Sorry ron , i was trying to get a concensus of opinion....I want to find the answer through experiment not through argument

so built that gimble thingy

Sorry ron , i was trying to get a concensus of opinion....I want to find the answer through experiment not through argument

so built that gimble thingy

Hi Craigy,

can you please reduce the size of your pictures as it makes it difficult to read the posts with images of that size.

Thanks

Looks fine now

Thanks

Luc

gymbals are good.. It is possible to do either type of wobble quite easily with the gymbals. a left right wobble is easly done by locking one of the gymbal axis up..and a conical wobble by letting it free.. i think it best to discover by experimentation and not conjecture....

Hi Ron, snip

I have a question for you. Which of the two weights do you believe is the one Mr. Skinner refers to as falling?

Luc

Neither, lol
 "The “falling”, Skinner said, is more correctly a following of the weights to new centres of gravity."
Here is my take on this...


How it works
The small motor drives the top section, the top section is the engine that drives the lower section. The operating principle is therefore the same for both sections.
The input to the top section rod(s) is critical, in that this motion is carried down throughout the machine. In the '39 video we can see the motion is circular. Focus on the closest rod and you should be able to see the eccentric arm that drives it. It is visible shortly after the rod moves past 7:00 o'clock and is visible as the rod travels around behind the 12:00 o'clock position, then is hidden in the glare until covered by the rod itself until it re-emerges.
 If this is still to blurry to be convincing, change your focus to the left most rod. Let logic be the rule, if the motion on the first rod is linear then the motion is  from side to side as viewed from the camera position. If this were true then the motion of the left rod, being at 90 degrees to the first rod, said motion would be towards and away from the camera and be hidden by the steel corner post.
But this is not the case... the second rod is very visible as it shows first outside the corner post, then on the inside of the corner post. Logic dictates that if two rods at 90 degrees to each other exhibit the same motion then the only explanation is the both rods are travelling in a circular path.
The path of the top of the top section rod is circular. It passes through the gimbal where it is provided with a bearing for constraint and weight support before emerging at the level of the so called square plate. It is located in the square plate by the setscrew on the side of the plate. The rod is straight at this point and thus the weight, being attached to the square plate is subject to the tilt angle of the rod. The off-set hole, in the square plate, transfers the circular motion to the lower rod, at an increased radius and at a lag angle of 90 degrees.
 
The lower rod carries the lower weight and connection to the output shaft.
Ron

In the '39 video we can see the motion is circular. Focus on the closest rod and you should be able to see the eccentric arm that drives it. It is visible shortly after the rod moves past 7:00 o'clock and is visible as the rod travels around behind the 12:00 o'clock position, then is hidden in the glare until covered by the rod itself until it re-emerges.

Yes Ron, this is exactly what I saw over a couple of weeks ago when I made the first looped video and why I concluded it was a circular motion.

If this is still to blurry to be convincing, change your focus to the left most rod. Let logic be the rule, if the motion on the first rod is linear then the motion is  from side to side as viewed from the camera position. If this were true then the motion of the left rod, being at 90 degrees to the first rod, said motion would be towards and away from the camera and be hidden by the steel corner post.
But this is not the case... the second rod is very visible as it shows first outside the corner post, then on the inside of the corner post. Logic dictates that if two rods at 90 degrees to each other exhibit the same motion then the only explanation is the both rods are travelling in a circular path.
The path of the top of the top section rod is circular. It passes through the gimbal where it is provided with a bearing for constraint and weight support before emerging at the level of the so called square plate. It is located in the square plate by the setscrew on the side of the plate. The rod is straight at this point and thus the weight, being attached to the square plate is subject to the tilt angle of the rod. The off-set hole, in the square plate, transfers the circular motion to the lower rod, at an increased radius and at a lag angle of 90 degrees.
 
The lower rod carries the lower weight and connection to the output shaft.
Ron

I also see it the way you described.

I guess you didn't quite understand my question. Let me try it this way. Which section transfers the force gravity in the device. The upper or lower section? or both?
If both, do you see any little differences between each section or do you see them as identical?

Thanks

Luc

Yes Ron, this is exactly what I saw over a couple of weeks ago when I made the first looped video and why I concluded it was a circular motion.


I also see it the way you described.

I guess you didn't quite understand my question. Let me try it this way. Which section transfers the force gravity in the device. The upper or lower section? or both?
If both, do you see any little differences between each section or do you see them as identical?

Thanks

Luc

Not in any order...


That is when I saw the rotary motion, in your video... it was a game changer for sure, thank you!
I was just trying to re-enforce your observation by running the video again for those that had missed
the obvious implications. I can not understand anyone who could dismiss this as mere conjecture.
 
Luc the offset in the ends of the rods, if that is what they are, are not really critical to the operation of the machine.


I see the 'principle' as being the same. That is,  they both contribute in their own way. It is a matter of size.  The small one runs the big one. Without the small one the big one would need a bigger motor. One can take this to the next level and go to three sections the top two as per the present build the lower one
scaled up with an enormous weight.  So just a top unit might make 1/2 of a horse power... just the lower section run with a 1/2 horse motor might make 2  horse power... (fill in your own numbers.)


That's is why I said the small motor runs the top unit... the top unit runs the bottom unit, makes sense?
They both run on gravity.


 Ron