AHHH!! HMMMM............

[Michael]

Has anyone had a really good look at illustrations 138-143?

Mike

[ovyyus]

Well... yes

[Jonathan]

Go ahead and mention what you see Michael. I notice that MT143 looks like Desaguliers' Parallel Beam machine.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wwwboard/messages/952.html
It also looks like some toys I had as a kid. They were very simple, two heavy balls on the ends of sticks, both jointed on the other end and connected perpendicularly to a handle. If you moved the handle right, the balls would swing horizontally back and forth through about 180 degrees, bouncing off each other on each impact.

[Stewart]

Hi Michael,

Come on then - put us out of our misery, please! What have you spotted? - it better be good! ;)

All the best
Stewart

[Michael]

Haa... okay. Here goes Stewart, and everyone else who replied. believe me...it is good. If anyone makes this work... please, please remember me. And to John C. If this is imposing upon your idea, I apologize.

First of all the three things are the same thing. Think of a crab. As it moves side to side the legs on one side create an acute angle, and the legs on the other create an obtuse
angle. Look at the slider mech on the first and last drawing mentioned. It has the combination of the 2 different crab legs.
Now look at the last drawing. See the two weights attatched to the rods? Notice they are placed together? See the two circles the rods attatch to on the other end? Consider them to be two gear wheels of the same ratio. The interesting thig about this is, when the rods and weight are straight out horizontally, like in the picture, the leverage is balanced, and the weights don't move. If you were to tilt it clockwise, they still would not move because the upper weight (remember the term upper weight, as quoted by Bessler) has the greater leverage, and wants to move downwards, but because they are geared together it's pushing the lower weight up- and nothing can move because they are touching. But move it any slight angle counter clockwise, and the lower weight has greater leverage and it will swing down, and cause the upper to swing up, until they smack in to each other again on the other side, or until they stop by another means. Now think of the drawing that says "and still you do not understand?", and regard the angles. Consider the attatchement of this mech, by the gears to the rim of an inner cylinder "like a grindstone." and consider one pair, counter balanced by another on the other side, like in the last drawing. Now...Bessler said the greatest torque begins when the weights come to be placed together. Like in the drawing-out horizontally. This could be the driving force of the wheel. He also says the upper weight drives the force suppled to the "push" of the other parts? This could be the movement of the pairs, tilted on angle so as to cause them to seperate. Do you see what I mean? Part of their respective movements could also be by stationary angle, like shown in the main drawings, and as mentioned before by myself and Grim.
Thing is, there are so many variables of combinations with this idea. When Bessler said "the flail belongs to the farmer, not the scholar", he could have meant the solution will only come to the worker-the experimenter, because of the seemingly endless combinations of these mechs (if this is correct.) Like it came to him, possibly. And of course then John C, is correct in his advice.

I have a few other possible insites, I'll provide soon.

Best regards,

Michael

[John Collins]

And to John C. If this is imposing upon your idea, I apologize.

No, you're clear to go for it, Michael.

When Bessler said "the flail belongs to the farmer, not the scholar", he could have meant the solution will only come to the worker-the experimenter, because of the seemingly endless combinations of these mechs

I think the best translation which conveys the true meaning, but not as gracefully, is "the flail would rather be with the teacher than the pupil". If you think of "flail" as "whip" or "cane", then this might just apply to a pupil or schoolboy, particularly in those cruel days. To me that suggests two possible actions. Firstly a "whipping action", but one that flies upward harder and/or faster than the usual way - a sort of reverse whipping action, hence the hint that the cane would rather be with the teacher. The second possibilty is that the cane moves in the usual way, hard and fast downwards, but that it is raised again to be held ready for the next down stroke for more than half a revolution , hence the phrase "the cane would rather be with the teacher" etc.

In other words, I am suggesting , that whatever device is used to bring a weight down on the so-called anvil only does so during perhaps a quarter of a turn before it is raised again for the next three-quarters of a turn.

