right angle to axis clue

[preoccupied]

Bessler said weights applied force at right angles to the axis. I think this is an important clue. It might represent a mechanism. I was doodling and drew something that closely matches the clues wording. Although I know it's an advantage, I really can't measure it because I don't know how to calculate it. I know that on one side the leverage is really weak because the right angle is pitted against perpendicular wall and on the other end the leverage will be really good throughout because it's pressing down on an inclining lever. The trade in distance seems to be pretty even, but the mechanism looks like it gives a lot of leverage just to the one action taken by the inclining lever end. I don't have a good drawing right now and I hope to learn more about it before I share the design.

[Fcdriver]

Yes this was his method of lifting the weights! Pushing against the axle at right angles, then dropping out by the rim! The weights were not attached to the wheel, but on levers inside a hollow wheel. They only touch the wheel on the down stoke. Then push against the axle on the up stroke

[preoccupied]

When I was doodling I was looking for alternatives to the gear tooth. In my MS painting the triangle rolls along using its green wheels on the purple ramp. The left wheel pushes on the right wheel using the triangle. The inclining lever that I was talking about is the vertical part of the triangle that is falling because it has a sharper angle and more leverage. I think the triangle will keep mechanical advantage for an equal amount of turn of the wheel and then be able to restart with a new triangle behind it. I show red brackets to show that I think that they can have equal turn on the wheel. I think there is mechanical advantage because the angle on the vertical part of the triangle will always be steeper than the lever pushing on the wheel at the other end of the right angle. The angles are pushing against the purple ramp. For two angles pushing against a ramp I'm not very familiar with but I think the lower tighter angle has advantage so the triangle has a mechanical advantage then through the whole turn. I'm not sure how to calculate it and if you didn't know I am just a drawer, I lack a lot of physics skill.

[ME]

For two angles pushing against a ramp I'm not very familiar with but I think the lower tighter angle has advantage so the triangle has a mechanical advantage then through the whole turn. I'm not sure how to calculate it

Most mathematical formulas are basically shortcuts.

Perhaps you can do it the hard way:
You say have a rough idea that one triangle could have an advantage over another (an idea you could test)

Now take a lot of rotated situations: start with 2 opposites then 4 (90 degrees apart), 8 (half of that), 16 (yet a half), 32 (etc)

For each situation assign a 4 when you think it has an advantage or a 0 when it has no advantage; use 2 when you don't know.
When you sum the assigned numbers for the situations on the left side of the wheel and sum the assigned numbers for the situations on the right side you should see a significant difference. For let's say 16 situations the side needing the most advantage should sum up to (let's say) 24 till 32 and the least advantaged side should sum up to (let's say) a maximum of 8.

This way you can put a rough estimated qualitative number on your design.
The possible pitfall: overestimating the advantage and underestimating(or forget) the disadvantages.

You can do the same for torque...
Calculate the sum of x-positions (relative to the axis) of all the weights (for a single mechanism)
Now rotate (as before) the mechanism in 16 parts of a rotation (more is better), and take that sum for each situation.
(4 drawings each advanced 22.5 degrees on grid-paper with a compass, each containing 4 mechanisms)

Now take the sum of all those 16 situations.
When a weight does not move that sum will be 0, when it is winner the sum will point towards the descending side. But most of the time it points towards the ascending side.

As shown somewhere in my topic about raising weights, I can calculate an estimate for that sum.
If a weight can deviate length L from its connection point then the maximum sum-'x' for n=16 situations should be n*L/pi; for n=16, about Maximum(x) = 5*L
As it is most probable the drawings are done in 'your favor', I would suggest you should be skeptical when that X is lower than 0.5

I guess this kind of physics should be do-able...

[preoccupied]

No ME. I don't like what you said.

This is just a basic Physics problem. I know I don't have any physics skill right now but I get it basically. The ramp is only a flat line. If the force pushing down on the flat line was 90 degrees it would have zero torque. So angles approaching 90 degrees would have zero torque and angles more flat would have more leverage. It would be like "sin" something in an equation, I just don't know. In my drawing the triangle always has less degrees than the lifted side which is why I think it will have mechanical advantage. I mean this is something I could just punch into a calculator if I was told the equation for it. What you are doing ME is inappropriate.

