Stabhochsprung

[gravitationallychallenged]

I've been pondering the use of springs in relation to gravity and thought of this example of how kinetic energy is stored and released to raise a weight over an obstacle. Bessler said he could have uttered one word that would have betrayed the principal of his mechanism. I wonder if stabhochsprung could have been the word?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QB7JPnJOcUE[url]

[agor95]

Hello gravitationallychallenged

Good point there maybe other words, but that will do.

It did remind me of M. Turbine MK II

Not the best image but the rod end hits a ramp.
slow it's rotation and is pushed.

That puts it's centre of mass on the other side of the wheel. Then it recovers the rotation lost.

Originally inspired from the central toys on the toy page.

Regards

[Georg Künstler]

Hi gravitationallychallenged,

I had analysed that movement before.

Here we transform the horizontal speed, energy to energy in the form m*g*h

What is interresting is the impact of the stick when it is hitting the stick hole.

So we have a hard stop of the stick, but the mass, body of the of the athlete is moving on.

An impact with consequences. Here it is used in the sports.

Technically this situation is being blocked from engineers when the doors are locked in the car.

When you have an accident with your car and the doors are not locked, then the doors will open and do exactly the same, but dangerous movement.
Also the effect will take in a Tankwagen with a half filled tank..

[agor95]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xb0FU8rSisU

Just a little extra to think about.

Well it appears all to do with converting a straight line input momentum of your example into an input momentum we have in our rotating frame.

Then use that to gain height.

Food for thought

[gravitationallychallenged]

Bessler gave us the clue "an anvil receives many blows." This infers that at least one part of his mechanism came to an abrupt stop and made an impact.

"As long as the upper weight remains outside the centre of gravity, it exercises motion from which the essential parts of the machine receive push. These parts are enclosed in a case and are coordinated with on another, and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another so that they never reach an equilibrium which they unceasingly seek in their wondrous speedy flight, one must apply its weight vertically to the axis to drive loads on the axis. Once in rotation they gain force from their own fast swinging. The causative principle of the movement is its ponderous impetus. It runs according to preponderance and turns everything else along with it. On one side it is heavy and full; on the other side empty and light."

Since the weights gained force from their movement, they moved with great speed, which caused the wheel to accelerate until the rotation of the wheel caught up with the speed of the mechanisms. You notice that I underlined the words that indicated only one of the pair of weights applied its weight vertically to the axis (or axle of the wheel.) What was the other weight doing? It was retracted towards the axle and became gravity neutral because at that moment it became supported by the axle supports of the wheel. The retracted weight removed weight from the ascending side of the wheel while the descending weight allowed gravity to apply its force to the descending side of the wheel.

"The bolts which regulated the motion were screwed into and out of the axle by many people, for I allowed all my friends to operate it." "Ask any of those who have groped inside my Wheel and grasped its axle" - "Rather, it has many compartments, and is pierced all over with various holes." "If something went wrong with my machine, I'd mend it by poking around through a tiny hole, to prevent anyone from seeing inside."

Perhaps the AP wheel hints at the configuration of the mechanism Bessler used at the center axle area of his wheel to transfer energy. I believe the axle area contained heavy prime mover weights which were raised by the slave weight mechanisms. If he used a tiny hole to 'mend' his machine, it would only allow access to a small area within the wheel, the smallest area of the wheel is the axle area.

"A great craftsman is he who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make 4 pounds rise as 1 pound falls? One pound can cause the raising of more than one pound. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work is in vain."

If you take Bessler at his word, this is the most important principle he offers to the world. If you measure the pie shaped segments of the AP wheel you'll find that the width of the wide segments are 4 times the width of the narrow segments. This is a 4 to 1 ratio which uses in his analogy. It would also be the leverage ratio required for a 1lb weight to lift a 4lb weight if the mechanisms were engineered correctly. If the 1 lbs weight mechanisms are mounted on springs, they can be propelled by a 4lb falling weight with great speed. If the 4lb weights are hanging from springs, they can be lifted easier by the 1lb weights.

[ovyyus]

Bessler gave us the clue "an anvil receives many blows." This infers that at least one part of his mechanism came to an abrupt stop and made an impact.

IMO, Bessler is describing himself as an anvil receiving many blows from his enemies. It's a statement of resilience.

[gravitationallychallenged]

IMO, Bessler is describing himself as an anvil receiving many blows from his enemies. It's a statement of resilience.

