Few news of the 'hamster design':
As explained in a previous post above the outer rim of the main wheel should be modified.
The work was important (216 pins to adjust) and I was busy.
The wheel looks now like in the shot below.
The two hamsters can now be hung up at the outer rim of the wheel (like the crab as shown in another animation) and not only run between 03:00 and 06:00.
I'm now testing the catching mechanism.
An explanation for the 22,5 grades angle
Moderator: scott
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: An explanation for the 22,5 grades angle
- Attachments
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: An explanation for the 22,5 grades angle
From my experiments with my 'hamster design' wheels I do have now a better view of the way to let it work.
As explained above the tricky Bessler could have used two sets of weights:
- one set (big one) for each prime-mover (the hamster in my design)
- another small one for the catching mechanism
IMHO he was always contributing to the confusion between the both sets (when he was showing the 'weights' he just shown these from the catching mechanism, taking care do not mention the role of the other ones still remaining inside his wheel).
I think it could be the most acceptable explanation for the MT138 toy: the anvil should be the weight of the primemover and the hammer should be the weight of the catching mechanism.
I understood that when I observed the motion of my hamster and when I tried to find a way for her to be suspended instead to roll inside the inner rim of the wheel.
Now what should we do?
1. First we need a real ladder (in view to climb in the hell like in the Bible with the 'Jacob Ladder') with some rigid bars where the hamster can be suspended.
2. Then we need a catching mechanism allowing the primemover to be hung as closest at possible after 12:00
Basically this mechanism should be a mechanical link between the hamster and the bars of the ladder.
The twisted characters of the MT138 toy can indicate that Bessler could have used a locker at the end of the catching arms based on a twisted pin (just a suggestion).
3. We need to synchronize this catching mechanism with the rotation of the primemover (hamster).
Basically this is a question of mutual speed of rotation between the hamster and the cage.
When everything is made we can observe this particular behavior:
- the hamster feet never touch the inner rim of the wheel (she is always hung after 12:00 giving the whished unbalance)
- the hanging contact point is floating, oscillating in the vicinity of 1:00 (there is no mechanical link with the axle of the wheel, allowing BTW an optimum torque for the COG)
Hereafter another shot of the modifications made on my wheel: in that state the completion of the rigid bars for the ladder is in way (half populated).
The chosen method for these bars is based on some hollow tubes in aluminium, locked between two opposite pins.
If some screwed rods would have been used, it will be very hard to unmount the wheel when needed.
Instead to unscrew 106 bolts, I just remove only four bolts (those of the frame assembly, supporting the middle cross).
For the mounting I have just to insert each tube in the corresponding pin and tye only the four bolts.
As DrWhat said, in any case (if the above concept should be not verified) I will keep the wheel as ornament.
As explained above the tricky Bessler could have used two sets of weights:
- one set (big one) for each prime-mover (the hamster in my design)
- another small one for the catching mechanism
IMHO he was always contributing to the confusion between the both sets (when he was showing the 'weights' he just shown these from the catching mechanism, taking care do not mention the role of the other ones still remaining inside his wheel).
I think it could be the most acceptable explanation for the MT138 toy: the anvil should be the weight of the primemover and the hammer should be the weight of the catching mechanism.
I understood that when I observed the motion of my hamster and when I tried to find a way for her to be suspended instead to roll inside the inner rim of the wheel.
Now what should we do?
1. First we need a real ladder (in view to climb in the hell like in the Bible with the 'Jacob Ladder') with some rigid bars where the hamster can be suspended.
2. Then we need a catching mechanism allowing the primemover to be hung as closest at possible after 12:00
Basically this mechanism should be a mechanical link between the hamster and the bars of the ladder.
The twisted characters of the MT138 toy can indicate that Bessler could have used a locker at the end of the catching arms based on a twisted pin (just a suggestion).
3. We need to synchronize this catching mechanism with the rotation of the primemover (hamster).
Basically this is a question of mutual speed of rotation between the hamster and the cage.
When everything is made we can observe this particular behavior:
- the hamster feet never touch the inner rim of the wheel (she is always hung after 12:00 giving the whished unbalance)
- the hanging contact point is floating, oscillating in the vicinity of 1:00 (there is no mechanical link with the axle of the wheel, allowing BTW an optimum torque for the COG)
Hereafter another shot of the modifications made on my wheel: in that state the completion of the rigid bars for the ladder is in way (half populated).
