Posted by Steve (161.114.1.184) on November 07, 2002 at 19:18:08:
In Reply to: Re: Gill Simo's Ideas posted by Vector Viper on November 06, 2002 at 00:43:20:
Thanks for getting those up. Great reading, good Ideas. I think we need to work in every direction conceivable, and some that are not. I've been taking some of the translations given a few posts back and trying to read them as literaly as possible, as Gill suggests. Not to be a spoil sport or anything, I just thought I would bring up some quotes and points of things that I have been thinking on.
quotes from translations in earlier posts:
1: 'around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (or lower cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine.' Obviously for the kinetic energy provided from the mass of the flywheel, which can be added to any wheel. 2: Accounts say that the wheel was always off balance or heavy on one side for the single directional wheel. Now this is hard to explain, so I'll try my best ;) Do they mean off balance when the wheel is tipped over like a dinner plate, suggessting that the weights in the wheel are farther to the rim on a side, or do they mean if it were standing on edge, like a coin, it would always tip to the left 3: {the axle pins}'provide the rotational motion of the whole vertically suspended wheel through application of pendula' I read: {the axle} provides rotational motion of the vertical wheel via pendulums. About the same, but less trash to confuse. 4: If the above were true, and the dual directional wheels had 2 cages, one on either side, then they would not be out of balance as such. The hard part is telling when Bessler is talking about which wheel. I think alot of people loose site of the fact he had wheels that went either direction, I think it was based off of the same design. And the single directional always tried to move on it's own, thus I've learned anything you have to push or ' start ' I tend to give less thought; Unless it can be modified to always have an over balance in one direction, and can be modified back to need a push in either direction.. sound familiar? Currently I'm just trying to focus on the single directional. Why try to design the body of a car when all you really want is the engine. 5: 'coordinated with one another so that they not only never again reach an equilibrium.' Several places in Gill's design will definitly reach an equilibrium. 6: {'essential constituent parts'of the wheel have an}'admirably fast swing to move and drive on the axis of their vortices loads that are vertically applied from the outside' I looked up 'vortice' since I was unsure of what he meant. It's just the force of motion pushing mass to the outside, like a whirlpool. All I'll say is: think of the little bent arms that he shows in his pictures attatched to the pendulums, then spin it; what's it look like.. A vortice or whirlpool. The 'vertically applied from the outside' is just a refrence to Gravity IMHO. What I get from all this Sorry for the rant, I kinda got going. I love reading all of these great Ideas, I've always thought that there was more than one way to do this. 'one of the best known implements for mechanical power, namely, a true circular wheel which rotates about its central axis.'
I'll leave off with one of my favorite parts of the translations:
: : Hey I wanted to let everyone know that I just posted a bunch of new material from Gill Simo, including a p