Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Mt 24 reviewed  (Read 7802 times)

BAHammer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Mt 24 reviewed
« on: February 25, 2009, 05:08:22 PM »
  This is possibly how an actaul Mt 24 wheel would look.
 Bessler said he used 6 and 8 weights. By removing the levers
and their weights, the wheel is left with 8 weights.
 How it would work is simple. It would use the same principle as Mt 20  :)
 The lever @ A would act on lever B or C. This would be because it would be geared
at a 2:1 ratio. This would eman that the rod it is acting on would move 1/2 as much.
 B shows a 1:2 motion. It has moved half way back to it's starting position. Because of this, the wheel can move "underneath" the weight as Mt 20 demonstrates with the long levers.
 Without an actual build, it would be difficult to say if 90 or 135 degrees between levers would work best.
 This is where understanding how mechanics work does help.
 FYI, the levers come off of Mt 25 also. Yes, that would elave 4 weights. 4 arms can be added so 8 weights could be used  :)

BAHammer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Mt 24 reviewed
« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2009, 01:24:27 PM »
  Hmm, I thought Bessler did a drawing like this. Mt 21 is close, but not quite.
This weekend, I'll post how I believe Mt 24 actually worked. It would be using the same principle as this.
 I might have to do 2 builds. There are after all, 2 libraries in the county I live in  :)

grayone

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
Re: Mt 24 reviewed
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2009, 04:11:57 AM »
BAHammer; What country are you from with only 2 museums? You write like some one with an English language. Like American? I would like to view what you are talking about how you plan to keep the weights in the positions shown.

grayone

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
Re: Mt 24 reviewed
« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2009, 06:25:45 PM »
  Hmm, I thought Bessler did a drawing like this. Mt 21 is close, but not quite.
This weekend, I'll post how I believe Mt 24 actually worked. It would be using the same principle as this.
 I might have to do 2 builds. There are after all, 2 libraries in the county I live in  :)

BAHammer; It is Monday.  ???

BAHammer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Mt 24 reviewed
« Reply #4 on: March 03, 2009, 03:46:32 PM »
BAHammer; What country are you from with only 2 museums? You write like some one with an English language. Like American? I would like to view what you are talking about how you plan to keep the weights in the positions shown.

  Did I say museums ? My mistake if I did. I meant libraries  :)
 The way bessler drew Mt 24, it could work with 16 weights.
 With 8 weights, this is how it would've worked. If you look at the drawing of the scissored wheel I did, you'll see how the weights move.
 This is similar to mt 25 as it would use a hoist mechanism geared at 2:1. And the red line shows the path of the line. Only one weight would be over balanced. That would be from 45 degrees above the level of the axle to 45 degrees below it.
 Hope you like  :)
 

erickdt

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
Re: Mt 24 reviewed
« Reply #5 on: March 03, 2009, 05:00:51 PM »
Gearing mechanisms and scizzor jacks will not work in such arrangements because it will always take the same ammount of input + more input to account for mechanical losses to make them work in which case you would have been better off not having those devices to begin with (because you've un-necessarily complicated the system causing more losses and a net reduction in output).

BAHammer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Mt 24 reviewed
« Reply #6 on: March 03, 2009, 09:22:21 PM »
Gearing mechanisms and scizzor jacks will not work in such arrangements because it will always take the same ammount of input + more input to account for mechanical losses to make them work in which case you would have been better off not having those devices to begin with (because you've un-necessarily complicated the system causing more losses and a net reduction in output).

  erickdt,
 Check the drawing, the math in the My Current Build thread.
 It will explain what in math allows it to work. The trick is that a 2.5 lb.
weight can lift a 5 lb. weight. The weight hanging down from the fixed arm only assists
in the lifting. It might help to time when the weights shift positions. But if the elver does most of the work, then it would depend on the rotation of the wheel.
 The weight being lifted would only be lifted 1/2 the drop of the lever. It can work  :)

erickdt

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
Re: Mt 24 reviewed
« Reply #7 on: March 03, 2009, 09:53:27 PM »
  erickdt,
 Check the drawing, the math in the My Current Build thread.
 It will explain what in math allows it to work. The trick is that a 2.5 lb.
weight can lift a 5 lb. weight. The weight hanging down from the fixed arm only assists
in the lifting. It might help to time when the weights shift positions. But if the elver does most of the work, then it would depend on the rotation of the wheel.
 The weight being lifted would only be lifted 1/2 the drop of the lever. It can work  :)

The fact that the lever needs to be twice as long on one side of the pivot as the other (in order to lift the 5 lb weight) will result in the 2.5 lb weight canceling out any net torque you might have gained...

grayone

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 82
Re: Mt 24 reviewed
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2009, 02:41:26 PM »
Sorry :'( I was hoping for something better due to the first drawing.

FreeEnergy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
    • The Freedom Cell Network
Re: Mt 24 reviewed
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2009, 12:55:46 AM »
just build the damn thing already and lets see if it works.