The chosen method for these bars is based on some hollow tubes in aluminium, locked between two opposite pins.
If some screwed rods would have been used, it will be very hard to unmount the wheel when needed.
Instead to unscrew 106 bolts, I just remove only four bolts (those of the frame assembly, supporting the middle cross).
For the mounting I have just to insert each tube in the corresponding pin and tye only the four bolts.
As DrWhat said, in any case (if the above concept should be not verified) I will keep the wheel as ornament.
- Attachments
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
re: An explanation for the 22,5 grades angle
You build some intricate & beautiful stuff path_finder that I'd be proud to have around my house as ornaments, if that was what they turned out to be !
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: An explanation for the 22,5 grades angle
Dear Fletcher,
Many thanks for the encouragement.
For sure it would be a pity if this object will be used in the future just as ornament.
I would like few comments on the suggestion I made about the MT138 toy.
And in particular if any member here already built a wheel on that concept.
I found just an good example of what I trying to make:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_huzbvyB04
She is the only one having understood the principle.
Many thanks for the encouragement.
For sure it would be a pity if this object will be used in the future just as ornament.
I would like few comments on the suggestion I made about the MT138 toy.
And in particular if any member here already built a wheel on that concept.
I found just an good example of what I trying to make:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2_huzbvyB04
She is the only one having understood the principle.
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: An explanation for the 22,5 grades angle
I want not to increase the controversy in this forum about the theory and the experiment, the talk and the build, the loghorea and the silence, etc.
But IMHO everything is acceptable if we can finalize someday a working wheel.
Sometime a kind of marginal data with no direct connection with the main subject can be discovered as useful.
On my part I'm trying to cumulate the knowledge coming either from the theory either from the experiment.
I stop here, my comment was just for justifying the next animation:
The question was:
how can we design a mechanism allowing to catch the weights on the central rim on the lift-up side, and to catch the weights on the external rim on the falling side?
The following suggestion is not new (I saw somewhere this idea in the album yet) but the purpose of this animation is to refresh the principle:
a rod (supporting a weight) is moved by a mechanical link wich shift this rod between two positions:
- in red we can see the rod engaged between two pins of the central crown
- in blue we can see the rod engaged between two pins of the external crown
If we follow the Desaguliers's device the weights are catched within an alternate position giving an unbalanced situation for the COG of the system.
Somebody will give an objection for the motion made at 12:00 and 6:00, arguing there is here a consumption of energy.
In fact one weight is lift-up and the opposite falls. We can find a way to keep this balanced situation even during the motion.
I will try to make a full 360 grades animation of this concept in parallel with my practical experiments.
The first tests show that the optimum shape of the rod to do that job, could be a curve.
As explained yet earlier I'm interested by the ancient civilizations and in particular by the lost technologies.
Just for justifying these studies I give hereafter another animation showing the stone wheels of the Hampi temple in India (more than 5000 years before our era). If you don't take attention you will see them like all other tourists, but the ornamentation is very strange and I'm pretty sure some data are coded inhere (p.e. see the teeth on the plate). Left at your appreciation:
But IMHO everything is acceptable if we can finalize someday a working wheel.
Sometime a kind of marginal data with no direct connection with the main subject can be discovered as useful.
On my part I'm trying to cumulate the knowledge coming either from the theory either from the experiment.
I stop here, my comment was just for justifying the next animation:
The question was:
how can we design a mechanism allowing to catch the weights on the central rim on the lift-up side, and to catch the weights on the external rim on the falling side?
The following suggestion is not new (I saw somewhere this idea in the album yet) but the purpose of this animation is to refresh the principle:
a rod (supporting a weight) is moved by a mechanical link wich shift this rod between two positions:
- in red we can see the rod engaged between two pins of the central crown
- in blue we can see the rod engaged between two pins of the external crown
If we follow the Desaguliers's device the weights are catched within an alternate position giving an unbalanced situation for the COG of the system.
Somebody will give an objection for the motion made at 12:00 and 6:00, arguing there is here a consumption of energy.
In fact one weight is lift-up and the opposite falls. We can find a way to keep this balanced situation even during the motion.
