Toad Elevating Moment

[JohnF]

MrVibrating,
>> Hmm, where's the CF reference there? It looks like the weights hang down against gravity - CF would hold them all flat against the rim..?

Evidently, one of us is missing something... ;P <<

The weight that needs to be hoisted is the cf reference. Otherwise it stays in it's position.
With Mt 130 and the hearts, what do hearts and bellows have in common ?
They both pump.

With Mt 21, the reason the weights are hanging is because they are IMPARTING force to the wheel.
Once the weight rests on the outside of the wheel, then it will have inertia.
One thing I do disagree with when it is mentioned on Wikipedia.com that
>> In Newtonian mechanics, the term centrifugal force is used to refer to one of two distinct concepts: an inertial force (also called a "fictitious" force) observed in a non-inertial reference frame, and a reaction force corresponding to a centripetal force. <<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_force << is wrong.
One reason for this is if the hanging weights moved outward because of the wheels velocity of rotation, then that would be centrifugal force which can be measured as real work being performed.
And as the attached drawing of Bessler's which is John Collins property shows, that inertial force happens when the weight moves to the outside of the wheel because of the wheels rotation.
Although I think the reason they call cf a fictitious force is because the impetus of the force (wheel/impellor) rotates as it's medium (water, mass/weight) moves away from it's axis of rotation and it's force is still calculated to be 90 degrees of perpendicularity.
I think I'll need to mention this on my fb page. Helps to illustrate Bessler's understanding of mechanics and forces.

changed pics to add a second reference of inertia

[JohnF]

mrvibrating,
I'll give you a little bit better explanation then will leave you guys alone
:-)

Mt 31 shows where Bessler over came inertia. To look at it, someone might think other wise but then they would be missing Bessler's lesson.
You see, with 2 opposing levers and one always moving to be perpendicular to the shifting weights, only one lever is out of balance.
Also, because the levers are 90 degrees or perpendicular to what they are moving, inertia is effectively neutralized.
With shifting weights, if they do not rotate as Bessler shows but are hoisted or drawn upward, once again, inertia or centrifugal force is neutralized as well as one could hope for.
You see, if you have 2 lb. weights on those levers at a 2:1 ratio, then 4 lbs. can be lifted a height equal to the drop of the levers. And if 2 - 1 lb. weights are being shifted/lifted, etc., then you have 2 lbs. of excess force.
What might be missed in this is how much energy is lost because of one lever being out of balance. But if someone cares to do the math, it would probably be 1/2 of the force created by the over balance.

[JohnF]

@All,
I think you guys will get this. A lever dropping 10 inches can lift a 1 lb. weight 10 inches, right ? What Bessler realized is that lifting 2 - 1 lb. weights 5 inches can create an over balance.
You see, when 2 weights shift upward, they equal the work being done by one lever. What Bessler dd was to use a second lever that moved into a balanced position or at a right angle to the 2 weights being lifted.
This allows for a maximum of 2X the work that could be performed. And as he mentioned as it is well known in here, his weights worked in pairs/
One was to do the work and the other to achieve over unity. This basically means that the 2 weights being lifted can shift more than a single lever would allow for. And this is pretty basic stuff when you consider what Bessler could do. But it's a start.

edited to add; talked to my landlord and he may have a place for me where I can have my shop at home. I think I'm going to feel sorry for my wife when I get one.
Wind driven turbine fans are next on my list, Wind Energy to the MAX !!

[MrVibrating]

since our unfortunate friend here has got himself banned, i'll spare us the bandwidth of a point-on-point reply, suffice to say i wish him the best of luck with it... though i remain skeptical about the whole class of 2D exchanges..


Would also like to thank the mods - i don't mind a little thread drift but as selfish as it sounds, i've too many hare-brained question of my own to follow up to want to get too sidetracked with other's ideas, for the time being. At some point i guess i'll have exhausted my own imagination and maybe then i'll spend more time reviewing other's work, but for now if one question's on my mind, there's ten more on the back-burner.. so i really appreciate the space to 'think aloud'..

[eccentrically1]

does it say anywhere in b's writing that the drawings are in an order of some kind?

