extending levers

[preoccupied]

I would like to talk about overbalance that appears to be completely one sided. I think scissors pushing out on one side of a wheel and pushing all the way in on the other side would be a very one sided wheel. The corner of a gear could be attached to bars attached to the handle of a row of scissors. When the gear turns a quarter turn the bars come together and the scissor extends all the way and when the gear turns a quarter turn in the other direction the scissors will contract all the way. The shorter the time it takes to extend the scissors the more levers are available to give leverage. I think extending one scissor at a time and having a lot of scissors would be the most effective design. When the scissor is extending weight could be pushed and locked in place by a wedge and the wedge could be moved out of the way easily on the bottom before the scissor is contracted. The time available to extend or contract a scissor would gradually decrease as the number of scissors increase because they will be closer together but the new space taken up between the scissors would exponentially decrease for each new scissor so it seems like the more scissors there are the more efficient the wheel would be. If science is correct the wheel will be trying to reach a break even efficiency point which would make this a silly thing to build without doing the math. But I don’t think science anticipates that there could be a wedge to hold the weight in place and the wheel might trump science. It just looks like it would work if the weights get to stay extended all the way on one side and contracted all the way on the other.

[preoccupied]

I drew a picture in MS paint (inkscape is crashing). the scissors are being turned by a gear. A larger gear than drawn can be used and the scissors can fully collapse. I should really have drawn it with the larger gear but I didn't notice my mistake until after I was done and I don't feel like redrawing it.

[Richard]

No. 41: This is yet another stork's-bill model. It is not necessary first to explain the letters. There is only this to mention: the present horizontal application of the stork's bills is always better than the machine with the vertical application, which constantly has more friction. I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills. Whoever knows how to construct them will note that the figures sketched here are not exactly the correct artistic application."
............

...the good lesson here....shifting at 9 and 3...

...latter he seems to have found an even quicker and smoother weight shift system..

richard

[preoccupied]

The levers would all be on one side like this picture. And one scissor at a time would be lifted by a gear. either the top one or the bottom one is lifting taking turns. you are cryptic Richard

[Richard]

outstanding

..we now see a progression in Besslers bldng. and understanding..

look at mt 113 (sorry everyone--sure your getting sick of me referring to mt 113)

...now look at the storksbill assembly your working with...

richard

edit to add: in reality I sense that final shifts will occur at approx. 9 and 3

and start at 6 and 12

[AB Hammer]

preoccupied

Understanding scissor jacks are a lesson all of it's own. Here is a string where scissor jacks where discussed. There are hundreds if not thousands of way to use a scissor jack. Using a gear has some advantages but you get disadvantages as well. This path has been tried by several. I do doubt every avenue though. I will keep an eye open on your progression.


http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 1512#51512

Alan

[preoccupied]

7.07+7.07+10+3.82+3.82+9.24+9.24+9.8+9.8+8.31+8.31+5.55+5.55+1.95+1.95=101.54 At 1.95 I start to contract the scissors. I have a ratio of 11.25/90 because 1.95 is 11.25 degrees to the center of the circle and 90 degrees is the amount of degrees the scissor gear needs to turn. 11.25/90=.125. 101.54*.125= 12.6925 which is higher then 10 distance. Force necessary to move the scissors might be equal to distance times weight. So 12.69 x 2 pounds =25.38 is greater than 20. If my calculations are correct then 15 levers on one side can contract one lever. I need to contract one lever and extend one lever at the same time. Other questions come to mind like if the weight is heavier will it be more effective? Or if the lever is longer will it be more effective? 7.07+7.07+10+3.82+3.82+9.24+9.24+9.8+9.8+8.31+8.31+5.55+ 5.55+1.95+1.95+ .95+9.95+.98+.98+9.57+9.57+2.9+2.9+8.82+8.82+4.71+4.71+7.73+7.73+6.34+6.34= 203.54. Ratio is 5.625/90=.0625, 203.54*.0625=12.72 .… 12.721*2=25.44 … this is promising because the value increases as more levers are added. 7.07+7.07+10+3.82+3.82+9.24+9.24+9.8+9.8+8.31+8.31+ 5.55+5.55+1.95+1.95+.95+9.95+.98+.98+9.57+9.57+2.9+2.9+8.82+8.82+4.71+4.71+7.73+7.73+6.34 +6.34+9.98+9.98+.49+.49+9.89+9.89+1.47+1.47+9.7+9.7+2.43+2.43+9.42+9.42+3.37+3.37+9.03+9.03 +4.28+4.28+8.57+8.57+5.14+5.14+8.03+8.03+5.96+5.96+7.4+7.4+6.72+6.72=407.3 …. Ratio is 2.8125/90=.03125 … 407.3*.03125=12.728 - a lot of levers might eventually produce enough torque to contract one lever and extend another lever at the same time. My math is sometimes bad. But I think the general theme of an increase in advantage by adding more levers is true.

