Solved: Width for Height Conundrum

[ME]

I have no idea what this lever is all about... so eeh good luck I guess. So is it "solved" or not? When it failed to work, perhaps reveal the intended idea behind your "38 inputs, more than half of which were friction scripts".

You're referring to the "redesign overhaul" I did on page 5 of this thread. I went back to the original lever design, so the 38 resistance inputs does not apply.

Sure.

And as for not being convinced, you are not the first, and you will not be the last. People always blame the program...even if it is two completely different ones.

We don't blame the program, we just blame you.

The situation is similar with Jim_mich's simulation and his motion wheel.
Because there's no proof, it could be anything... perhaps you made the mathematical mistake twice...

You may know, we don't.. Your visuals do not proof you succeeded: you have hidden components (or scripts), it may well swap the 1 and 4 pounds... I don't know.
You know, "Burden of proof" etc...
For now: 4-pounds can't be lifted by 1 pound.

No hard feelings, but that's the perspective from this side of the discussion board.

[Silvertiger]

Whatever you say. I really do understand. Skepticism is the safest route by far. That's the way it's gotta be for now until I get one built. However, try to think about how and why it could work, rather dismissing it outright. Do you use any kinematic sim programs btw?

[ME]

It's reversed:
Skepticism is the starting point, not an end-point to flee back to.
We can verify, with math and science, it's not possible to lift 4 pound with 1 pound along the same radius as you show.
So unfortunately for 7 pages, it is "whatever You say", because we can't verify or dismiss what you say and show.

And I understand why you hide the mechanism... but then what's there to discuss?

In the meantime I'll think about how and why it could work... perhaps I'll tinker something with wm2d or build my own.

[cloud camper]

Occam's Razor says the most likely explanation is that you have mistyped the masses for the 1 lb and 4 lb weights.

Since no one can verify anything and must take your word, one must assume that a mistake has been made. I have made them myself.

And since there is no load and I'm presuming no friction, the oscillation will go on forever.

But thanks for sharing and continue posting.

Just don't expect anyone to drink the koolade!

[daxwc]

Keep up beat Silvertiger; keep playing with it and parts of crude builds to get a feel for the forces involved. People get attached to their babies easily, but you should be complimented from everyone for your effort and being straight forward. I hit your green button for bringing a design to the forum.

[rlortie]

Silvertiger wrote:

"However, try to think about how and why it could work, rather dismissing it outright."

I have thought about very strongly since you mentioned: "gimbal". I have taken the time for a refresher course involving A universal joint (universal coupling, U-joint, Cardan joint, Spicer or Hardy Spicer joint, or Hooke's joint)any joint or coupling connecting rigid rods whose axes are inclined to each other, and is commonly used in shafts that transmit rotary motion. Not excluding three dimensional as found in a gyroscope.

First thing to come to mind is that the width of the wheel must be equal to its diameter. Your gimbal must be perpendicular to the axis.

I do not see it working much different than comparison to a limited Foucault pendulum. You can see in the animation that no matter how the gimbals rotate, the OB weights will maintain a fixed orientation.

I agree with cc and ME

Ralph

[Silvertiger]

ME: Fletcher can verify that this lever is different than the one discussed on page 5, as he has seen both of them.

cloud camper: Here is video that shows the masses of the weights.

daxwc: Thank you very much; I appreciate that. :D

...the width of the wheel must be equal to its diameter...

Isn't that the definition of a diameter? Half the width would be the radius.

[ME]

I don't know what Fletcher knows.. at least Fletcher understands your limbo with his earlier post.
You may understand the issue better when reading this post of your (option 2).

I agree with Daxwc. "Keep up beat Silvertiger; keep playing with it and parts of crude builds to get a feel for the forces involved.". But, what design?

[Silvertiger]

Jim was angry at people's responses. Given this forum's proclivity towards skepticism, I would say this did not wind up being the best venue for his ideas. He had a LOT of hot air. I would not have made that post if it weren't so. It's funny you mention him though, as I have something to share that very much vindicates what he was saying, even if it came across as hostile and defensive. It will be posted in my Design Status Update thread.

[ME]

(the "angry part", was option 1)

Tried your gravity switcher. At least the check-on and check-off checks out...
Meaning: When the checkbox is checked it's like normal gravity down, and otherwise it's up.
I don''t know what's up with 0.225*0.454*9.81 equals about 1... (some conversion?), but my formula (in SI-units) for input[9] is

• -self.mass * 9.81 * input[9]

[Silvertiger]

Mine is the conversion to English units.

[rlortie]

rlortie wrote:
...the width of the wheel must be equal to its diameter...

Isn't that the definition of a diameter? Half the width would be the radius.

No, not radius, width as in thickness, depth of wheel or drum as viewed from rim, axial to the axis. Half of the diameter not width is radius!

[Silvertiger]

Ralph, you said "width," and width is not depth/thickness. I know you meant though. I was just having fun with it lol. But I don't know how one would encase it in a drum. I would just make a pretty box for it.

[k.waenga]

originalbesslerwheel.com .. share your thoughts .. K.WAENGA.

[k.waenga]

PLEASE READ MY WEBSITE AND SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS, originalbesslerwheel.com .. I'm slowly learning how to use the computer .. regards to all .. K.WAENGA.