I will try to make a full 360 grades animation of this concept in parallel with my practical experiments.
The first tests show that the optimum shape of the rod to do that job, could be a curve.
As explained yet earlier I'm interested by the ancient civilizations and in particular by the lost technologies.
Just for justifying these studies I give hereafter another animation showing the stone wheels of the Hampi temple in India (more than 5000 years before our era). If you don't take attention you will see them like all other tourists, but the ornamentation is very strange and I'm pretty sure some data are coded inhere (p.e. see the teeth on the plate). Left at your appreciation:
- Attachments
-
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: An explanation for the 22,5 grades angle
I go back to the catching mechanism allowing the hamster to be hung at the inner rim of the wheel.
As explained above this concept could be applied using the hammer of the MT138 toy.
The animation below resumes the motion of the three bars mechanism.
IMHO this could explain the confusion permanently undertaken by Bessler between the both sets of weights:
- the weights are acting at 90 grades of the axis: wich ones? with this concept this assumption is true, but only for those weights (certainly small) included in the catching mechanism, but perhaps not for the main weights (heavy) acting as prime-movers. And is the reference made to the axis of the main wheel or to the axis of each catching mechanism (in that case located around the main wheel)?
- when showing the 'weights' to the witnesses upon request, it could be much more easy for Bessler to show only the small set of weights removed from the catching mechanisms, leaving in place the big weights much more difficult to remove (included in the structure?)
- perhaps the big weights are not a mandatory and are just here for the flywheel or for the torque. In that case the assumption of Bessler about the wheel working without weights can be true, the weight of the assembly itself (including the catching mechanisms) being sufficient for the motion.
- another important point is: how to disable the wheel when Bessler goes to the restroom? solution: just remove one or all weights from the catching mechanism...Without these important parts no way to let run the wheel and even if somebody want to inspect the inner of the wheel, no chance to see anything significant (the heavy weights alone are still inoperative in the absence of the catching mechanism).
I do not pretend to describe the reality of the Bessler design.
I just found some strange coincidences wich can enlight his behavior in some circumstances.
Anyway my first concern is to obtain a working wheel, and I'm still continuing my tests:
a question in particular is interesting, shall the pins be fixed (on the main wheel) or be fixed at the end of some curved hung rods(pendula)?
Is there any analogy with this above concept?
Dear Georg Künstler,
(Disregarded by some: why to throw a discredit to some pertinent ideas?)
Excerpt from your web site: http://www.kuenstler-energie.de/img/Besslerrad.jpg
I you are always in contact with this forum, could you please explain to us the purpose of the red crimp on your shot? (inside the circle)
As explained above this concept could be applied using the hammer of the MT138 toy.
The animation below resumes the motion of the three bars mechanism.
IMHO this could explain the confusion permanently undertaken by Bessler between the both sets of weights:
- the weights are acting at 90 grades of the axis: wich ones? with this concept this assumption is true, but only for those weights (certainly small) included in the catching mechanism, but perhaps not for the main weights (heavy) acting as prime-movers. And is the reference made to the axis of the main wheel or to the axis of each catching mechanism (in that case located around the main wheel)?
- when showing the 'weights' to the witnesses upon request, it could be much more easy for Bessler to show only the small set of weights removed from the catching mechanisms, leaving in place the big weights much more difficult to remove (included in the structure?)
- perhaps the big weights are not a mandatory and are just here for the flywheel or for the torque. In that case the assumption of Bessler about the wheel working without weights can be true, the weight of the assembly itself (including the catching mechanisms) being sufficient for the motion.
- another important point is: how to disable the wheel when Bessler goes to the restroom? solution: just remove one or all weights from the catching mechanism...Without these important parts no way to let run the wheel and even if somebody want to inspect the inner of the wheel, no chance to see anything significant (the heavy weights alone are still inoperative in the absence of the catching mechanism).
I do not pretend to describe the reality of the Bessler design.
I just found some strange coincidences wich can enlight his behavior in some circumstances.
Anyway my first concern is to obtain a working wheel, and I'm still continuing my tests:
a question in particular is interesting, shall the pins be fixed (on the main wheel) or be fixed at the end of some curved hung rods(pendula)?
Is there any analogy with this above concept?
