Kaine & Fletcher,
I agree that in your or my approach the physical properties must be proved. The point that I address is the difference in our research attributes,
I reiterate that my pursuit via hands on builds of what I believe may hold the solution is best adapted by throwing the math aside, and let it come after you have something derivative (unoriginal) to base your equations on.
You are quite right in stating that this does not require a consensus on the best way of approaching our common problem. It is best that we each take our separate paths in hopes of covering more unexplored avenues.
I too build as simply, cheaply, easily and quickly as possible. However I find that most of my or submitted designs require more than one mechanism to study/measure, one mechanism does not always provide the action-reaction required. "Any method you choose will give you its own set of issues to overcome."
Fetcher is correct in stating: "each of us follows intuition to a certain degree." It is well noted on this forum that I hate math. That is not to say that I have not been forced to learn and utilize it. I would not have gained the acknowledged right and be recognized as holding a civil Pe degree in mechanical, and structural engineering without it. I do not sign my name: "Ralph E. Lortie Pe" even though I have the privilege of doing so.
Bessler, to my knowledge did not speak or dwell on any mathematical reference regarding the fundamental basis of his operating machines. He followed intuition and that allegedly (by his words) gave to him from God. I rather doubt if this was a mathematically equation handed to him on a piece of paper.
Yes: I work on a gut feeling for a direction based on the sum of experience and empirical skills, And yes, I do take the time to do the math on a given design before proceeding to a build. But obviously the math is not approached until after I have a draft to base it on. Known mass and configurations of placement are defined before the simplest of math can be derived. If it shows positive then a build is in order with the added incentive the math provides.
Your corporal mechanism you speak of cannot be explained or discovered by known physics until you have the physical evidence to base it upon. You cannot change/fore-go the mindset of physics working with accepted known equations, those that uphold conservation of energy as we know it.
There are known assumptions that some of the laws of physics were written in such manner to agree with Newtons Principia,these assumptions weigh heavy in the laws regarding fluid dynamics and mechanics.
You have a gut feeling for a direction of inquiry based on the sum of all your experiences, as we do - your experiences Ralph are a mix of hands on practical exercises & also in part based on book learning, including math - for you, & us, they are inseparable though in different proportions no doubt.
To this, I cannot refute, I agree 100%. Our differing minds that should be collaborating these indifference's is what leads to productive advancement.
One side wishes to find the answer before build with no objectivity to prove their findings, while the opposition wishes to build first, proving the expressions of natures wheel works. Compliment not the practical exercises, but rather the reality of the findings. "Hopefully in doing so we find a tangible material of nature (corporeal) mechanism that
can not be easily explained by known physics & math."
In probability terms I'd say that a person skilled in only the practical could 100% conceivably find that mechanism, just from having an inquiring mind & a desire - the issue is enough time to complete the task.
You have it nailed down with the above! Yes time is always relevant, whether it be the mathematician with pencil and calculator or the 'hands on' trial and error builder who pays no heed to what math has to say. I place my bet on the latter!
Not unlike my present build. First I designed it, made note of all physical properties and then did the math. The math is explicit, allowing indexed positive an negative torque value readings for every 10.28 degrees of rotation. Friction versus inertia (motion) are addressed.
It is an OB gravity design, the COM point is maintained at a right angle well outside the axis. The math tells me that if not properly secured to a grounded foundation the machine will tip over due to the gradient (mass) differential between the descending and ascending halves.
I am confident that I have finally beat the "width for height" syndrome that many have admitted was their downfall.
The first physical build showed engineering shortcomings in the design regarding connectivity. Only a second build, now under construction will tell if this problem has been solved, not create more problems.
Ralph