Lets increase the length of the lever and the weight. 10 pound weight and 100 inch lever… 100+70.71+70.71+92.38+92.38+38.26+38.26+ …. Wait a second this seems to the same numbers …. Lets see if the weight makes a difference…. 12.69*100=1269pounds is greater than 1000 pounds of force necessary to extend one lever… 25.38/20=1269/1000 if weight and lever distance are all equal changes in force on the wheel. Cross multiply and 25380=25380! Changing the lever length and weight changes nothing.

[greendoor]

A stork's bill is just a compound lever. A single lever trades force for distance. Multiple levers just perform the same multiplication - but always trading force for distance.

Work is defined as Force applied over Distance. Trading one for the other simply means that whatever Work goes in equals the Work that comes out. Energy is defined as the capacity to perform Work, so there is no Energy increase in a lever, or in a compound lever.

The problem with a stork's bill is massively increased friction. If physical size is not the problem it would seem that a simple lever can do the same function as a compound lever, but with less friction loss.

Maybe the advantage to Bessler was something else. Perhaps it allows the function to be performed with a lower mass ..? I'm not sure about this - but I see commercial lift trucks using compound levers instead of cranes, and I presume the advantage is a smaller physical size - no need for balancing weights etc. Reducing the physical mass of a lever while retaining the necessary strength might be the advantage? Needing to accelerating mass that isn't part of the main energy-producing mechanism seems counter-productive ...

Or maybe the advantage is a Time advantage? A long lever takes Time to travel from A to B. Perhaps a compound lever can travel the same distance faster?

Who knows ... if Bessler used one I suspect it was just a convenient way to perform a mechanical function, but not the secret of the prime mover energy creation.

[Tarsier79]

Gday Preoccupied:

The way you lay out your maths is confusing. I haven't spent the time trying to decode it, but by your conclusion, I suspect what you have done is correct... Extending the levers gives no more or less advantage? Where have I heard that before?

The position of the weights does show an overbalance, but to lift them takes "X" work, which just happens to be the same theoretical amount of work the device can perform through rotation...So, the path of the weights is irrelevant. I applaud you coming to this basic conclusion without any help. Two times you have mathematically proven the conservation of gravity in your proposed mechanisms. Realising this lesson is a big step forward.

Cheers

[preoccupied]

7.07+7.07+10+3.82+3.82+9.24+9.24+9.8+9.8+8.31+8.31+5.55+5.55+1.95+1.95+.95+9.95+.98+.98+9.57+9.57+2.9+2.9+8.82+8.82+4.71+4.71+7.73+7.73+6.34+6.34+9.98+9.98+.49+.49+9.89+9.89+1.47+1.47+9.7+9.7+2.43+2.43+9.42+9.42+3.37+3.37+9.03+9.03+4.28+4.28+8.57+8.57+5.14+5.14+8.03+8.03+5.96+5.96+7.4+7.4+6.72+6.72+9.99+9.99+.24+.24+9.97+9.97+.74+.74+9.92+9.92+1.23+1.23+9.85+9.85+1.71+1.71+9.76+9.76+2.2+2.2+9.64+9.64+2.67+2.67+9.49+9.49+3.14+3.14+9.32+9.32+3.6+3.6+9.13+9.13+4.06+4.06+8.92+8.92+4.51+4.51+8.69+8.69+4.94+4.94+8.44+8.44+5.36+5.36+8.17+8.17+5.77+5.77+7.87+7.87+6.16+6.16+7.56+7.56+6.55+6.55+6.91+6.91+7.23+7.23=818.78 … ratio is 1.40625/90=.015625 … .015625*818.78=12.79 with 137 levers on one side … .703125 +9.99+9.99+.12+.12+9.99+9.99+.36+.36+9.98+9.98+.61+.61+9.96+9.96+.82+.85+9.93+9.93+1.1+1.1+9.91+9.91+1.34+1.34+9.87+9.87+1.58+1.58+1.8+1.8+9.83+9.83+9.79+9.79+2.06+2.06+9.73+9.73+2.3+2.3+2.54+2.54+9.67+9.67+9.61+9.61+2.77+2.77+9.54+9.54+3.01+3.01+9.46+9.46+3.24+3.24+9.38+9.38+3.47+3.47+9.29+9.29+3.7+3.7+9.2+9.2+3.92+3.92+9.1+9.1+4.15+4.15+8.99+8.99+4.37+4.37+4.59+4.59+8.89+8.89+8.77+8.77+4.8+4.8+8.65+8.65+5.02+5.02+5.22+5.22+8.53+8.53+8.4+8.4+5.43+5.43+8.26+8.26+5.64+5.64+8.12+8.12+5.84.+5.84+7.97+7.97+6.03+6.03+7.82+7.82+6.23+6.23+7.67+7.67+6.41+6.41+7.51+7.51+6.6+6.6+6.78+6.78+7.35+7.35+7.18+7.18+6.96+6.96=830.14+818.78=1648.92 … ratio is .703125/90=.0078125.… .0078125*1648.92=12.882 The amount of increases gradually increases. But this will take an enormous amount of levers to reach over unity according to the math. I hypothesize that the amount of levers necessary will be under 10,000.