Dear Georg Künstler,
(Disregarded by some: why to throw a discredit to some pertinent ideas?)
Excerpt from your web site: http://www.kuenstler-energie.de/img/Besslerrad.jpg
I you are always in contact with this forum, could you please explain to us the purpose of the red crimp on your shot? (inside the circle)
- Attachments
-
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: An explanation for the 22,5 grades angle
I'm sure some of yours are asking what he is doing?We don't hear anything anymore. Be patient. The tests are still in progress and I learned a plenty of data not available in the books neither in WM2 software. In another thread I insisted on the building phase. The latest results coming from my experiments on the 'hamster' design:
As explained earlier the goal is to catch the hamster as soon as possible of 12:00 of the inner rim of the main wheel.
The first thing to be observed is the resultant position of the hamster.
For sure if we can find any way to attach the hamster at 12:00, the difficulty is coming from the unlatch mechanism: the main wheel rotates and if we don't release the already attached points, we will reach very soon a situation where the already attached points avoid any new attachment (due to the smaller size of the hamster, and therefore a greater curvature).
First conclusion the catching mechanism shall be fugitive (not permanent) and sliding counterclockwise what is not easy.
Second thing to keep in mind is the transfer of the torque.
Even if we found a way for this elusive catching mechanism at 12:00, it's not the best place for an optimum torque.
The best place for the torque is at 3:00 where the full weight of the hamster can be applied to the main wheel (it's obvious, my dear Watson!')
In this case a simple physical contact (tangential) can do the job.
This contact can be the result of a sum of cumulative actions given by several attachment points.
The catching mechanism must anticipate on the rotation (like 'the horse before the cart')
The drawing hereafter shows the principle:
'D' is the contact point with the main wheel (where the torque is applied)
'A' is the opposite point of the hamster wich will be catched
'B' is the point of the main wheel where the catching rod is linked (axle)
'C' is the final effective attachment point
The distance CA is the length of the rod.
But if we want to shift the hamster to the right before 12:00 (at 11:00 per example on the drawing) the catching rod at 11:00 will be hung vertical at the 'A prime' point with no way to reach the 'A' point of the hamster. The rod must be shifted, this is done by the small weight 'E' linked orthogonally with the rod (supposed to be light enough), allowing the rod to catch the 'A' point. Then the rotation will keep the attachment (the distance is still equal to the radius) until the 'C' point, where it will be released because the new created attachment links.
At least please note
- 1 - the shape of the rod wich must be curved (with the same radius like the main wheel) because the space restrictions in the the escapement phase on the opposite side of the main wheel.
- 2 - The hamster is still a circle rolling inside the inner rim of the wheel and thus assuming the counterclockwise slide of the contact point.
Any comments?
As explained earlier the goal is to catch the hamster as soon as possible of 12:00 of the inner rim of the main wheel.
The first thing to be observed is the resultant position of the hamster.
For sure if we can find any way to attach the hamster at 12:00, the difficulty is coming from the unlatch mechanism: the main wheel rotates and if we don't release the already attached points, we will reach very soon a situation where the already attached points avoid any new attachment (due to the smaller size of the hamster, and therefore a greater curvature).
First conclusion the catching mechanism shall be fugitive (not permanent) and sliding counterclockwise what is not easy.
Second thing to keep in mind is the transfer of the torque.
Even if we found a way for this elusive catching mechanism at 12:00, it's not the best place for an optimum torque.
The best place for the torque is at 3:00 where the full weight of the hamster can be applied to the main wheel (it's obvious, my dear Watson!')
In this case a simple physical contact (tangential) can do the job.
This contact can be the result of a sum of cumulative actions given by several attachment points.
The catching mechanism must anticipate on the rotation (like 'the horse before the cart')
The drawing hereafter shows the principle:
'D' is the contact point with the main wheel (where the torque is applied)
'A' is the opposite point of the hamster wich will be catched
'B' is the point of the main wheel where the catching rod is linked (axle)
'C' is the final effective attachment point
The distance CA is the length of the rod.
But if we want to shift the hamster to the right before 12:00 (at 11:00 per example on the drawing) the catching rod at 11:00 will be hung vertical at the 'A prime' point with no way to reach the 'A' point of the hamster. The rod must be shifted, this is done by the small weight 'E' linked orthogonally with the rod (supposed to be light enough), allowing the rod to catch the 'A' point. Then the rotation will keep the attachment (the distance is still equal to the radius) until the 'C' point, where it will be released because the new created attachment links.