[ME]

Why was that inappropriate?

Testing new ideas is never as easy as "punching something into a calculator", you'd only check existing ideas.
You'll have to invent or construct the formula's yourself which is appropriate for your situation.
as said: Most mathematical formulas in physics are shortcuts; like integrals: the sum of many.

While I don't know what you know or don't -and I responded on the thing you said you didn't- , this all was not to offend you; My apologies if I unknowingly have.

So angles approaching 90 degrees would have zero torque and angles more flat would have more leverage. It would be like "sin" something in an equation, I just don't know

That would be Cos(angle)*m*g

[preoccupied]

When I was drawing I drew the circles and they looked like they had sharper angles than they actually did. To see the angles I have to actually draw a straight line instead of a circle. In order to have a good advantage with the circular ramp it has to be located lower and not as even to the second circle. In my MS painting "angle concept" I drew the green circle where I would originally have wanted to put the ramp because I thought it would be more even but actually it doesn't have as much leverage there. By moving the ramp further down I can do two things. I can increase the lever I'm pushing on on the second circle and give the ramp a sharper angle on the triangle, both of which add leverage to lifting the load on the second circle. I think that I will have difficulty finding an even arrangement so the difference in leverage would have to be counted to see if there is a gain. I mean I don't think that I will have a spin with the same distance exchanging on both circles.

[WaltzCee]

Bessler said weights applied force at right angles to the axis. I think this is an important clue.

ep. It is.

[Fcdriver]

Yes it is a very important clue, try a shell cam, 5 inch lift 100 long, connect the center of a A top on your axle,, ride the center of the A circular against the cam. Use the legs of the A as levers

[Oystein]

Bessler did not say that, but a translation of his writings said that.

The sentence said that the wheel will raise weights up, and to this side, where the weights are high up, in this direction, will the wheel also turn.

So, no, the quote as you wrote it, is not at all important, but simply wrong.

So nowhere did Bessler write that "Weights apply force at right angle to the axis, and in this direction the wheel will also turn." but it was just a modern English/American interpretation of an old German/Latin description. The description was adjusted to fit the modern interpretation of "Verticalis". Verticalis today means straight up/down. In 1717 it meant high up, or above our heads. Like stars.

Lastly, by nature all weights apply their force vertically (modern interpretation of the word), so (if so) there would be no need for Bessler to write specifically about that.

So the translator adjusted the result to fit his knowledge, and so do every human, especially the learned. We adjust fact to fit what we know. This knowledge comes with a "handicap", a hidden side. I think the ability to resist that temptation, is one of the factors that separate the potentially successful from the non successful.

[Fcdriver]

Pushing against the axle is Newtons 2nd law of motion, if you are not doing this, your wheel will not work!

[Fcdriver]

Force equals mass times acceleration! F=ma

[WaltzCee]

I think the ability to resist that temptation, is one of the factors that separate the potentially successful from the non successful.

That's a possible delineation.

However if you divide the 2 camps based on results there isn't a dimes difference.

[Oystein]

I think you are wrong. We know Bessler belonged to one of the camps. He did not believe in the traditional mathematical conclusion. So I guess he resisted to simply "inherit" and to draw the easy simple conclusion.

And I believe Finsrud also resisted drawing the simple conclusion from others work, again drawing their simple conclusions from other etc.

To be successful in "impossible science" you must question everything, challenge everything, but still be humble and not be too stubborn.

Reason: Something of the conventional consensus about the understanding of our universe is wrong or missing, but what is it? Where and why does Bessler and Finsrud etc. fit in?

[preoccupied]

I've drawn here what's supposed to be the left wheel pushing down on the ramp such that there would be a 2:1 distance difference turn of the two wheels. The triangle pushes on the right wheel but half the distance as the left wheel turns. This isn't the mechanical ratio, it's just how far the wheels turn because there is extra mechanical advantage because the mechanical advantage is in the ramps angle. So I take that little mechanical advantage that I should have with the ramps angle and I put it into another wheel doing the same thing which should add half the distance as the previous wheel did, and then I do it again and add half the distance as the previous wheel did. So I never get the complete 1:1 ratio but I approach it the more wheels that I add, and each wheel has that small amount of mechanical advantage. Would it approach a point where the leverage is over unity?