perimeter of the wheel. I didn't draw this yet but that is my description.

So if the levers and gears move in the same direction and there is constant force on the levers by the spring, if the levers change speed and the spring reverses at the same speed against the catch. the spring will finish early and a phantom distance moving slower would get free spring action if the levers change pace to a slower gear ratio. Is constant pressure from a spring energy?

[preoccupied]

I tried this variation realizing the obvious that it was more overbalanced. First I tried a 4:1 gear ratio, and that came out to be a resistance of 2 of the weights by 4 on the gear ratio by 2 from the spring to be 16. I got the about the same amount of overbalance from the weights with a 2:1 gear ratio which gave me the resistance of 2 of the weights times 2 of the gear ratio times 2 of the spring to be 8. The overbalance was about 8.2. I also tried drawing before these the 1:1 ratio and this left the weights shifting with less overbalance with the same resistance of about 8. So I think the overbalance at 1:1 ratio was about 6 or I forget what it was, it didn't work vs the resistance of 8. It's okay that the overbalance be a little overbalance by 0.2 because I'm sure the Universe considers the catch a loss. The way to reduce the loss from the catch is to make the catch smaller closer to the axle and make the levers longer. I like this variation. I don't think I made any mistakes thinking about it whereas my other ideas might be too complicated for me. I think if I drew the levers a bit bigger it would be overbalanced in measurements. A build would require some kind of drum because the gears are really close together against the catch all put together.

[preoccupied]

I'd like to welcome you to discussing here with me if you think this about angular momentum, that it applies more force if done faster. I've arranged an overbalanced position of weights in which they shift 4:1 ratio against the direction of the wheel geared together against a catch- like my many drawings recently, and then it shifts in the direction of the wheel geared against a catch 1:1 ratio which is faster. The springs force cancels out what it applies to the catch and wheel but I hypothesize because it is shifting 4x faster that it applies more angular momentum to the wheel. I don't know if the spring strength is relevant. But I think if you set up the weights at a length less than the gear applying to the catch that the wheel will turn without pushing it. I think this because I think that the weights would provide less resistance and the spring cancels out. But that detail is not very well thought out by me, I am just thinking ahead a little on that with ideas. I mean something causes the wheel to turn by itself in some of Bessler's wheel and the only thing I see in my design options is to make the levers smaller than its gear. The spring pulls in the weight faster though causing angular moment to be harder on the wheel at a 1:1 ratio always 4x harder than the four at a fourth slower speed going outwards at a 4:1 ratio.

[preoccupied]

Are the levers and the size of the gears relevant? If I hang a weight on a gear by a string on its perimeter does it have more torque than if I hang a string and weight nearer its axle? Does that mean that a gear larger in size would remove some force from a lever pulling on it? I think if that's true then I have a spring only design that I had shared. I think so because the ratios cancel forces out but then the lever is also deducted. Why do the ratios cancel out forces? As it's pulled apart at 4:1 ratio, it's the force divided by four plus itself 4 times. Then there is a 1:1 ratio 4 times faster against he catch in the center and this pushes the entire force once, and not divided by 4. So if the gear size is relevant to the lever, the gear size is also smaller on the 1:1 ratio, so it has extra torque because here is less removal of leverage from the larger gear by using a smaller gear. But is this true what I am thinking? If I place force on different parts of a gear, is it the same as using a relative size lever?

In my drawing I have a 4:1 ratio that engulfs the lever in the size of the gear and then I have a 1:1 ratio that the lever has some extra distance beyond the gear size. The gears catch different catches with different gears so that they can trade role easily.

[preoccupied]

In this drawing I further exaggerate the gear size to the size of the lever with the spring. I have arranged a 6:1 ratio with a 4x larger catch in the center. This gives a 24x difference in size of gears from the gear in the 1:1 ratio to the gear in the 6:1 ratio. If it were just based on the ratios then it would be a neutral machine. But if the size of the gear matters when it is turning the lever with the spring on it then it should lightly turn the 6 6:1 ratios an additional lightness because the gear is much bigger than the lever that has the spring on it, that I have exaggerated deliberately to try to have a special effect. This is an ongoing use of my idea of putting a catch in the center of the wheel and manipulating it with gear ratios. Based on the gear ratios it should be neutral, the 1:1 ratio should be 6x stronger than the 6:1 ratios and it should be balanced. But in this exaggeration there should be a big difference if the size of the gear matters also. I haven't figured out the math yet. I know that I changed the leverage against the wheel by changing the catch size but the gear size should matter also and it should be significant.

[preoccupied]

This is a fresh change of subject in my overbalanced wheel ideas. There is a well known physics concept (although I can't think of it by name) that allows air to move more forcefully through a cylinder if there is a gap between the air pressure and the cylinder because a volume of air draws into the pressure from outside the path. So I have a little idea here where a funnel can produce air pressure from moving on the wheel and it has a gap between it and a cylinder and it pushes its air pressure towards the cylinder and drags some air behind with it creating more pressure to push a pedal that will shift some weights to keep the wheel overbalanced. The weighs would have to be similar to the air pressure in stature. The cylinder can have a door that closes on one side and opens on the other. If I were to guess that if this were Bessler's real wheel design that it would be this door closing on the cylinder that is making the banging noise as the wheel turns. On one side of the wheel the cylinder would pedal up a weight and on the other side it would close.