I notice something about a circle too. Might it be able to over balance? See the picture.

[preoccupied]

I want to apologize. My math is very bad. I'm guessing at what to do. I know I'm wrong and I regret posting what I have posted so far.

[Tarsier79]

Dont regret posting anything.

What you noticed about a 45 degree line through a circle...I vaguely remember using this in perspective drawing, but I can't remember exactly how.

With a system that constantly changes through rotation, like the one you have shown, it is difficult to calculate all the forces involved. If you do all the math correctly, I guarantee, you will end up with 0, plus rounding errors. Perhaps the best way to move forward with this is to simplify and build. Two opposite levers will be enough to show you the counter-torque.

Cheers

[erick]

A stork's bill is just a compound lever. A single lever trades force for distance. Multiple levers just perform the same multiplication - but always trading force for distance.

Work is defined as Force applied over Distance. Trading one for the other simply means that whatever Work goes in equals the Work that comes out. Energy is defined as the capacity to perform Work, so there is no Energy increase in a lever, or in a compound lever.

The problem with a stork's bill is massively increased friction. If physical size is not the problem it would seem that a simple lever can do the same function as a compound lever, but with less friction loss.

Maybe the advantage to Bessler was something else. Perhaps it allows the function to be performed with a lower mass ..? I'm not sure about this - but I see commercial lift trucks using compound levers instead of cranes, and I presume the advantage is a smaller physical size - no need for balancing weights etc. Reducing the physical mass of a lever while retaining the necessary strength might be the advantage? Needing to accelerating mass that isn't part of the main energy-producing mechanism seems counter-productive ...

Or maybe the advantage is a Time advantage? A long lever takes Time to travel from A to B. Perhaps a compound lever can travel the same distance faster?

Who knows ... if Bessler used one I suspect it was just a convenient way to perform a mechanical function, but not the secret of the prime mover energy creation.

Hi Greendoor,

Your points are very valid which is why it's curious that Bessler goes out of his way to say (paraphrasing) "I assure you there is something special about the storks bills". This seems strange given your points on friction and the zero sum game of compound levers. But he mentions it anyway...

But what to make of it?

E

[preoccupied]

In the picture and animation the weight is farther away from the axle when it is moving along the circle’s edge and closer to the axle when moving along the straight edge. I think this could be Bessler’s clue “weights apply force at right angles from the axle�, “machine is set in motion by weights“, “weights acted in pairs“, . When the weights are at the beginning of the swing they are deadlocked but after they swing it looks like force is added until they go back into start position on opposite side. To break the deadlock a pendulum catches both side of the wheels as a ratchet so the longer direction receives the boost of force to break the deadlock when the pendulum falls. A wheel could be attached to the weight and roll along the edges when the weight is lifted up the straight edge for minimal resistance. Scratching sounds and falling weights being heard could be because Bessler didn’t use wheels on the weights to minimize resistance if this design works.

[jim_mich]

???