I came accross this site again and wanted to post something about it...
I drew up a simplified version...
I can't see the flaw...
Other than an actual test, tell me why this wouldn't work?
http://freakiefries.com/animation/html_with%20text.html
Simp. (God's PMM)
Moderator: scott
-
MrTim
- Aficionado
- Posts: 924
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:05 pm
- Location: "Excellent!" Besslerwheel.com's C. Montgomery Burns
- Contact:
re: Simp. (God's PMM)
This explains why it won't work (in principle):
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wwwboard/messages/952.html
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wwwboard/messages/952.html
"....the mechanism is so simple that even a wheel may be too small to contain it...."
"Sometimes the harder you look the better it hides." - Dilbert's garbageman
re: Simp. (God's PMM)
Ah! I see...
- Attachments
-
- understand.jpg (4.47 KiB) Viewed 27008 times
"A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds."~ M. Twain.
-
MrTim
- Aficionado
- Posts: 924
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:05 pm
- Location: "Excellent!" Besslerwheel.com's C. Montgomery Burns
- Contact:
re: Simp. (God's PMM)
Oh, and D's demonstration has a small "flaw" in it...
"....the mechanism is so simple that even a wheel may be too small to contain it...."
"Sometimes the harder you look the better it hides." - Dilbert's garbageman
re: Simp. (God's PMM)
That is a neat design. The V-shaped guides that guide the poles that the balls sit on (and are directed by) are like many things shown in MT.
You know MrTim, you've said that before, what are you talking about?
You know MrTim, you've said that before, what are you talking about?
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
Re: re: Simp. (God's PMM)
Did you look at the link Jonathan? LOL what are you talking about?Jonathan wrote:You know MrTim, you've said that before, what are you talking about?
re: Simp. (God's PMM)
I think you misunderstood, I was refering to this statement by MrTim:
"Oh, and D's demonstration has a small "flaw" in it..."
EDIT BY SCOTT: You're right Jonathan. Sorry!
"Oh, and D's demonstration has a small "flaw" in it..."
EDIT BY SCOTT: You're right Jonathan. Sorry!
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
MrTim
- Aficionado
- Posts: 924
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:05 pm
- Location: "Excellent!" Besslerwheel.com's C. Montgomery Burns
- Contact:
re: Simp. (God's PMM)
"... by taking out the pin at K"
A mechanism based on that 'idea' can be found here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=244
A mechanism based on that 'idea' can be found here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=244
"....the mechanism is so simple that even a wheel may be too small to contain it...."
"Sometimes the harder you look the better it hides." - Dilbert's garbageman
re: Simp. (God's PMM)
That's what I thought you meant. Green is pin K inserted, and red is where pin K would be if split in two. The black masses are equal. So how does this relate to that device?
- Attachments
-
- KPin.JPG (3.71 KiB) Viewed 26912 times
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
-
MrTim
- Aficionado
- Posts: 924
- Joined: Thu Nov 06, 2003 11:05 pm
- Location: "Excellent!" Besslerwheel.com's C. Montgomery Burns
- Contact:
re: Simp. (God's PMM)
Desagulier's demonstration shows that even if weights are not at equal distances on a framework, they still balance.
In the demonstration, when pin K is removed, the center of gravity of the parallel beams changes.
Even if they are equally balanced, a slight shift (one way or the other) causes them to move out of balance....
i.e Raise the center of gravity.
In the demonstration, when pin K is removed, the center of gravity of the parallel beams changes.
Even if they are equally balanced, a slight shift (one way or the other) causes them to move out of balance....
i.e Raise the center of gravity.
"....the mechanism is so simple that even a wheel may be too small to contain it...."
"Sometimes the harder you look the better it hides." - Dilbert's garbageman
re: Simp. (God's PMM)
Ive done a fair bit of analysis on this machine.
It by design will jam. If you have a look at the schematics and think about it you will see the verticle bars will stop it from going up or down.
