Apologia Poetica Translation

[fAtnhapy]

Ralph, I've seen the jack handle go up and down as jack backdrives LOL
I suppose you could argue that the motion you descibe would give you a "slow down" situation or as I like to call it "fall like a snow flake" now if we can just get the same weights back up to the top fast I suppose one could argue that there would always be more weights on the decending side than the accending side. The devil however is in the details. :0)
fAt

[ken_behrendt]

fAt...

I'm not convinced that Bessler's wheels used any type of scissor jack mechanisms at this time. The problem with them is that they are mechanically complex and introduce a lot of pivots and friction into a design. Count Karl assured people that Bessler's design was "simple". I do not that if every weight was moved by a scissor jack that one could consider the design to be simple.

There are other problems associated with scissor jacks. For one thing, if there is "play" in the pivots that connect the parts together, then they can begin to sway or twist when they are extended. To compensate, one finds oneself building various tracks and guides to stabilize the motion of the weights they move. That's more friction and complexity to deal with.

My advice to someone trying to duplicate one of Bessler's wheels is to keep the design as simple as possible and just use weights, levers, stops, springs, and pulley lines or rods in it.


ken

[jim_mich]

Ken,

I think it is wrong of you to advise others to exclude possible types of mechanism due to your own prejudeces. As I've said before, "Simplicity is in the eye of the beholder."

Scissor jacks are just a collection of levers. Scissor jacks can many times be replaced with ropes and pulleys, but not always. There are certain arrangements of scissor jacks that produce weight movements that are almost impossible to be duplicated in any other way. Sometimes a scissor jack is simpler to build than an equivalant rope and pulley system.

So in conclusion please refrain from advising others based only on your own prejudices.

[fAtnhapy]

Ken,
I would tend to agree and I wasn't suggesting that he did use a jack or storks bill. (although noting his iffinity for them in other drawings I wouldn't rule it out). I was suggesting the possibility that the storks bill and ladder depicted on the toy drawing sandwiching the toy in such a way as to create a "stairway" for the toy. From his description of the children prying themselves up on broken columns one could interpert that as weights raising their COG in some prying action inside the wheel. Certainly if you could cause a weight to "climb" this problem would be well on it's way to being solved. Now a weight raising it's COG is not to hard to imagine. A round bottom pendulum if swung and caught on the bottom at it highest arc on say a shelf then released at the pivot would roll until the rounded bottom was sitting on it's lowest quadrant leaving the pivot higher than it started. Continually repeating the process is the rub.
fAt

[fAtnhapy]

Jim,
I would agree. Using the Sherlock Holmes method "when all possibilities are eliminated what remains however improbable must be the truth." The frustrating part of this rubics cube is the inability (or wisdom) to eliminate anything, so everything remains. The combination of mechanisms gives us an almost infinate number of things to try. Every mechanisim you add to the equasion squares the number of possibilities so the temptation to start eliminating them is great albeit risky.
fAt

[rlortie]

We have all seen the simple trick of causing a can, tube or cylinder to roll up a plane by placing a weight inside. The tube will roll up an inclined plane until said weight reaches the bottom. the bigger the radius the more distance covered.

An incline plane is no different than levers, jack, or multi-pulleys for lifting a load. The idea that the hammer toy flipping itself in the "Z" plane as viewed, as it climbs the ladder or multi-step incline, is not something I would dismiss easily. The horizontal action to move the COG each flip would certainly take less force than gained by the movement of weight. After all no matter how complex it may look, it still is only an inclined plane. Or is it the screw type pillars that the children play between? Just another square in Rubics cube!

A snow flake falling up is a good description.

As for meeting the guidelines of simplicity, it is a toy enjoyed by many children of the day. I am sure a carpenters boy could build one.

Ralph

[fAtnhapy]

Did they have screw type pillars in the 1700? LOL
ah...er.....what's a screw type pillar?
fAt

[rlortie]

The pillars are the scissor and the ladder that the children with clubs play between, they are the hammer toys. The screw type description is meant to perceive the notch or steps as not unlike the threaded incline plane on a screw. Or call it the notched teeth on a handyman jack.

The teeth or rungs on the ladder would be on an incline matching the radius of the rotating horizontal bars making up the hammer toy.

And yes! I do believe they had screw type pillars then. I believe it was Germany that introduced what is now called the acme square type thread used in machining tools for close tolerance work.

Ralph

[fAtnhapy]

I think we might be sharing a brain! :0) (would explain why I only have half of one!) Here's another interesting uphill device (sort of)
http://www.oberlin.edu/physics/catalog/ ... econe.html
Now if we can just keep it going instead of falling off the ramp! :0)
fAt

[rlortie]

fAt,

You keep it on the ramp by having a series of ramps around the radius of the wheel like saw teeth. when the cone runs out of ramp it falls upon the next set. This is not unlike the magnetic smot. Also known as magnetic gate.

As the cone climbs it is actually staying in one spot and the ramps with the wheel is turning under it. The incline of the ramps is of a smaller radius than the wheel. Eight such ramps would provide eight hits per rev.

Ralph

[fAtnhapy]

Let me lay that out in cad before someone else does. I'd hate for someone to make off with my 100 billion dollar reward before I can build my "fortress of God" :0)
fAt

[rlortie]

fAt,

You will share with whoever has assisisted won't you?

Ralph

[fAtnhapy]

Of course :0)
I expect one could do a lot of sharing and barely even notice it.
fAt

[fAtnhapy]

Actually it lays out ok. Probably should have a larger cone (more weight) but it looks like it would fall off one ramp onto the next. You want to buy the concept now for like 10 million and keep the profit? :0)

[fAtnhapy]

Now all we need is one of the computer model gurus to do a test run on it and see if the wavy lines do the right thing. Anyone want in for....say 10% and a half a bag of cheetos? :0)
fAt