| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rasselasss
Aficionado

Joined: 31 Jan 2012
Posts: 359
Total Words: 22,506
Location: northern ireland
Reputation: Acknowledged
|
|
 |
|
bluesgtr44
Devotee

Joined: 26 Feb 2005
Posts: 1941
Total Words: 239,528
Location: U.S.A.
Reputation: Highly regarded
|
|
 |
|
rasselasss
|
Posted: Sun Mar 25, 2012 12:21 pm Post subject: re: A Motion Machine |
|
|
Being of a stubborn nature (cantankerous old git)and being a novice at "gravity motion machines"i know i make the common errors even to the point of ridicule but i have to" see"an idea to its conclusion,and i learn along the way....I am familiar with the limitions and failings of springs and ratchets and truthfully knew the end game.........The two photos show the mech.turning at different stages,..i adjusted the weights on the lever arm of the ratchet to return to the ratchet centre on the "up"(sliding)and on the "down"motion(extending)...this achieved 2-3 turns of motion before stoppiing .....i then added a crude 2nd wheel with the same "swastika"spoke design as my wheel....timing it so to extend the turning moment...this gave 4-6 turns depending on position......The two lessons learned (1)...the flat preloaded spring would exhaust itself(as i knew)..(2)...The nature of a ratchet "eats energy"even with a "stop"fitted the delicate throw of the wheel being easily absorbed ...lift a bicycle rear wheel turn it it with the pedal crank,release ,and watch the pedal and crank rotate in the opposite direction......I now look at a "pendulum"solution and possibly the eccentric cam idea with and without a ratchet .....
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
58.49 KB |
| Viewed: |
77 Time(s) |

|
| Description: |
|
| Filesize: |
55.09 KB |
| Viewed: |
73 Time(s) |

|
|
|
 |
|
Unbalanced
Aficionado


Joined: 04 Dec 2008
Posts: 517
Total Words: 63,372
Location: Bend, OR
Reputation: Well respected
|
|
 |
|
murilo
Addict


Joined: 07 Nov 2003
Posts: 2305
Total Words: 155,153
Location: sp - brazil
Reputation: Appreciated
|
|
 |
|
Unbalanced

|
|
 |
|
rasselasss
|
|
 |
|
rasselasss
|
|
 |
|
rasselasss
|
|
 |
|
rasselasss
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:02 pm Post subject: re: A Motion Machine |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
rasselasss
|
|
 |
|
Unbalanced

|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:15 pm Post subject: re: A Motion Machine |
|
|
rasselasss writes:
| Quote: | | why do we presume that it was to do with overbalance |
There seems to be scant direct clues to lead us to the assumption that Bessler's wheel was moved by means of overbalance. The word preponderance in his (translated) quote, below, lends some credence to the belief that one side of the wheel held the greater amount of weight. As does the quote, "must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."
I believe the more important of his statements is that his weights could never find equilibrium. This is definitely essential.
| Quote: | | "it runs according to 'preponderance', and turns everything else along with it; as long as its materials shall endure, it will revolve of its own accord." - pg 363 |
| Quote: | | "anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the center and climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly." - pg 295 |
"gravitating to the center" leads many to believe these weights were gravitating from one side or the other thus hinting at overbalance. They could have been gravitating from the top or bottom of center.
| Quote: | | these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move." |
This and the fact that most of the MT drawings show OOB devises that don't work by themselves.
Last edited by Unbalanced on Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:54 pm; edited 3 times in total. (25 percent) |
|
 |
|
Unbalanced

|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:22 pm Post subject: re: A Motion Machine |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Fletcher
Addict


Joined: 05 Nov 2003
Posts: 3993
Total Words: 659,569
Location: fiji
Reputation: Highly regarded
|
Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2012 11:23 pm Post subject: re: A Motion Machine |
|
|
http://science.howstuffworks.com/lever-info.htm
| How Stuff Works wrote: |
How Levers Work
Some levers reduce the force needed to move weights. They do this by increasing the distance through which the force acts. For example, a 1-kilogram force acting through a distance of 3 meters can move a 3-kilogram weight 1 meter, if friction is ignored. Speed is lost in a lever of this kind. The weight moves only 1/3 as fast as the force arm.
In other levers speed is increased by applying the force through a shorter distance than the resistance is moved. This requires a proportional increase of force. When a bat is swung, for example, the end of the bat moves faster than the hands, but greater force is needed to swing the bat than is needed to move the hands alone.
The Law of Levers
Force (F) multiplied by the length of the force arm (Af) is equal to the resistance (R) multiplied by the length of the resistance arm (Ar). This can be stated as follows:
F X Af = R X Ar
This formula makes it possible to calculate how much force must be applied to a given lever to move a certain resistance. For example: What force must be applied to a 3-meter force arm to move a 3-kilogram weight on a 2-meter resistance arm?
Answer:
F X 3 = 3 X 2
3F = 6
F = 2
A force of 2 kilograms balances the 3-kilogram weight. To move the weight a force greater than 2 kilograms is required.
The formula can also be used to calculate the length of the force arm required to move a given resistance with a given amount of force. For example: How long must the force arm be if the force is 5 kilograms, the resistance is 15 kilograms, and the resistance arm is 2 meters long?
Answer:
5 X Af = 15 X ?
5Af = 30
Af = 6
A 6-meter force arm is needed to balance the resistance. To move the resistance with the same force requires a longer force arm. |
Levers are force multipliers - they are not energy multipliers - therefore the Conservation of Energy Law [CoE] applies in all mechanical cases of manipulation by lever alone in a gravity field.
In a wheel environment, say, Work Done in Joules of energy exactly equals Potential Energy gain of a vertically shifted mass.
IOW's F1 x D1 [joules] = f2 x d2 [joules] n.b. power is the rate of doing Work - just because a large force, short arm, can cause a mass to gain high velocity on a longer arm does not mean that there is an energy inequality.
The lever relationship is where force is inverse to fulcrum distance - because it is not a squared or inversely squared relationship, but an inverse relationship [to the power of 1], then there can be no energy gain by using mechanical levers alone, in a gravity field.
|
|
 |
|
Fletcher

|
|
 |
|
|