Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[daxwc]

Triplock:

Finally, when I said Fletcher was right, but for the wrong reasons, this was said because we are a) all entitled to an opinion and view point and b) experimentation and peer review has shown an alternate approach.

Nobody has even put one nail in the coffin yet.



Triplock:

Also, why the parasite comment ? Have I not been polite and communicative in this post when looking at your concept ? Does ego not allow you to consider for one moment that someone else can come up with their own ideas quite distinct and separate to anything that has gone before it ? TBH, you haven't even scratched the surface of PE neutral structures.

Feeling guilty about something Triplock? I suggest you go back and re-read Fletcher’s comments in a different context by taking yourself out of the equation. I know the whole world feels like it is about you, but to others it isn't always the case.

[triplock]

Daxwc
You need to re-sole your right shoe to stop you walking in circles.

Fletcher

. Your RB / sliding mass and flail translation won't work in a million years. You can analyze the numbers all you want, the whole thing will wind down very quickly indeed. So before Daxwc dresses you in your tux to accept the Nobel Prize for Greatness, look again at what you propose.

There is nothing within your system that will replenish the energy tank. Nothing. Build it and find out.

Finally, do not take it out on me if your long held concept, that you had rattling in your head for years, did not receive the World Wide acclaim you felt it deserved.

That misplaced 'this is my legacy' mentality is not my fault or problem.


Chris

[ovyyus]

I know the whole world feels like it is about you, but to others it isn't always the case.

Every monkey thinks it's special :P

I have started the process of easing out of this Bessler mystery & discussion board & letting it go .. this thread is a little legacy.

Happy easing out Fletcher, it's been a blast over the last 10+ years. Good luck mate.

[daxwc]

Triplock:

Your RB / sliding mass and flail translation won't work in a million years. You can analyze the numbers all you want, the whole thing will wind down very quickly indeed. So before Daxwc dresses you in your tux to accept the Nobel Prize for Greatness, look again at what you propose.

Triplock have you physically tested the wheel and the principle proposed? No… then shut your pie hole; scientific method my ass. Go wait at the finish line like a good dog, hopefully you picked the right finish line to wait at.

http://www.ehow.com/info_8502951_sixste ... -kids.html

[FunWithGravity2]

Fletcher,

Thank you,i will openly show everything i discover when i have a chance to actually get to the building of the rbgs. I have come to a full understanding of the way that you envision your wheel working and am excited to find out how the forces act on the RBGS. If the mechanism creates the force to activate the flail arm then i want to know how all those forces also reconcile themselves with the RBGS. I know how gravity acts on the RB when stationary with out CF/CP and it would seem logical to assume that would be the same in a rotating system but my curiosity is whether the pivots within the RBGS share the same properties once in motion. If we are using the RB to extend forces then we have to study the force properties of the RBGS and ignore the traditional "balanced weight" line of reasoning.

I am crazy Dave



Chris, NOONE has ever asked about your patents, and NOONE needs you to tell anyone else we are wasting our time. If you believe you have discovered a new stick and pivot and you can sit back and collect money of IP if anyone uses a stick than please do so. Admitting that your a tick does not make us have to like ticks. Injecting taunts into posts regarding your "percieved" superior knowledge is childish and very unproffesional to say the very least. It does not make a damn bit of deal that you try to justify these with silly comments the "im really patenting" as said noone cares.

NOONE is jealous.
NOONE is bothered
NOONE wants to see your patent

Your are here on a daily basis taunting and teasing that you have something but then say you dont care what others here think, saddly anyone with Psych 101 in college can see through your pathetic need for attention. if you were even a succesfull person in daily life never mind a genius inventor you would not feel the need to act in the manner you are.

But please continue, im sure you did not understand any of that and feel persecuted and singled out for being a sucess. LMAO



Crazy Dave

[daxwc]

FWG:

If the mechanism creates the force to activate the flail arm then i want to know how all those forces also reconcile themselves with the RBGS. I know how gravity acts on the RB when stationary with out CF/CP and it would seem logical to assume that would be the same in a rotating system but my curiosity is whether the pivots within the RBGS share the same properties once in motion. If we are using the RB to extend forces then we have to study the force properties of the RBGS and ignore the traditional "balanced weight" line of reasoning.

Exactly where I am at Crazy Dave.