[MrVibrating]

Back to the CF-on-CF thing.... i've cooled somewhat on the concept - not least because from the precession demonstrated in that video above, and my basic understanding of its cause, the torque seems quite low. Hard to see how to ramp it up, much, besides scaling it up. I can think of several options though, so i'll see this idea through to some kind of conclusion yet...

Also i've realised a 2D sim probably can't produce the nutation needed - i'd previously only considered that the flyweight will need to nutate in the radial plane, however to do so it also needs some freedom of movement in the axial plane...

I've sketched it here with a pivot on the axle to allow this extra freedom of movement:



As you can see this isn't viable in 2D. I still intend to double-check MT143 in motion, and follow-up on a few variations, but the goal of converting CF into precessional torque needs a minimum of three dimensions... so i'll have to try building a test rig, if i can't puzzle it out theoretically first...


ETA: i keep calling MT143 "142" instead... corrected it... i do mean 143 tho, the parallelogram...

[MrVibrating]

Hmm.. random brainstorm, but might "three kingdoms" be three dimensions..?

[MrVibrating]

does it say anywhere in b's writing that the drawings are in an order of some kind?

The plates are numbered up to 104, and from there on all prints are hand-numbered, i think.

I noticed another oddity today - you can see 142 thru 135 and vice versa...

[eccentrically1]

... and also, taking as read the suggestion that MT portrays the progression of ideas leading to the breakthrough,

not the numbers. where does it say the drawings portray the progression of ideas?

[MrVibrating]

Ahh, B. offers a mention of it in his negotiations with the Tsar's emissary - from JC's book:

"I have in mind a great 'Treatise on Mechanics' which I plan to publish, with many hundreds of machines and drawings that could be printed at my home.

In this tract it will be possible to trace my perpetual motion machine through all the stages of its development."

Offhand i think there may be other clues to the same conclusion, but that's the main one that comes to mind...


Oh, also JC has suggested the toys page MT138-141 might replace the final four drawings he "buried or burned" (following the arrest) that "prove the possibility"... again implying that MT was originally intended to culminate with the successful mechanisms.

I guess that doesn't necessarily imply there's a consistent development of the ideas presented - a clear progression from 'wrong path' to 'right' - more likely the ordering is largely historical, perhaps with a few meandering diversions meant to emphasize certain points...

But yep, broadly, my impression is he starts off trying to overbalance, later realises that's impossible and finally ends up playing with CF...

[MrVibrating]

Slightly OT but quite interesting:

http://phys.org/news/2013-09-functionin ... ature.html

Howzat for blurring the line between robots and biotics..!

[eccentrically1]

thanks. 'trace it through all the stages of development'. that sounds like a 'besslerism'.
so he only burned 4 drawings? i thought it was more than that.

[MrVibrating]

OK something weird going on here...


I've just started a WM2D model of MT143 - i got as far as the first pair of pendulums, before finding some strange behaviour:

I'd made the pendulums from default material properties, and wanted to check the gearing was working properly - it's the first time i've used it. So i changed the mass of the lower pendulum bob from the default mass of 0.126 kg, to 0.127 kg... just enough to animate the mechanism.

So the pendulums start out horizontal and parallel, and you'd expect them to both swing through a maximum 180° arc, no? Except these ones don't... instead, they swing considerably further....

I'm not suggesting this is a gain, and neither am i sure how it might be useful just yet, or if it's significant at all to MT143's intended lesson...

The model's attached, and the picture shows the input and output positions..

[mickegg]

Hi MrV..

The upper pendulum is adding to the motion when the lower one lifts it past the 12 o'clock postion.

Looks perfectly ok to me.


Regards

Mick

[MrVibrating]

LOL, sorry mate, but it was my mistake (somehow) - i just tried to replicate it and it went away.

Very strange, but it was a last minute thing late last night... just wanna make sure i report every anomaly, in case one of 'ems for real...

If it WAS real, it would work in both directions - when dropped from the right it would likewise over-extend to the left, and then all we'd have to do is latch them and release them again for perpetual motion...

If you look at the lower wheel in the model i posted, it's tilted a fraction of a degree. I don't know why this slight offset seems to amplify itself on the other side of the swing, but when i get rid of it, the asymmetry goes away and it swings a perfect 180°, from horizontal back to horizontal...