That could very well be true, ovyyus. Most of the metaphors Bessler used in his writings are ambiguous. 'The meltability of a sphere' and 'material accident' are two examples that have always puzzled me.

[Fletcher]

", the motive force, the ability to move itself and drive other objects makes up the FORM of the device" - pg 221

"As an example of the ideas I am discussing, consider the case of two small metal spheres, one of iron and one of lead. For both of them, their FORM consists in their regular sphericity. But we find that placed in a furnace, one loses its shape quicker than the other. Therefore the greater or lesser "meltability" of such spheres is not the result of "sphericalness" - common to both - but of the physical characteristics of the two materials. And it is this "material accident" which is the FORMAL CAUSE of the difference." - pg 221

GC .. my extrapolation fwiw. I've bolded the capitalized words relating to "form" and underlined the words "physical characteristics".

To me he seems to be saying that outwardly things can have a similar form i.e. similar materials, look, appearance, etc, but his unique mechanical solution to PM, whilst made up of similar materials and appearance to other mousetraps, had different physical characteristics to the ordinary, or common i.e. leverage was different.

I'd suggest this FORM (physical characteristics) difference would relate to the MT comments highlighted below ..

MT41 .. "I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills." (an MT41 comment but not necessarily promoting MT41)

MT38 .. "There is more to this invention than there is to the previous one, but here is not the place to show the correct application of the stork's bills."

[gravitationallychallenged]

Thanks Fletcher,

MT41 .. "I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills." (an MT41 comment but not necessarily promoting MT41)

MT38 .. "There is more to this invention than there is to the previous one, but here is not the place to show the correct application of the stork's bills."

The eyewitness accounts of the scratching noises which sounded like wooden poles rubbing against each other coincides with the noises a stork's bills mechanism could have made. Perhaps Bessler replaced the stork's bills with the toy snake mechanism in his later wheels. The toy snake would have weighed less with less frictional losses since it's basically 1/2 of a stork's bills configuration. A toy snake would be quieter as the result of having no crossbars to rub against each other. A lighter mechanism would require less time and energy to move. A 'broken column' is also a more accurate description of the toy snake than the stork's bills. Both mechanisms convert a short distance of movement into a much longer distance of movement. The longer the movement, the more leverage or torque the slave weight would have to rotate the axle and to lift (re-set) the PM weights.

IMO the 'something' behind the stork's bills and the toy snake was a prime mover weight.

[Fletcher]

Mornin GC .. these things certainly keep our minds busy and turning over don't they ?!

ATEOTD it is a process of elimination I suppose. Trying to find something unique, or special, and then adapting it into a wheel environment to become a PM Principle. Conceive, build, test, discard, move on !

FWIW .. it may have been before your time, so I'll recap a little of my observations about SB's gained over the years dealing with them.

Background : I have done extensive studies of SB's during the years. Real ones, but the majority are sim experiments. From single segment SB's to multi-segmented SB's. Each time looking for that 'uniqueness (and specialness) factor' that might have been missed by science. No such luck I'm afraid.

Comment : But perhaps science hasn't recognised a potential, in a different mechanical context than the norm ?! It seems almost certain that this is the case imo. Ockhams Razor and all !

Opinions : Here is the perspective I gained. SB's are levers and exhibit leverage. If we have say a 4 segment SB we get a 1 : 4 reduction etc. This is just normal leverage that Archimedes would be proud of. This is covered off in the term and meaning of 'Law of Levers'.

Que . The question is .. IS there anything unique or special about SB's mechanics and ultimately leverage qualities ?

Ans . My answer to that is a resounding NO ! A lever is a lever. Levers comes in many various forms. Que. Stress Test : Can I swap out a SB lever arrangement for another type of lever setup with the same leverage factors ? Ans. Yes ! I can use pneumatics, or hydraulics, for example - Pascal's Law ! In fact some of the alternatives are superior in many ways to a 'clunky' and sometimes binding and problematic SB's.

Que . What about the leverage factors between different leverage systems ?

Ans . Well, you will have noted that a 4 : 1, or 1 : 4 multi-segmented SB for example always retains the same leverage ratio (Mechanical Advantage) thru its deployment. So does an equivalent hydraulic system etc etc. They are LINEAR and CONSTANT RATIO.

Que . So what is unique, or at least unusual, if not special behind and about a SB arrangement ?