One thing we haven’t talked about Fletcher (but maybe you already addressed) is CF is going to pull the left side slider out first. This is due to the resistance on the right hand slider having to push the wheel, which in turn will cause counter torque.

[triplock]

For fear of repeating myself, for the purposes of evaluation, the RBGS can be ignored as it is a neutral PE system.

All that needs to be considered is the forces acting on the sliding masses. At mid point of travel, the two opposing masses influence will be equal and opposite ( both in terms of radial length and centripetal force acting on them ). At this point the RB will keel through this external influence.

It's all very straight forward .

Chris

[triplock]

FWG2,

I'm happy to report that I was able to read and fully understand your post because a) the structure and content was quite grammatically simple and b) it's written in a language that you inherited from us Brits.

Anyway that rather amusing banter to one side, I will leave you gentleman to all your wonderful , wonderful designs .

For now, Thanks for the belly laughs you bitter bunch of half wits :-D ( you know who your are !)

Chris

[FunWithGravity2]

FWG:

If the mechanism creates the force to activate the flail arm then i want to know how all those forces also reconcile themselves with the RBGS. I know how gravity acts on the RB when stationary with out CF/CP and it would seem logical to assume that would be the same in a rotating system but my curiosity is whether the pivots within the RBGS share the same properties once in motion. If we are using the RB to extend forces then we have to study the force properties of the RBGS and ignore the traditional "balanced weight" line of reasoning.

Exactly where I am at Crazy Dave.

One thing we haven’t talked about Fletcher (but maybe you already addressed) is CF is going to pull the left side slider out first. This is due to the resistance on the right hand slider having to push the wheel, which in turn will cause counter torque.

I am happy with the RBGS as a means of providing a balanced system and have no issue with any of the thought process with that, the artificial horizon or any of the connection currently theoretical between the inner and outer wheels.

I am finally happy with the fact that the the flail is a balance mass that only rotates because of the rack gear allows the mass to seek a larger radius and that force is translated through the flail to the out wheel. For a while i could not get around my thoughts that flail was supposed to move freely and now( i think) i get the idea there.


My only thoughts are as stated from my simple mind and possible misunderstanding.

The RB allows ballanced weight on the outer pivot point regardless of the lever length and placement of that lever attached to that pivot so long as both are equal mass from side to side. But what we are talking about there is newtonian weight in a non accelerated refereance frame. Int he accelerated fram we are harnessing a "force" to be transmitted to the outer wheel through the flail. This force comes from the fact that the flail mech is having its mass accelerated out radialy. I am notconcerned with the force the mech puts on the RBGS by pulling its pivot out so much as the "effective" weight of the mass of the mech that is now in an accelerated reference frame.

I knwo that we can have two mechs and that its balanced at rest no matter the orientation of the mech on the rack in regards to distance. But the "force" that is being created has to come from the mass being activated and i think that during this activation the translation of force into RKE to push the outer wheel reults in a reduced newtonian concept of weight on the RBGS and counter torque comes from the opposite mech.

The RBGS is a wonderful idea to keep orientation and balance within a design, im not sure as a way of also transmitting force through displacement of a mech attached that is stays balanced.


Crazy Dave

[daxwc]

Good point FWG, it isn’t going to matter if the RBGS stays balanced about the slider weight. But the counter torque from the flail leverage isn’t being driven straight back and square onto the RBGS structure. I just don’t know myself if the RBGS always stays balanced even when strained or it does become unbalanced. My thinking it has to become unbalanced to sense the MOI change if that is really happening… so slider time might be crucial on the other side also.

[Fletcher]

FWG:

If the mechanism creates the force to activate the flail arm then i want to know how all those forces also reconcile themselves with the RBGS. I know how gravity acts on the RB when stationary with out CF/CP and it would seem logical to assume that would be the same in a rotating system but my curiosity is whether the pivots within the RBGS share the same properties once in motion. If we are using the RB to extend forces then we have to study the force properties of the RBGS and ignore the traditional "balanced weight" line of reasoning.

Exactly where I am at Crazy Dave.

One thing we haven’t talked about Fletcher (but maybe you already addressed) is CF is going to pull the left side slider out first. This is due to the resistance on the right hand slider having to push the wheel, which in turn will cause counter torque.

Actually, there is no left hand slider (rack) - I just drew the most simple system I could think off - half a RBGS where one side has the moving bits, & the other has a counterweight - what you see in the pics is different positions of the same mech rotated CW.