At least please note
- 1 - the shape of the rod wich must be curved (with the same radius like the main wheel) because the space restrictions in the the escapement phase on the opposite side of the main wheel.
- 2 - The hamster is still a circle rolling inside the inner rim of the wheel and thus assuming the counterclockwise slide of the contact point.
Any comments?
- Attachments
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: An explanation for the 22,5 grades angle
The next experiments made on my 'hamster design' wheel drove me to some corrections.
In the previous drawing the number of catching rods has not be precised.
I tried first with nine rods(every 40 grades), then with eight rods (at 45 grades) and had some trouble during the escapement phase at 3:00 on the right side.
After theoretical review it is obvious that the maximum acceptable number of curved rods is six only.
This maximal number (six) is directly related with the works of Franz Reuleaux, the famous german mechanicher wich discovered (and theoritized) the orbiform equilateral triangle, where an example can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuleaux_triangle
This is the same reason wich allowed Harry Watts to discover the drilling tool for the squared holes (it's not a joke).
And now the wheel, full supplied with the six rods, appears like in the following drawing.
May be five rods could also work (for the pleasure of JC) but I did not try.
In addition Grimer will be satisfied to see a triphased particular application of the 'vesica pisces'.
Now the big question is: shall the shape of the 'hamster' be a 'Reuleaux triangle' also?...
I asked myself this question after viewing this pertinent chinese bike (Nicbordeaux will love it), here:
http://www.china.org.cn/china/photos/20 ... 738257.htm
Did you say 'think different!'?...
In the previous drawing the number of catching rods has not be precised.
I tried first with nine rods(every 40 grades), then with eight rods (at 45 grades) and had some trouble during the escapement phase at 3:00 on the right side.
After theoretical review it is obvious that the maximum acceptable number of curved rods is six only.
This maximal number (six) is directly related with the works of Franz Reuleaux, the famous german mechanicher wich discovered (and theoritized) the orbiform equilateral triangle, where an example can be seen here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuleaux_triangle
This is the same reason wich allowed Harry Watts to discover the drilling tool for the squared holes (it's not a joke).
And now the wheel, full supplied with the six rods, appears like in the following drawing.
May be five rods could also work (for the pleasure of JC) but I did not try.
In addition Grimer will be satisfied to see a triphased particular application of the 'vesica pisces'.
Now the big question is: shall the shape of the 'hamster' be a 'Reuleaux triangle' also?...
I asked myself this question after viewing this pertinent chinese bike (Nicbordeaux will love it), here:
http://www.china.org.cn/china/photos/20 ... 738257.htm
Did you say 'think different!'?...
- Attachments
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: An explanation for the 22,5 grades angle
Happy new Year 2010 to all.
Some news from my latest experiments (dated 2009) on the 'hamster design'.
I resume here the principle (all details are in the previous posts of this thread), where the hamster is acting like a 'maxwell daemon'.
Remember the previous video above, showing the hamster hung on the roof of her cage.
This is the applied principle, the hamster is hung on the inner rim before 12:00 and falling down clockwise until 3:00, where she catches again the rim at 11:00 leaving the 3:00 attachment point, etc.
This following hamster (see the shots hereafter) gives some excellent results.
On these shots the hamster is alone, out of her cage (not shown here) and without any linkage springs.
She is of order three (not 'order four' as commonly used within the Bessler wheel suggested designs).
Although you can see only FIVE weights, in fact there are THREE couples of weights, one of them (light blue in the central plan) 'glued' in a single item.
The weights motion is retriggered every all 60 grades, allowing the twin opposite braces to move in a way where the whole COG of the assembly passes through the vertical line from the sustentation point.
More explanations will follow soon.
Some news from my latest experiments (dated 2009) on the 'hamster design'.
I resume here the principle (all details are in the previous posts of this thread), where the hamster is acting like a 'maxwell daemon'.
Remember the previous video above, showing the hamster hung on the roof of her cage.
This is the applied principle, the hamster is hung on the inner rim before 12:00 and falling down clockwise until 3:00, where she catches again the rim at 11:00 leaving the 3:00 attachment point, etc.