It by design will jam. If you have a look at the schematics and think about it you will see the verticle bars will stop it from going up or down.
re: Simp. (God's PMM)
I disagree, the diamonds can move horizontally with respect to the setup that the balls sit on, which permit the seesaw to turn while the diamonds move only up and down.
I still don't understand MrTim. I'm using my drawing as a reference, and it is clear to me that the removal of K will immediately have the result shown in the second part of the drawing. So that's not what you mean. You say "If they are equally balanced...", so if the left weight is on the extreme left of its crossbar, and vice versa (regarding the right weight), or if the left weight is on the extreme right of its crossbar, and vice versa, then the device will be balanced regardless of K and regardless of slight inclination. Same goes for when the weights are at the center of the crossbars. So under what weight distribution circumstances does the center of mass spontaneously rise?
I still don't understand MrTim. I'm using my drawing as a reference, and it is clear to me that the removal of K will immediately have the result shown in the second part of the drawing. So that's not what you mean. You say "If they are equally balanced...", so if the left weight is on the extreme left of its crossbar, and vice versa (regarding the right weight), or if the left weight is on the extreme right of its crossbar, and vice versa, then the device will be balanced regardless of K and regardless of slight inclination. Same goes for when the weights are at the center of the crossbars. So under what weight distribution circumstances does the center of mass spontaneously rise?
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: Simp. (God's PMM)
You know, I've spent a good portion of this evening pondering this device, and I have to say that I'm not certain it can't work. Go here: http://freakiefries.com/gpmss%20description.htm
I have simplied the design (minus the weight shifter) and it is attached below. It says several times at that URL that part of the ball's weight is exerted on the curved roller shafts or whatever he calls them (seems "spire" would be more fitting), while the rest is exerted at the platform's connection to the seesaw. The circular curve of the spire is centered at the lower pivot of the platform, such that the spacing between the platform and the spire is constant. I have to say that it looks to me as if the weight of the ball is continually exerted against the spire, and causes an imbalance, without that ball falling any more than the other.
If no one can see the mistake I've made in judgement, I'll make a model. It may be the fact that it is early morning here, but I'm just not seeing the mistake.
(EDIT: Green are pivots.)
I have simplied the design (minus the weight shifter) and it is attached below. It says several times at that URL that part of the ball's weight is exerted on the curved roller shafts or whatever he calls them (seems "spire" would be more fitting), while the rest is exerted at the platform's connection to the seesaw. The circular curve of the spire is centered at the lower pivot of the platform, such that the spacing between the platform and the spire is constant. I have to say that it looks to me as if the weight of the ball is continually exerted against the spire, and causes an imbalance, without that ball falling any more than the other.
If no one can see the mistake I've made in judgement, I'll make a model. It may be the fact that it is early morning here, but I'm just not seeing the mistake.
(EDIT: Green are pivots.)
- Attachments
-
- Hmmm.JPG (4.83 KiB) Viewed 27012 times
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
re: Simp. (God's PMM)
Well, no one said why not so I've made the model. It doesn't work, though it is hard to say if it is the prinicple or the craftmanship that is at fault. If it is the principle, then I'm still not sure exactly why, it must have something to do with exerting part of the weight on a moving surface. Maybe I should make the springy arm version?
It occurs to me that if the principle is sound then the following device should probably work too. But it seems too simple.
BTW, take note that in both Hmmm.jpg and Hmmm2.jpg, the center of the ball's mass is just a little off of the platform it sits on, that way, if the spire or wheel wasn't there, it would fall off.
It occurs to me that if the principle is sound then the following device should probably work too. But it seems too simple.
BTW, take note that in both Hmmm.jpg and Hmmm2.jpg, the center of the ball's mass is just a little off of the platform it sits on, that way, if the spire or wheel wasn't there, it would fall off.
- Attachments
-
- Hmmm2.JPG (2.19 KiB) Viewed 26781 times
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.