arthur's design

[arthur]

thanks for your input and for taking a look at my design.

I will know the answer first hand, soon enough.

in your computer simulation, did you apply springs at both pivots of the arm?

[Bessler007]

in your computer simulation, did you apply springs at both pivots of the arm?

I simulated equivalent torques at different radii beginning at -45 degrees. The simulation showed the larger radii could not catch the shorter. When I added the energy of a preloaded spring it could keep pace with the fall. It was no longer in a weightless free fall.

I didn't simulate your detail exactly but I think the results would be the same. Without knowing the values of the weight of the arm, etc. I couldn't.

If you haven't started building you might do a search for the terms 'articulate arm' and 'perpetual motion'. You might get some ideas. It is interesting you came to the idea without knowing about it, shows you're thinking. :)

I can tell you're a little pig-headed also. That's a good sign of character.

[arthur]

I can see why this arabian design is a not a winner,
I think my wheel is a bit different and it's curious to me because I haven't seen a design like it before.

[Bessler007]

Hello Arthur,

Kas pointed out the similarity between your design and mt14. Some are very familiar with the mt drawings and can spot them instantly. I haven't studied them much and don't plan on it. The reason is there is something missing from all of them. Bessler didn't include that missing part.

If all the parts are in the mt drawings but the key is to assemble the proper pictures and connect them in the proper manner, I'm still not interested in a study. I expect if there is an answer I'll arrive at it independently. I don't want all the noise available from the drawings or Bessler's explanations. That crowds my thinking.

For those two reasons I am on this quest for perpetual motion with ideas I arrive at.

As I compare your idea to mt14 I see a common picture. It is exactly what you mentioned earlier. This idea is a human arm affixed to the axle by the shoulder and bent at 90 degrees at the elbow. Most likely Bessler arrived at the idea the same way. When the hand and hammer arrives at 12 o'clock the elbow rotates forward (hammer in hand) as the shoulder rotates down causing the hammer to smack the anvil at 3, or so the theory goes.

What I'm saying is because of the rate of rotation of the wheel combined with the motion of the elbow advancing the hammer, these two motions will prevent the elbow from dropping with a rotation at the shoulder. The elbow won't catch up. You could model a single arm and see but I doubt it. There could also be more to your idea than is in the picture. The hammer might swing at the elbow (because of the spring) but the elbow and hence the hammer won't swing at the shoulder to deliver the blow to the anvil.

The real crux of the matter is 'where does the energy come from to get the arm to strike the anvil?' This is what everyone is looking for. You just can't borrow someone's arm and nail it to an axle. You're going to have to feed them! Where will this food giving them energy to smack the anvil come from? You can't recycle their food!! People or mechanisms aren't going to put up with that!

If I could state your theory I'd say it is 'the balance of a slowly accumulated energy to the rapid release of that power can force a mass into a more productive moment with more leverage creating more potential energy than its cause.' That's an old idea. It was modeled around the turn of the 16th century.

Then there is the point of smacking the anvil. If you build a structure able to sustain the hammering it would be so massive it would have a real tendency not to move. All the available work obtained from impact would effectively be closer to the axle. The effect would be less torque to rotate the apparatus. If it's not substantial enough the impact will beat it to pieces. It's like damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's a demonstration of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You just can't win. :)

In spite of the fact you can't win I'm still looking at ideas. My suspicion is every idea I've ever had has been thought by someone before me. I think I'll know when I have an original idea. That idea will make a wheel turn. I'm pretty sure no one has had that idea yet.

[arthur]

The real crux of the matter is 'where does the energy come from to get the arm to strike the anvil?

as I see it, the downward acceleration from 12 to 3 is powered by springs and gravity.
--------

The elbow won't catch up

there is too much spurious motion

I know what you mean.

the weight does travel more horizontal distance than vertical distance, between 12 and 3.
--however, the weight lands with vertical/ downward velocity.

I believe weight will land at 3:00 with greater velocity than free fall [of equal vertical distance].
(if so this wheel will work)

I think the springs will bring the weight up to speed.

and, of course 3:00 impact applies maximum torque because weight lands at full arm's length/ radius.
...............

is there no value in these clues?

Weights were heard hitting the side of the wheel going down.
- eyewitness accounts.
Weights applied force at right angles to the axis.
- Bessler
About 8 weights fell during each revolution of the wheel.
- eyewitness accounts.
Springs were employed, but not as detractors suggested.
- Bessler
Weights gained force from their own swinging.
- Bessler
Weights may have been attached to movable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel.
- eyewitness accounts.
..........

also 1 more thing:
my wheel is considerably different from the mt 14..
I have not yet seen a design to compare it to..
mt 18 might be the closest but it's a weak design IMO.

[Bessler007]

Hello Arthur,

>~<

[arthur]

bessler007,

spring assisted 'shoulder' is a crucial part of my design.
I didn't see this in your picture.
in your picture you show the 'elbow' opening first.
this will not be the case.

the central 'shoulder' pivot will fall open nearly 45 degrees (it's full range) - before the 'elbow' swings open.

again both pivots of the arm are spring enhanced.

[Bessler007]

Arthur,

Although you didn't see the spring it was there. You also didn't see parts falling with the arm. They were tacked to the background but you couldn't see that.

You didn't see the hammer bounce off it's point of impact because I didn't shoot those screen shots but it does bounce like crazy. At those instances there will be zero torque.

My picture was generated with a simulation package. wm2d. It wasn't some sketch I put together. What you saw was how the sim ran.

[arthur]

ok,

It's cool that you made a simulation.
thanks.

the wheel I build will run a bit different than your simulation.
- wheel will be rotating - spring effect will be more subtle.
the shoulder pivot will have more spring load than the elbow.

I will set the springs at each pivot so the weight will swing on the elliptical path drawn in the picture.
springs will simply boost velocity of falling weight, they will not lift the weight as shown in your simulation.
-- the 'shoulder' will swing first.

as for the weight bouncing,
I will use 3 pound drilling hammers that strike a wood surface.
these hammers don't bounce.

[Bessler007]

Arthur,

A cranks got to do what a cranks got to do and real cranks get their hands dirty. Armchair cranks are a dime a dozen. Armchair skeptics are even cheaper.

Good luck.

[arthur]

lol