This following hamster (see the shots hereafter) gives some excellent results.
On these shots the hamster is alone, out of her cage (not shown here) and without any linkage springs.
She is of order three (not 'order four' as commonly used within the Bessler wheel suggested designs).
Although you can see only FIVE weights, in fact there are THREE couples of weights, one of them (light blue in the central plan) 'glued' in a single item.
The weights motion is retriggered every all 60 grades, allowing the twin opposite braces to move in a way where the whole COG of the assembly passes through the vertical line from the sustentation point.
More explanations will follow soon.
- Attachments
-
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: An explanation for the 22,5 grades angle
As promised, the next steps of my experiments.
On the first shot below you can see the hamster aside her cage:
- some inforcements have been made (in yellow) in view to make more rigid the two external hanging rods of the central worker.
- the attachment points are on the violet crosses
On the second shot the hamster has been included inside her cage.
Due to the metastable equilibrium it is very difficult to obtain a stable position at 12:00 (it was only possible by locking the central bearing) because the active worker is very unstable (as soon reaching the 12:00 the worker drives it's weight across the sustentation vertical point and the hamster immediately rotates). Again the principle is confirmed.
I still continue my tests, the question now is concerning the unlocking mechanism of the rods at 2:00.
Be patient. I'm sure we are really close.
N.B.: some of yours are asking 'Why do display so much shots?'
The answer is obvious: if this design does work, based on the published shots, anybody will be able to replicate it.
On the first shot below you can see the hamster aside her cage:
- some inforcements have been made (in yellow) in view to make more rigid the two external hanging rods of the central worker.
- the attachment points are on the violet crosses
On the second shot the hamster has been included inside her cage.
Due to the metastable equilibrium it is very difficult to obtain a stable position at 12:00 (it was only possible by locking the central bearing) because the active worker is very unstable (as soon reaching the 12:00 the worker drives it's weight across the sustentation vertical point and the hamster immediately rotates). Again the principle is confirmed.
I still continue my tests, the question now is concerning the unlocking mechanism of the rods at 2:00.
Be patient. I'm sure we are really close.
N.B.: some of yours are asking 'Why do display so much shots?'
The answer is obvious: if this design does work, based on the published shots, anybody will be able to replicate it.
- Attachments
-
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: An explanation for the 22,5 grades angle
As explained several times I alternate the theory and the experiment.
Hereafter is an animation explaining the details of the succeeding phases of the process.
The green arrow shows the suspension point of the hamster (small wheel).
There are three phases shown in the animation:
- arrival at 12:00
- flip of the mechanism at 12:00
- rotation of the hamster within 22,5 grades due to the move of the COG
Please note that the main wheel (big wheel) don't move at all in this animation, until no link exists with the hamster (the small wheel).
The main wheel will rotate further when the hanging arrow will be linked to the main wheel.
Hoping this will clarify the meaning of the most sceptical...Hum!
Hereafter is an animation explaining the details of the succeeding phases of the process.
The green arrow shows the suspension point of the hamster (small wheel).
There are three phases shown in the animation:
- arrival at 12:00
- flip of the mechanism at 12:00
- rotation of the hamster within 22,5 grades due to the move of the COG
Please note that the main wheel (big wheel) don't move at all in this animation, until no link exists with the hamster (the small wheel).
The main wheel will rotate further when the hanging arrow will be linked to the main wheel.
Hoping this will clarify the meaning of the most sceptical...Hum!
- Attachments
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: An explanation for the 22,5 grades angle
The practical experiments on the 'hamster design' drove me to another alternative:
Instead to search a solution of suspension why not use a mechanism allowing the sustentation.
Where is the difference?
- the suspension is the way where the hamster is hanging on the inner rim of the main wheel
- the sustentation is the way where the shifted rods are attached at the top end of some crutches like explained in this excellent web site:
http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/hplab/pdw.html
This is an analog concept used for the motion of these walking toys:
http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/h ... fallis.pdf
http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/hplab/down ... atent2.pdf
I remember a video on youtube very close of this concept (although missing the most important parts).
Unfortunately I cannot find again the link (I have a copy). I will try to find it later.