Never-the-less, there could be the other half rather than the counterweight - that would be the next logical step before adding multiple mechs, if the principle proves good.

In that case you are right dax, & the reset after 6 o'cl would happen earlier than the drive phase at about 1.0 o'cl - & yes, because of the lag & because it does not have so much freedom i.e. the rack can only move out as fast as the wheel can be accelerated because the gap between rim stop & flail has to increase for the flail to rotate some more etc i.e. it is ratio controlled relationship.

Initially I was looking at using a double ended mech & finding a way to use the reset productively as well - I let it go for now just to concentrate on the main idea - the thing to remember is that if this long distance, long period of push does give a superior advanatge to the standard weight lifting RBGS then what happens on the lhs or reset side will be insignificant overall I think.

The advantage will be in the long push stroke - of course you could have multiple mechs where one is always pushing so it would be always under acceleration (can't find equilibrium), providing the principle is sound.

[Fletcher]

Good point FWG, it isn’t going to matter if the RBGS stays balanced about the slider weight. But the counter torque from the flail leverage isn’t being driven straight back and square onto the RBGS structure. I just don’t know myself if the RBGS always stays balanced even when strained or it does become unbalanced. My thinking it has to become unbalanced to sense the MOI change if that is really happening… so slider time might be crucial on the other side also.

Nice to see you guys working it over together - it's a doozy all right - aint it grand to have something that leaves you questioning things you think you know or can predict reasonably well ?

The question is, when Triplock's BS hype cools, is it motivating enough to actually try some build of some sort to find some answers ?

I always liked RB's - studied them many times over 10 years or so - built hundreds of sims quickly zeroing in on the RBGS rather than the pantograph configuration - attempting to swing, lift, hit a flail & a flail hit a rim stop etc - anything I could think of.

It took me much longer to remember the Work Energy Equivalence Theorem & that force x distance equals energy therefore force is a component of energy also, in the RBGS context - then I began to look at force transference techniques & found the flail contact time was potentially far greater etc, than weight transfer methods.

Of course, the first fascination with RB's was that the CoM & GG were not co-located - you could create a virtual CG to create imbalance - no other mechanism came close to being half as interesting after that.

[Fletcher]

Happy easing out Fletcher, it's been a blast over the last 10+ years. Good luck mate.

It has been a blast Bill, mostly - not out the esacpe hatch just yet, but down to once a day - my doctor says if you want to starve an addiction you have to stop eating empty calories & only consume the nutiritionally good stuff - that's my new philosophy.

I'm gonna open my mouth & just wait for a roast duck to fly into it ;7)

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

P.S. can someone, preferably not banned from the thread, head over to pequiade's thread & discuss with him the difference between balance, torque, & inertia in the example he gives ?

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

Is it motivating enough to actually try some build of some sort to find some answers ?

Yes, my itinerary got changed again, just don’t know when I will get the time, but I will say it is the most promising thing I have seen in years. I will get it built just it will be on my time, which likely will turn into months; I slow roast my ducks. So on to the next step in the scientific method, that being the experiments; it is the only thing that will bring closure and onto variations.


I have no idea where to get a small rack and pinion parts. The only place I have a suitable one is on the pedestal of my table drill and the gear probably needs to bigger.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

Never-the-less, there could be the other half rather than the counterweight - that would be the next logical step before adding multiple mechs, if the principle proves good.

In that case you are right dax, & the reset after 6 o'cl would happen earlier than the drive phase at about 1.0 o'cl - & yes, because of the lag & because it does not have so much freedom i.e. the rack can only move out as fast as the wheel can be accelerated because the gap between rim stop & flail has to increase for the flail to rotate some more etc i.e. it is ratio controlled relationship.

Initially I was looking at using a double ended mech & finding a way to use the reset productively as well - I let it go for now just to concentrate on the main idea - the thing to remember is that if this long distance, long period of push does give a superior advanatge to the standard weight lifting RBGS then what happens on the lhs or reset side will be insignificant overall I think.

Yes that is what I was getting at a 180 degree mechanism. My motivation for going here was to present the idea of delaying the left hand slider so when real MOI is realised it helps lever the right hand side down. Some thing like a pop-up pinball spring that has a little more resistance one way than the other direction. The problem is though the wheel is slowing down with the MOI change... I still think you should change that. Putting the slider weights on the inside of the RBGS as you can still have the weights offset in time and lever it down while trying to speed the wheel up.