BAHammer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Mt 24 reviewed
« Reply #10 on: March 06, 2009, 12:57:45 AM »
The fact that the lever needs to be twice as long on one side of the pivot as the other (in order to lift the 5 lb weight) will result in the 2.5 lb weight canceling out any net torque you might have gained...

  eric,
 It's actually a neat trick in math and no loss of torque.
 What happens is when an arm advances radially, it lifts a weight in a linear line.
The radial advance of the arm can reduce the force of the weight by 5% as an example.
The weight being lifted towards center can have it's resistence potential reduced by 12%.
 As far as torque goes, this would depend on the total weight of the wheel and the amount of over balance. There would eb a ratio. An example of this is if the wheel with 4 weights weighs 25 pounds (the wheel weighs 5 pounds).
If the over balance increases the net force of a weight by 10%, then it woould be 1/2 pound of force to 25 pounds of weight. Or a 50:1 ratio.

  With Mt 24, the weight hanging from the fixed arm is only assisting the lighter weight on the moveable arm. It's possible pulleys on both sides of the weight can have a line going over them. This would keep the weight on the fixed arm from twisting because of a line on one side only.
 This is where the hoist mechanism allows a lighter weight to lift a heavier weight.
 As for building the wheel, I'm not sure when I might be able to continue building. Got thrown a curve I saw coming. That is a part of life. Would like to do it today, but..............

 a little math, with a 2:1 hoist mechanism, the weight being lifted will move 1/2 the distance of the drop of the moveable arm. By having a slightly heavier weight on the moveable arm, or a different ratio, tehn inertia would not be a problem. It is something that might need to be worked with to find out what works best. After all, there is no solid information to base the best possible scenario on.
 The math helps to give a good place to start. And by trying a few different weights or ratios, then what works best would become known.
  But for a wheel that works, which has yet to happen, then the math can help to build a wheel that even if it roattes slowly would still show Bessler's mechanics and engineering work. And that is kind of what this is about for some people.

erickdt

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 97
Re: Mt 24 reviewed
« Reply #11 on: March 06, 2009, 02:31:47 AM »
I think your math is a bit fuzzy. Gears, scissor jacks and the like do not reduce the ammount of input needed to do work, they actually increase it. Such devices merely make the work more managable like in the case of a car jack, gear system or block and tackle. Because of the fact that the more mechanics you introduce into any system the more friction and other losses are introduced you actually wind up having to do more net work than you would have had to otherwise. IOW: trying to lift a large weight purely with the force of a light weight channeled through some mechanical arrangement will never work as an overbalance mechanism. You will always have to shift the lighter weight by a factor of the heavier weight divided by the lighter weight and then some. For example: Using "Bessler's Scizzor Jack": If you were to use say a 5 lb weight to try and move a 10 lb weight a distance of 1'-0" you'd have to move the 5 lb weight approximately 2'-0"+ in which case you've basically created a roverbial balance. No net gain in torque... 

BAHammer

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: Mt 24 reviewed
« Reply #12 on: March 07, 2009, 09:32:30 PM »
I think your math is a bit fuzzy. Gears, scissor jacks and the like do not reduce the ammount of input needed to do work, they actually increase it. Such devices merely make the work more managable like in the case of a car jack, gear system or block and tackle. Because of the fact that the more mechanics you introduce into any system the more friction and other losses are introduced you actually wind up having to do more net work than you would have had to otherwise. IOW: trying to lift a large weight purely with the force of a light weight channeled through some mechanical arrangement will never work as an overbalance mechanism. You will always have to shift the lighter weight by a factor of the heavier weight divided by the lighter weight and then some. For example: Using "Bessler's Scizzor Jack": If you were to use say a 5 lb weight to try and move a 10 lb weight a distance of 1'-0" you'd have to move the 5 lb weight approximately 2'-0"+ in which case you've basically created a roverbial balance. No net gain in torque... 

  eric,
 this is the basic premise or idea
>>If you were to use say a 5 lb weight to try and move a 10 lb weight a distance of 1'-0" you'd have to move the 5 lb weight approximately 2'-0"+ in which case you've basically created a roverbial balance. No net gain in torque...<<

 This is why with the idea I posted in the "My Current Build" thread can be modified to be Mt 24.
This is basic trig., hopefully you'll understand the point I'm trying to make.
 @ 1 meter, if an arm rotates 15 degrees, it drops 25.88. It's maximum potential force is still 96.5% of it's mass.
 If it rotates 7 degrees, it drops 12 cm's. With a 2:1 ratio, that is a lifting potential of 6 cm's.
The difference is, the weight and arm that rotates 7 degrees will still have 99% of it's maximum force potential.
 I think sometimes people are overly concerned with resistence. Today, we have bushings and bearings. In Bessler's day, he might have used grease from animal fat.
 The important part is finding a starting point. Then the mass to levergae ratio and other things can then be figured out.
 With Mt 24, because the levers advance, the primary weights keep a constant force on the wheel.
Still, something like springs would also be needed. But some details would be more difficult to get accurate without first trying a wheel that is designed to work along specific engineered guidelines. This way, if modifiacations are made, then information could be obtained to help understand where design improvements would be needed.