John Collins

[Jonathan]

Oh, I think I understand. I'm not 100% clear on it's use in a wheel... I'll build a model and fiddle with it when I get a chance later today.

[ovyyus]

A flail is required to whip a spinning top (toys page).

[coylo]

I've noticed this arrangement on MT 143 myself, and made a few models, found nothing promising though, but further sketches have sparked a few more ideas.

Attached is a simple parallel beam model, it balanced (like they all friggin do). I had to hold it down because it suffered from a bad case of torsion.

[Michael]

Hi. Okay I can put in some more.

John,
Regarding the flail and what I wrote I was only speculating on one probable interpretation. I feel that if this is the device, the thing I called the slider, or crab, is also the flail, or double flail to be more accurate. Two flails connected.

It's function would be to hold the mechs at their respective angles until they need to turn. Very much the same thing as illustrated (function wise) in the main drawings, where the pend.s angle is held in place. Put it this way. Picture one mech at the top of the wheel. One at the bottom. Both angles are straight out horizontally, so there is balance between the pairs of weights (for each individual mech-not each mech in relation to the other, or the wheel.) The wheel turns a quarter of a degree (this is an illustration only, and by no means is meant to state exactly how the interaction occurs). The wheel rotates-say one quater of a rotation. The "slider" moves, and it makes sure the mechs keep their horizontal position. Until the right placement (angle of rotation of wheel) where by the slider locks, or can no longer move, and then the mechs start to have their angles changed. The mech/s will either stay locked (as mentioned why before, depends on clockwise or counter clockwise rotation) or the paired weights will swing away from each other. Depending upon the placement of the mechs to the wheel, a variety of things could happen, repective of unbalancing the wheel. If one mech was a dog, then having it's angle held in place for a certain degree of rotation would equal the "dog" moving to the outside of the hoop. The paws being slapped would be the two weights ("paws") becoming unbalanced, or no longer sharing the same center of gravity, flying away-or towards each other, and having their motion ceased, either by coming together, or something else stopping them.

Things to think about.

The paired weights of one mech have motion/ and balance/unbalance-relative to each other.

Two or more mechs have a relation to each other in terms of balance/un balance of the main wheel.
They need not be facing the same direction ie. the upper out to the left, while the lower out to the right, if a slider mech is also used.
If the slider mech is used, the weight of the mech is measured by where it connects to the wheel (ie around where the gears are) until the slider mech can no longer move.

Mike

[Jonathan]

Hey Michael, could you draw what you're thinking? I've made that thing, I've got a handle, two gears, two arms, and two weights, just like in MT143. But as before, I'm not clear on how to use it in a wheel. It may be worth mentioning that the distance between the centers of the weights has to be greater than the diameter of the gears, so that the arms neither converge nor are parallel, but diverge slightly. Then you don't have to turn it much to get them to swing.

[Patrick]

Hey Coylo;
I like the photo you posted, the last scene from Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid with Robert Redford and Paul Newman. Do you remember the last thing they said before they came out with guns blazing? That's right...; they said, "Let's go to Australia!!" Anyway, I thought that was a cool movie.
--Patrick

[Michael]

Hi Jonathan,

Unfortunately I am not hooked onto the net, otherwise I would have no problem sending down a pic. I don't think there is a problem with the arms being parallel. Is anyone else having a difficulty imagining what I am invisioning?
Not refering to you Jon, just on talking about it with a friend it may be hard to get at first.

Mike

[Jonathan]

Yes, there's no real problem with having parallel arms. But once you take into account friction, it helps to have them diverge a little, so you don't have to tilt it so far or give it a little nudge. It's not clear to me why this mechanism is shown on a parallel beam device, because then it is never tilted, so they never move.

[Michael]

Well like I said it would only stay balanced until the "slider" no longer moves, then the arms seperate as the angles then change. The importance is to do with the angle of the main wheel, and the weights interaction with it.

MCO