Does have this any connection with the comment of Bessler speaking about the kids 'jumping from plot to plot'? Another mystery...
On a theoretical point of view I tried to analyse this kind of process, replacing the hanging rods by some legs linked with the floor of the inner rim.
I'm not very satisfied because these legs must be attached sometime and must be shifted (rolled?) within some specific steps.
Hereafter the latest state of the 'hamster design' wheel.
The hamster is hung on the main wheel like a jumper attached to his parachute...
Some comments tomorrow (I go now to the bed counting the sheeps jumping over the rocks...)
Instead to search a solution of suspension why not use a mechanism allowing the sustentation.
Where is the difference?
- the suspension is the way where the hamster is hanging on the inner rim of the main wheel
- the sustentation is the way where the shifted rods are attached at the top end of some crutches like explained in this excellent web site:
http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/hplab/pdw.html
This is an analog concept used for the motion of these walking toys:
http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/research/h ... fallis.pdf
http://ruina.tam.cornell.edu/hplab/down ... atent2.pdf
I remember a video on youtube very close of this concept (although missing the most important parts).
Unfortunately I cannot find again the link (I have a copy). I will try to find it later.
Does have this any connection with the comment of Bessler speaking about the kids 'jumping from plot to plot'? Another mystery...
On a theoretical point of view I tried to analyse this kind of process, replacing the hanging rods by some legs linked with the floor of the inner rim.
I'm not very satisfied because these legs must be attached sometime and must be shifted (rolled?) within some specific steps.
Hereafter the latest state of the 'hamster design' wheel.
The hamster is hung on the main wheel like a jumper attached to his parachute...
Some comments tomorrow (I go now to the bed counting the sheeps jumping over the rocks...)
- Attachments
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: An explanation for the 22,5 grades angle
My comments on the latest experiments:
1. I understand now why Bessler used some springs.
If sometime the position of some pivot points (basically an axle) shall move in the geometry of the structure, we need some rods with a variable length . To do that the springs are at our disposal, but with the disconvenience to be not rigid (border line effects).
Indeed multiple springs are the only solution for sustend any floating assembly if it's position is not clearly defined.
2. But I discovered also this point: the springs could be not a mandatory and could be replaced by the appropriated rod assembly.
This is confirmed by the theory. I do not remember the name of this famous mathematician wich demonstrated that any move of an assembly made of several rods can be resumed by the linkage of several circles, and vice-versa. Therefore if you have the correct values for the centers and the radius, you will be able to reconstruct any complex move.
This is one of the link between Bessler and the 'flowerbowl' (remember my previous old thread here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 5845#55845. I was always wondered by the flowerbowl because it's way to solve with a basic simplicity this kind of problem.
3. The 'hamster design' can be applied within different ways.
The hamster can run at the bottom of the inner rim (like in the same wheel for humans in the playgrounds).
The hamster can move hung at the roof of the inner rim.
But also the hamster can have an excentered move from the center. If this move is transferred to the inner rim by any globally repartited frame, it's sufficient!...
I continue my experiments in this direction.
1. I understand now why Bessler used some springs.
If sometime the position of some pivot points (basically an axle) shall move in the geometry of the structure, we need some rods with a variable length . To do that the springs are at our disposal, but with the disconvenience to be not rigid (border line effects).
Indeed multiple springs are the only solution for sustend any floating assembly if it's position is not clearly defined.
2. But I discovered also this point: the springs could be not a mandatory and could be replaced by the appropriated rod assembly.
This is confirmed by the theory. I do not remember the name of this famous mathematician wich demonstrated that any move of an assembly made of several rods can be resumed by the linkage of several circles, and vice-versa. Therefore if you have the correct values for the centers and the radius, you will be able to reconstruct any complex move.
This is one of the link between Bessler and the 'flowerbowl' (remember my previous old thread here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 5845#55845. I was always wondered by the flowerbowl because it's way to solve with a basic simplicity this kind of problem.
3. The 'hamster design' can be applied within different ways.
The hamster can run at the bottom of the inner rim (like in the same wheel for humans in the playgrounds).
The hamster can move hung at the roof of the inner rim.
But also the hamster can have an excentered move from the center. If this move is transferred to the inner rim by any globally repartited frame, it's sufficient!...
I continue my experiments in this direction.
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...