Ans . It is the Acceleration Profile in different phases of being open or closed, IMO !

IOW's the leverage factor does not change (just like an alternative hydraulic system) but the Acceleration Profile does change while in motion/movement of being extended or retracted.

This IS unique to a SB (pantograph, scissor etc), IINM !

To be clear .. the leverage factor MA x SR is constant, but the Acceleration Profile varies depending on whether the SB is at open or closed status.

As an example, a closed SB would, let's say, be represented by a Bessler 'bent arm A'. Whichever pivot is moving or locked when almost closed the extending pivot is moving at a very slow rate i.e. slow acceleration.

Conversely, an fully open SB would, let's say, represented by an ordinary 'A' would have the one pivot stationary and the extending one moving at an exponential rate i.e. exponential acceleration.

In fact the two are diametrically opposed ! Just before fully open is exponential acceleration to infinity. Just before fully closed is inversely exponential deceleration until it stops completely.

They are inverse Acceleration pairs !


Can anyone name a leverage system that can show this same zero to infinity Acceleration Profile ? i.e. non-linear profile !

Perhaps raising weights 'in a flash and like lightening' can be a step closer to being understood - flash, lightening, approaching infinite ?

.................

Probably this discussion is more than you and I bargained for on a fine Spring Sunday morning ;7)

[thx4]

@Fletcher,

The question is .. IS there anything unique or special about SB's mechanics and ultimately leverage qualities ?

Ans . My answer to that is a resounding NO ! A lever is a lever

After experimenting with the MT13, where B suggests lifting as fast as lightning, I added an inertia disc, to speed up the movement. What is missing the most in all this is not much, but some calculations LOL...
In my example of the MT13 when the weight is lifted at noon it does not provide much energy, close to zero, less than necessary to lift it. In short, very easy to build, but terribly complicated to calculate. I made this model with an approximate approach, it is very insufficient.
I've redone at least six times the levers with weights by changing the lengths, angles, anti-return balance etc.
How I see the continuation, it is initially of the patience:), to remake the MT13 parts by parts.
Make a test bench of this weight without wheel, make a model simply effective, the energy necessary to the lifting must be lower than the energy restored by the imbalance. Study the wheel seriously at noon as in Apologia the wheel must be out of balance... Lifting as fast as lightning is not a problem, the problem is that once lifted what happens?

B tells us that the weights go by two, that's right, the 7 o'clock weight can partly help to lift the 12 o'clock weight, I made a video that demonstrates this, which I can't find, but it's confirmed.
Why MT13 ?, that's purely personal, instinctively it's the most logical of all the MTs for me. The design is basic.

One thing we don't talk much about is time, reducing the time between two actions.
Conjugating two MT13 is a way to reduce time and increase speed of execution.


A++

[eccentrically1]

Make a test bench of this weight without wheel, make a model simply effective, the energy necessary to the lifting must be lower than the energy restored by the imbalance.

The thermodynamic laws are more universal than N3, thx4 understands this.
Springs, stork bills,pulleys, weights etc. that Bessler mentions anywhere aren't the solution. We're not looking for some sort of workaround of one of the laws of motion or TD laws. We have to look for something else that only seems like it (i.e., Drebbel, Cox).

[Tarsier79]

Fletcher. I agree. I believe this is also the quality Bessler infers about MT24.

THX. The problem with 13 is not timing. It is that in a conservative gravity field weight must fall for energy to rotate the wheel. So little or no energy has to be expended in the lift. This is where a thermodynamic break would have to occur.
From wiki:

This invention would be very good for running if not so much friction were present or someone was available up by D to always lift up the weight with lightning speed.

[Fletcher]

@ thx4 .. thanks for your comments. Many of us also hold MT13 in high regard, of being of material interest to the final solution.

Oystein has previously shown that 13 is an important number in the Christian faith. And thru his work with researching German engraver and painter Albrecht Durer (before Bessler) and in particular Durer's 'magic squares' (a link to number swapping or exchange). Or in this case a 3 with a 'top hat shift' can be a 5 in the old fonts used on occasion and found in some number squares. This historical connection can bring MT15 into focus. And we already know that MT15 was important to B. because he makes a one-time mention of the absent Prime Mover, which he says can not be seen or deduced from the woodcut.

