Part Three is the Charm

[JUBAT]

.
.
If James-Alan can teach one of his stupid ignorant wheels how to do his math, it's a runner!

Then his wheel can teach your wheel how to do the proper math, & your wheel will work!

It's gonna be a beautiful thing.

I like this! I think I'll take the math to court! The math should rotate and it doesnt. Stupid wheel...who built you?

[mryy]

I am throwing this out here. A couple nights ago I awakened early to a semi-conscious state and MT36 and the hammermen of the Toys Page came to mind. No, I neither cried myself to sleep nor experienced a divine dream. I'm not weak. Johnny Bessler, I hope you're reading this ...

After some free-running thoughts I came up with another possible concept for the Prime Mover housed inside the grindstone. For this concept I will use 8 evenly spaced weight-levers and 8 blade springs. Within the grindstone 8 *parallel* parallelogram units span edge to edge across the grindstone; they are of different lengths to conform to the grindstone shape. I shall call them "crossbars". See upload. There is no axle passing internally through the wheel so as not to obstruct the crossbars. A pair of axles will secure to both sides of the center of the wheel from the outside.

To each end of the crossbar is attached a weight-lever and a blade spring. The attachment configuration is reversed for the next adjacent crossbar and so forth. The lever swings freely at the point of suspension but the flexible spring has limited mobility at the attachment point. Like the hammermen these crossbars swivel left and right.

The theory is that when the crossbars swivel to the right the system COM (center of mass) shifts a little in that direction and vice versa. It's an offsetting effect (from the wheel center). A small torque may be generated during the movement via the short end links of the crossbars. If the theory is true can the effect(s) of the crossbars be exploited during each rotation to achieve PM?

[mryy]

In this version of the (prime mover) parallelogram crossbar handles, four of the crossbars are perpendicular to the other four. This means that for each revolution of a wheel the shift or offset of the system from axle center occurs 4 times. A shift happens once parallel crossbars are on a downslope orientation (from northwest to southeast). Gravity (and the yellow lever weights rolling out to the rim in their compartments on the descending side) induce these crossbars to swivel to the right side of a CW turning wheel. The shift helps keep the system COM (center of mass) on the descending side, in theory that is. Upload illustrations not drawn to accuracy.


Select Quote:
Machine made scratching noises, as if parts or poles moved over one another.
- eyewitness accounts

[mryy]

A new design featuring 8 levers, 8 blade springs, and 8 double-mount pantograph/parallelogam crossbar handles located inside the grindstone.

Really hope you love. I really do ...

[Tarsier79]

Wouldn't your levers act more like this?

Also, why do you keep adding components to your design? Either each component adds value, or it doesn't. any component not adding value causes extra friction and back torque.

[mryy]

Wouldn't your levers act more like this?

Correct. I did say it wasn't drawn to accuracy. I wanted to show the action taking place when the crossbars are inclined from NW to SW. My last post shows their proper positions inside the grindstone (the black bars), although it might not be obvious.

Also, why do you keep adding components to your design? Either each component adds value, or it doesn't. any component not adding value causes extra friction and back torque.

Hmm. This concept based on system offset theory is no more complex than the other one using nested parallelograms (pantographs). I think you were thrown off by the sight of the intersecting bars? In fact it uses fewer components and is simpler to implement. I am merely swapping out the nested parallelograms for the crossbars. The rest of wheel is the same. The crossbar setup is about as simple and effective as I can imagine so far. Perhaps you have other suggestions?

[Tarsier79]

Weren't you going to do some simple tests on some of the components of your design to see how they act?

[mryy]

Same last design with a few updated/corrected visuals.

[mryy]

This is a variation of the last design. Here the orientation of the pantograph crossbars is reversed. Their free corners, the ones not mounted to the grindstone, now face away from the axle. (Not drawn to accuracy especially the attachment of the levers to the crossbars or lack thereof.)

Do you believe in love? Do you?

[mryy]

Here is a more accurate representation of the previously uploaded design. The weight-levers are correctly drawn where they mount to the pantograph crossbars.

[mryy]

I feel the compartments holding the yellow weights were a bit long, so I shortened them. I also added another cross-rod to the stork's bill unit for greater stability (see left legend).

Do you know what real love is? Do you?

[mryy]

Same as before but now the spring swings earlier through the lever to its right toward the stork's bill (SB) unit. I feel the spring needs to set up sooner. As one can see the springs and levers are mounted on the grindstone/hub edge. My preliminary calculations reveal that in this 1:7 ratio design the centripetal/centrifugal acceleration at the hub edge is 8 times less than at the rim, irrespective of the wheel diameter and rpm. Of course increasing the wheel diameter and/or rpm increases the magnitude of the rim and hub forces but the proportional relationship is the same. What this means I think is that the spring and lever should experience much less centrifugal effect from 6:00 - 12:00 since they are suspended from the hub.

Furthermore this spring is pulled by the weight-levers on both sides of the wheel and could hold a good amount of elastic potential energy. Once converted to kinetic energy the spring force should be capable of the following in the wheel's upper left quadrant:

1. Strike and swing out the leading lever.
2. Propel the wheel as it presses against the SB.

My question is does or does not the spring take for itself some of the rotational energy from the descending side while it is being tensioned? If not a portion of its stored energy could possibly be in excess of the apparent system energy that is available.

P.S. Can anyone provide the German source of the following translation, even better the complete reply by Bessler. I'd like to run it through an online translator:

"Now look Wagner, you claim to have devised a Wheel which has a divided axle. You claim my wheel is the same. Ask any of those who have groped inside my Wheel and grasped its axle and you will be assured that my axle is not like that. Rather it has many compartments and is pierced all over with various holes." AP 326 Collins

[mryy]

"He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high, and if/when one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds up four quarters high. Who on this can speculate, will soon the motion perpetuate, Who however does not yet know this, all that hard work/industry is in vain." AP 291 Stewart translation

Here's another interpretation of this oft-quoted clue/riddle. In the upload see the red highlighted mechanism involving one crossbar and the attached (and opposite) lever and blade spring. All weights, blue and yellow, are of the same mass say 1 lb. As the wheel turns the blue weight of the spring falls naturally a quarter (shown by the green arrow) on the descending side. The yellow weights being on the opposite side of the connecting crossbar then automatically rise a quarter. No only do they rise they "shoot" up as the riddle states. How is that? In the 10:00-ish region the trailing spring that was under tension whips out and strikes the lever holding those weights. They appear to fly upward as the lever swings out.

Because each yellow weight moves a quarter and there are four of them, the summed weight (4 lb) moves four quarters. I can only guess that B. added the odd phrase "four quarters high" to hint at the optimum number of weights involved in this action, which is five in all including the blue weight. It is physically impossible for a weight to rise four quarters assuming a quarter represents a wheel quadrant. The most a weight can rise inside a wheel is two quarters from 6:00 to 12:00.

Do you believe in Logos? Do you?

[mryy]

Final design and available for testing. Same as before. Top upload is an uncluttered view without annotations/markups. Looking at the wheel its build is simple and the principle of PM is sensible ... well to me it is. The movements in which there are several can be somewhat intricate. Didn't B. say one of his wheels took tremendous calculations to get right? I mind-attacked the design from different angles and couldn't find any glaring flaws. It seems to conform to most if not all the documented clues. Feel free to share your thoughts if you think otherwise. So all in all for me the design as it stands is
$the☯ne¢


Let the Good Times roll:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3_ua2bdx4w

[agor95]

HI mryy

Well done for draughtsmanship. I have to leave it to others too clue validate.

Now it is time for component simulation with some kinetic modelling.
Or physical component builds.

All the Best