Free Employees ?

[FunWithGravity2]

Perhaps FWG and I could argue over which way its supposed to turn. Still, it wouldn't give it any more chance of working.

Murillo, if you believe it works so much, perhaps you should build it and find out once and for all.

Arguments, who me, curiosly though i wonder if Jim would be so kind to let us know which way it did tend to rotate. I know he made the statement that it was exactly balanced. I would assume like all leveraged models it tended to rotate against its intended direction easier than with it. I don't think anyone would waste the time with a build so we'll have to base the answer on the SIM.

Murilo
FWIW i am going to punch your red dot if that damn avalanche drive shows up in another thread. Everyone has been nice enough AFAIK.

Dave

[jim_mich]

i wonder if Jim would be so kind to let us know which way it did tend to rotate.

I really do not remember which way. That was long long ago, in a galaxy far far away. I remember that the OOB calculated value was very small, smaller than minimal friction even, and later calculations which averaged ever smaller incremental steps showed that it converged to zero.

In other words, the initial OOB that I saw was simply due to the weights being slightly OOB to one side and then to the other side as the components were moving and further analysis shown on average they balanced.

[to.late]

His dream was to open a non-denominational school and teach young people from disadvantaged backgrounds various trades - a creditable ambition. He needed the £20,000 to secure his dream.

JC

John,
What people might be missing is that he found the engineering more interesting than the wheel itself.
Such as the original question asked about starting businesses. He could have ground mill like water and wind mills were used for. But as far as other ventures, the Industrial Revolution had yet to happen.
Bessler was right in many solutions to his clues. But there is only one way they work. And it is pretty cool.
As far as Bessler goes, even if he had the money for his school, finding people or students interested in engineering might have been a different story. And this probably would have upset him more so than what people had to say about him.

[murilo]

Hello guys,
here we go again! 8)

Jim, you always insist in 2 stuffs: you always draw that narrow rail who confines the inside rods, that will not fall free due opposites frictions at 180º of each rod.
This rail you insist is supposed to conduce the chain that of sure will brake, thanks to your version. (the force transference is also very poor.)
Jim also insist in avoid the use of the wheel with hooks, which transform the novel in something absolutely different than the above narrow rails. The hooks wheel receives a punctual mass and also the counter opposite mass, all confronted over wheels axle.
My GOD!!! Is everything there!
IF necessary the momentum proportions will be managed! IF! I said IF...

Fletcher, I have not much to tell you for now. I liked the MAD, but...
The masses are NOT equal for both sides, so 'g' still is unequal, since it acts over not similar masses - acceleration will play!
The distance and time are same, but velocities are proportionally different.
The jumping velocity is achieved in external perimeter of the wheel.
This device is not to work at free 'g' fall... it's for to be hold in axle and to provide a torque source.
Momentum may be managed IF necessary...

FunWithG, sorry I can not reach to your meaning... language barrier... 8(

The modeling I ask for is a model where one can make N changes and tries,
and the computer will calculate on line to all weight resultants, losses and 'g' playing.

Thanks!
Best!
Murilo

[jim_mich]

The modeling I ask for is a model where one can make N changes and tries,
and the computer will calculate on line to all weight resultants, losses and 'g' playing.

That is what I did. Below is just a small sample of the results.

Jim, you always insist in 2 stuffs: you always draw that narrow rail who confines the inside rods, that will not fall free due opposites frictions at 180º of each rod.
This rail you insist is supposed to conduce the chain that of sure will brake, thanks to your version. (the force transference is also very poor.)

The rails can be turned on or off in the computer. (See the right side shows the rails turned off.) The rails are NOT used in any calculation. They are there only for looks.

Jim also insist in avoid the use of the wheel with hooks, which transform the novel in something absolutely different than the above narrow rails. The hooks wheel receives a punctual mass and also the counter opposite mass, all confronted over wheels axle.

The hooks are drawn as simple lines because it takes a lot of time and extra programming to make fancy hooks. The formulas assume hooks.


Each weight either exerts its 'g' force at the inner radius (shown as blue) or it exerts its 'g' force at the outer radius (shown as red). Because the top and bottom are symmetrical everything above the top axle and below the bottom axle can be ignored since they will balance.

Therefore we only need to look at what happens in between the axles.

All the weight on the left side between the axles rests on the inner blue radius.

All the weight on the right side between the axles rests on the outer red radius.

The ratio of the number of blue weights to the number of red weights is inverse to the ratio of blue radius to the red radius. Thus the total of the blue weights times the blue radius always equals the total of the red weights times the red radius. And thus the mechanism balances. This is a mathematical truth.

[Fletcher]

Ok - I'm out of here.

[path_finder]

Dear Murillo,
IMHO I gues if your design does work, this one shall work also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IMYjTH0FNI

[to.late]

Ralph,
thanks for your words and thanks for not ignoring me at this time.

Many told me that my device will not work so as many also told that it will obviously turn and speed.

Nobody was able to tell me WHY NOT but many also can see why it will turn.