Nevertheless, we see that MT15 basics of operation belong in the MT9 family. B. says it shows the overbalance/superior weight. It is also shown CCW like MT13, making a further tenuous connection between the two. To flesh it out MT15 has only subtle differences from other MT9 family members. Cross-pull ropes and an impossible lifting of what appear to be weighted poles in grommets. However I suggest that B. distracts us; we assume these are weighted poles of some mass which requires lifting. I have also suggested in the past that they could be simple light-weight rollers ! And then they could be lifted with ease. So their purpose would not be for super-weight/imbalance, and something else entirely.

Back to MT13 .. I have experimented extensively with MT13 types. BTW I have enjoyed your threads on your attempts. Lovely to see the build precision and how thorough you are. Good work. No stone unturned !

I will attempt to join some dots that you may or may not have fully appreciated. MT12 is the first MT9 family member with a letter 'A'; and a lower external ramp to bring the lever-weights (lws) closer in to the axle i.e. lift them upwards. This of course does not work. MT13 also has a lifting ramp. However it is in the form of an upper sector ramp analogue. Lifting wheel 'B', which the lws must climb over thus gaining GPE. Many experiments (and many sims) later have shown me that MT13 is constrained to a binary action and reaction dance. IOW's, there is no surplus torque (asymmetric torque) in any direction to cause continuing acceleration and self-rotation.

So I was forced to ask myself what was therefore the importance of MT13 and what was it showing of note ?

And I was drawn to the artificial horizon (the axle hanging crescent weight with 'A' negatively detailed in the shaft) - with the upper ramp analogue ('B') !

Why ? Because a hanging artificial horizon arrangement with lifting wheel (or ramp) could be replaced with a fixed external ramp - IF - discretion or secrecy wasn't required (and much simpler) ! After-all MT12 does not disguise or hide its external ramp. But we do not expect it to work either.

So imo B. shows us with MT13 a way to hide internally a ramp, particularly an upper ramp, imo.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher. I agree. I believe this is also the quality Bessler infers about MT24.

Yes .. I think so also. The acceleration gradient between open and closed as it goes thru its closing and opening action.

Many of us are also drawn to MT's 24 and 25, being of the same type, altho 25 has lesser sectors. But particularly from the positive things B. says about them.

No. 24 (8 sectors) This invention ought not to be scorned. It consists of separate levers with weights. Between the weights are small iron poles with hinges. The poles fall inward when the levers close. There is something one must learn first before one can grasp and correctly understand the good quality of the invention.

No. 25 (4 sectors) This is the previous model except for some differences. It is sketched with longer poles. There is something misleading about the diagram, for the poles, when coming out, must not project so far out but must bend somewhat further inwardly. There is more to it than one supposes; one must study the diagram extensively.

On the face of it the cross-pull ropes are completely redundant i.e. not required. If the hinge and the iron-poles (folding rods) have little mass the bottom sector would close up without any cross-pull help. Yet, the cross-pull ropes are there, in full view, showing their action.

But what sets off my radar is the comments in MT25. The simpler version. There, B. specifically tells us that the poles (folding rods) must not be completely opened out to form a near to straight line _._ . He could have easily drawn the diagram correctly, but chose to show it the way it is presented, and then draw attention to it with the comments about how misleading it is. This is a deflection from something obviously important to deduce.

And as my numerous sim experiments have shown when two opposing mechs are linked by cross-pull ropes and pulleys they show the diametrically opposed acceleration gradients, one heading to zero, the other to infinity, at the hinge. As the angle between the poles in MT25 (and 24) top and bottom sectors show, imo.

As an aside, the Toy's Page has the two figures of the hammermen pantographs C & D at opposite leans, or opposite polarity you might say. This might overtly be suggestive of, an open and closed A and bent arm A respectively, found throughout MT. The 2-Z perhaps indicative of the cross-pull rope and pulleys pattern, as an idea. The main point being that the hammermen toys (pantographs/SB section) are in the center of the drawing. As most would know when making a composition the main focal point takes center stage.

For interests sake I include a pic I pulled from my album, first conceptualized in 2004 (the early days). It shows the A's or v^ (SB segment) in an open and closed arrangement, gravity force promoting movement. But without cross-pulls connection etc. It was my first attempt to use the acceleration gradient to infinity, to impart inertia to a wheel. In a topic called Inertial Impeller, before the thread petered out.

ETA : attempting to make some sense of the insensible.