A simplified MT 13 ...

[iacob alex]

   ...is a possibility to shorten,reduce,simplify the design of MT 13 from ;   www.orffyre.com/mt1-20.html   into   www.geocities.com/iacob_alex/Some_Drafts/text009.jpg 

     A wheel with 12 spokes,becomes a wheel with 2 spokes,only (one constant,one variable).

       All the Best! / Alex

[iacob alex]

   
   Hi Jim !

There are three great differences between MT13 and the proposed "Flip-flop wheel 01":

  - 12 vs. 2 spokes

  -as a helpful effect,an "amazing" much longer gravity fall (30* vs. ~350-355*)...just try to put in motion this design,beginning with  pos. nr.3 (variable  arm, as a long arm, in the up position ).

  -bump effect to switch small arm into long arm

  This is why I suggested a simplification,digest of  MT13...and to use a part of this,only.

I believe that a test is more efficacious than a lot of words...sorry,that for the moment I am out of possibility to make experiments.

      All the Best! / Alex

[iacob alex]

        Hi Jim!
  I agree, about your mass difference argument...

  Now,please take into consideration for your math:

    -friction :6 times smaller

    -fall time:11-12 time greater (v=g*t , Ek=1/2m*v*v )

  By the way,the non-simplified mathematics of pendulum is a matter of study ,so far...we can't use it for the moment.

  As I said,a simple test of this elementary design ,can be more conclusive than a lot of words or  ...of mathematics .

             All the Best! / Alex

[iacob alex]

    Hi Jim !

  If you take a look in the history of PM,you can learn a lot of things...sometimes,that "Nothing is new under the Sun",a lesson to respect our ancestors.

  Long time ago,without the help of "modern tools" (mathematics,computer simulations...) they used their minds and hands to solve the basic problems of life.

  For instance,a MT 13 simplification,is a step only,in a long -lasting evolution of the same vision/idea of a possible PM :the long arm on the same side of the fulcrum.

  Let's take a short look on net,for the history of the same "illusory" design;

   -Taccola (1382-1458)
   -Leonardo da Vinci(1452-1519)
   -Bessler ~1712
   -others...

  On paper,this concept,has two critical points :0*(360*) /top position and 180*/down position,where we need a self-commuting process (short arm must move into a long arm,on the same side of the fulcrum).

  In reality,this concept "hangs in the middle" :
   -the critical down point(180*) works so easy (is self).
   -the critical top point (0*/360*) has a lot of "problems" :needs a long period of time and space..but the most important fact...it's not self.

  As a whole,the concept in reality ,it's not self.

  Bessler made a step forward :he imagined to reduce the top commuting space from 180*(270*to 90*),to 30*(330* to 360*).

  How can work his scheme,of an older concept...is the reason of this topic: "A simplified MT 13"...

       All the Best! / Alex

[iacob alex]

    ...can be tested in a simple manner.

  All that you need ;

   -a rotary frame(bar or your bike wheel)

   -two equal masses

  A mass plays medium arm/handle,lever on a fixed position.

  The second mass,on the same diameter,plays changing back and forth,face to medium arm.

   How moves the second mass is your...lottery ticket.

              All the Best! / Alex