Most important, anyway, are the self confidence I have about my weird and 100% logic design. My persistence has nothing to see with anything else.

I'm afraid that you still have some points to reach about my conceptions... don't you think so?

I don't agree with your notes about the top side and left returning point but they show that you may have no other objections about the rest of device, isn't it?

The top side of avalanchedrive is the one that causes LESS discussions, since even a curved ramp can do the job... it's completely passive and dependent of main previous functions. When rising, the chain is completely erected and self sustained before the transference to contracted pile.

Never to forget that we have here a kind of diagram and not more than a sketch, so we'll not let some mechanic details be the killers of all the conception, ok?

All I need is a true computer modeling help! Nothing else!

Thanks again!
Best!
M

Murilo,
Mind if I ask one queston ?
How will you keep the weights aligned ? A chain is not an answer :-)

[AB Hammer]

murilo

I commend you for your effort and belief of your design. For we have to believe in what we are doing. But a build is the only way your mind and hart will be satisfied with your work, or allow you to move on to new thoughts.

No computer will help you here, but only the build.

Good Luck

[Grimer]

Dear Murillo,
IMHO I gues if your design does work, this one shall work also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IMYjTH0FNI

You beat me to it.

That's the classic example normally attributed to Simon Stevin.

"The mathematician and researcher of nature Simon Stevin (1548-1620) worked around 1586 on the perpetual motion topic. Stevin wrote a book entitled De beghinselen des waterwichts in which he discusssed the impossibility of perpetual motion. He took a chain loop on ramps of different steepness as a starting point to develop his proof."

[to.late]

Murilo,
I think the actual problem with your design would be how to prevent the top weight on the left side from being pulled in the clock wise direction.
You'll most likely find that whatever mechanism you use will require it intract with the weight on the bottom left.
After all, that is how you would try to control the force, right ? This means as the weight at bottom left advances, it has to pull a weight into the top left position to maintain the over balance.

[murilo]

murilo wrote:
The modeling I ask for is a model where one can make N changes and tries,
and the computer will calculate on line to all weight resultants, losses and 'g' playing.

That is what I did. Below is just a small sample of the results.
GIM, YOU KNOW, this is NOT exactly the HELP modeling I'm talking about!

murilo wrote:
Jim, you always insist in 2 stuffs: you always draw that narrow rail who confines the inside rods, that will not fall free due opposites frictions at 180º of each rod.
This rail you insist is supposed to conduce the chain that of sure will brake, thanks to your version. (the force transference is also very poor.)

The rails can be turned on or off in the computer. (See the right side shows the rails turned off.) The rails are NOT used in any calculation. They are there only for looks.

JIM, I don't agree and I don't understand WHY you change my designs. You replaced my sets of vertical rails and a wheel with 12 or more hooks by these curved channels that will NOT conduct the stuff.

murilo wrote:
Jim also insist in avoid the use of the wheel with hooks, which transform the novel in something absolutely different than the above narrow rails. The hooks wheel receives a punctual mass and also the counter opposite mass, all confronted over wheels axle.

The hooks are drawn as simple lines because it takes a lot of time and extra programming to make fancy hooks. The formulas assume hooks.

JIM, the hooks I spoke about are not these you are pointing in the tentative of replace the wheel+hooks.

In my original designs so as in yours, we have always BIGGER number of elements falling than rising. The ideal rate is of 2 per 1.

Very strange if you make efforts to not understand me. Looks nutty!

Best!
M.

[murilo]

Ok - I'm out of here.

Fletcher,
the comparison you made has nothing to do with my design.
Best!
M.

[murilo]

Dear Murillo,
IMHO I gues if your design does work, this one shall work also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-IMYjTH0FNI

Monsieur,
who I am to be contrary to your mind?

[murilo]

Ralph,
thanks for your words and thanks for not ignoring me at this time.

Many told me that my device will not work so as many also told that it will obviously turn and speed.

Nobody was able to tell me WHY NOT but many also can see why it will turn.

Most important, anyway, are the self confidence I have about my weird and 100% logic design. My persistence has nothing to see with anything else.

I'm afraid that you still have some points to reach about my conceptions... don't you think so?

I don't agree with your notes about the top side and left returning point but they show that you may have no other objections about the rest of device, isn't it?

The top side of avalanchedrive is the one that causes LESS discussions, since even a curved ramp can do the job... it's completely passive and dependent of main previous functions. When rising, the chain is completely erected and self sustained before the transference to contracted pile.

Never to forget that we have here a kind of diagram and not more than a sketch, so we'll not let some mechanic details be the killers of all the conception, ok?

All I need is a true computer modeling help! Nothing else!

Thanks again!
Best!
M

Murilo,
Mind if I ask one queston ?
How will you keep the weights aligned ? A chain is not an answer :-)

to.late, you can ask me everything you want, since you try to be smart and serious.
The vertical piles with the chain in two opposite states - compacted and expanded - are to be molded or conduced by vertical rails, very similar to those of elevators.
Thanks.
M