Blood From Stone

[ovyyus]

John, while you were collecting facts, the post-truth world happened. I thought you knew? :P

[John Collins]

Of course, silly me! Short term memory loss....again.

JC

[Sam Peppiatt]

Silent,

I'm fairly certain that lazy tongs can't work. They are simply a stack of levers, as one lever won't do it, neither will a stack of them.

I'm sure it has to be a simple OOB wheel. But, raising the weights back up isn't so simple. I think Karl may have exaggerated slightly. Overon is right; there is some reticuarness to it.

Two of the more important clues are Wiki #2 & #3. Number three is just a variation of number two. I found out from S. that it refers to two things. I.E. as the lower weight gravitates to the center the upper one climbs up and out. I thing now it must be climbing up an inclined plain.

As for the great craftsman riddle: It's the ratios that are important and, I think Bessler is trying to explain a compound lever, which may be a part of the Mech. FWEIW Sam Peppiatt
PS I agree with you on one thing, how did he ever do it without modern ball bearings!

[silent]

.

[Fletcher]

The reason corrections are made isn't what you may think. It's not for example a put down or an ego thing. What happens in this environment is that we are all searching for that little clue or nuance that will break this mystery wide open, and finally have us on the right path, or the correct way of thinking about the problem.

We know B. said he "finally understood why all others had failed". We want to have the best chance at that same enlightenment. What could he have imagined, and then done, that was so different from the usual 'dime a dozen' OOB attempts that he had previously heavily invested in, that would cause him to suddenly realize why All Others Had Failed ? What perspective did he suddenly have that was sooo different from ALL his previous, and ours ? And what mechanics was so simple to within days achieve that newly minted 20/20vision he had ?

And so we members have to be careful to not pollute the 'fact well' with our own brand of optics dressed as facts. Because an eager audience can soon weave that into the fabric of the Bessler story and it is thereafter very hard to correct. The Frank Edwards story is a case in point. I for one feel a duty of care not to potentially derail someone who may have spent years of sincere effort trying to unravel Bessler. I wish Frank Edwards had taken more care and supplied his source coz it could have saved me years of time and a few brain cells.

FWIW multi-sectioned Storks Bills, or Scissors, or Pantographs, or Lazy Tongs are just levers IMO. They factor force and distance in a trade-off and comply with Archimedes Law of Levers. And Mechanical Advantage and Speed Ratio etc. What is sometimes not fully appreciated is that if you are exploring a multi-sectioned SB with a fulcrum point, then you don't need to produce endless sections after the fulcrum. When you do the math one large section (at the same angle) as the multi-sections does the same job. Unless space is a consideration. This is much easier to build in real world and in sim world in particular.

[ovyyus]

What happens in this environment is that we are all searching for that little clue or nuance that will break this mystery wide open, and finally have us on the right path, or the correct way of thinking about the problem.

The BW forum archive holds more than 15 years of discussion of ideas, beliefs, facts, conclusions, etc. I think the average value of discussion in the first year of the forum is at least equal to the average value this year. A newbie probably shouldn't underestimate the learning value of the forum archive - that little breakthrough clue for him might lay hidden in a 10 yo discussion.

[silent]

.

[cloud camper]

The idea of shifting weights from a Roberval to a seesaw has been tried and it doesn't work.

A Roberval doesn't work as is because there is no net gain or loss of total GPE. That is whatever the left side gains the right side loses so without any overall GPE loss nothing moves.

Ditto with a balanced seesaw.

A Roberval is just a fancy seesaw so no advantage in combining the two.

But all good learning tools!

You will find that many of the mechanisms you design will seem like they must work but in fact do not because of unwittingly including a Roberval into the design! DAMHIK!

[Fletcher]

Well said CC, tho most everyone needs to find this out for themselves ..

Howzabout we return this thread to Mr V ?

[Sam Peppiatt]

Silent, One thing is for sure; this forum is a big wast of time. Sam Peppiatt

[sleepy]

I'm gonna be the uncool kid here and stand up for this forum. I have learned many things from the vast pool of knowledge that exists in this forum.I do feel that many threads become a waste of time, but you are always free to skip those threads.I have learned from the occasional beat-down as well. But overall, I feel that this forum has increased my understanding of Bessler and his stuff, and seeing others struggle along with me has helped me keep going.

[silent]

.

[John Collins]

In my opinion, this forum is the best source of information and the best place for discussion about Bessler and his wheels.

Sure some people get irritated, or too excited about something or take offence at something some one said, or get misunderstood or misunderstand something they read - it’s a microcosm of the world we live in. I’ve done all those things I listed and in the grand scheme of things it’s nothing compared to what we hope to achieve.

I’m sorry if I came over too strong, it’s a widely recognised problem when there is no visible body language able to modify or ameliorate the written words, they themselves are the only means of assessing the intention of the writer.

JC

[silent]

.

[ovaron]

An oscillation between 2 or 3 balanced systems using resonance and the Golden Ratio are probably the trick.

That sounds complicated and not like "I don't understand why no one has come up with it yet," as Landgrave Karl said.