Posted by gill simo (193.195.0.102) on March 11, 2003 at 10:33:33:
in the previous post i mentioned the situation whereby we had 2 bowls set on an axle, each with 3 balls in and suggested that you place a third set between them. i said that the 1st and 3rd set of balls could be arranged as 2 triangles the same way up or 2 inverted on each other.in fact they must be set inverted so that the middle set of balls can only mesh with the 1st or the 3rd set of balls.if 1 and 3 were the same then 2 would obviously mesh between both
whilst here let me go on some more.
imagine in the above situation whereby either 1 and 2 dont mesh or 2 and 3 dont mesh. now push the bowls closer together. something has to give way,either balls 2 expand outwards or balls one or balls 3
theres lots of options here but i must argue options around the answer which we seek. this device is overweighted and the weight cant escape, only tranfer itself from side to side, bowl to bowl.
how in truth these balls will move especially if as i suspect the bowls revolve in opposition i can only try to imagine.ive studied it long and hard and what i see is a double helix spiralling around in line with the axle whilst turning around that axle, a very pretty motion and if you can see my point youll see that it looks alike from the front or the side. finally, if as i suggested above you squeeze the bowls together thus expanding one or other set of balls then by how much are they expanded?
do some sums and youll see that its by 1.7 of the original diameter,so 1.7 in one bowl moving over to 1.7 in the other and no place to hide?????
best Gill Simo