its a not a g shock why do you need that durability

Spring steel in thin strips is pretty commonly made for use in street sweepers so the metal versions can probably be pretty durable thanks to elasticity.

The other thing I believe they do is they use little crystals on the tips to lessen wear on the pin thingy

I would imagine that having less components that can break might make up for that added fragility.

its good that engineers don't base their design on "feels"

Oh my gosh! So on Tv when the hero makes a mistake and the ticking starts going faster…it was this mechanism? It’s famous! 😄 (that really is cool tho)

@@anniioakley9765 thats just movies. Idk if this was invented then but guessing by the name its patented by saiko watch company who may have made bomb mechanisms but this one today would be used to self wind a watch. Spring drum would be connected to output and a weight to the input. As far as bombs and ticking faster goes, no, what this would do, there would be two on each axis with a weight. As the bomb was moved around the weights would move, turning the gear until it met a set tolerance for tampering. It solves the problem that a tampering device goes off instantly from one little accidental bump. An early bomb misses its target. You likley wont hear a bomb tick from that era. If you could, the only reason you would want a bomb to tick fast is because the designer had a heart somwhere because honestly, if a tamper device trips, there is no fast ticking, it’s straight to BOOM. Its also cheaper

@@Wtfinc +Annie Oakley was joking about the TV and heroes.

@@arthurneddysmith oh, LMAO i see it now. Her comment got me thinking none the less. It's just as much for me as it is for others that I take the time to explain things. It helps solidify or flesh out ideas and also teaches me to teach n all that good stuff.

Uff not so fun actually.

Not even a pulsating DC, it's already filtered and regulated with only one component

Which doesn't matter if all you're doing is winding a spring in a watch.

​@@pjaxy still goes to show how conversations about whether a mechanism is better than another is frequently specific to the use case you want

​@@aurus7245 frequently? Not 'always without fail'? I'm pretty sure that absolute "betterness" doesn't exist.

@@AlexanderNash eh, i just tend to avoid making absolute statements lol

Yep. Given a constant input rpm, there will be an sine wave modulated into the output gear's rpm.

That sounds super interesting! Why does a dual direction input, single direction output have to be used in a ribbon advance?

@@EternalAmmonite I realize now that typewriter ribbon advances only move the ribbon while the pawls or pawl is moving in one direction, the second pawl serving to immobilize the ratchet while the driving pawl resets. The main similarity is the use of an oscillating pawl on a ratchet with a complementary pawl to prevent backward rotation (or in this case, deliver another rotational impulse). But the typewriter design could have just as easily made the stop pawl move as well, moving the ribbon on both halves of the cycle. But at the same time, you don't always want the ribbon to move so fast, and you don't want to risk a timing case where the ribbon is trying to be pulled while the type slug is still in contact with it.

That sounds like a cool idea, thanks and I’ll add it to the list!

@@mechanistic3d seems easiest to copy the centrifugal shift in an RC car...

​@@mechanistic3d Hi, can you add the smiths chronometric tachometer later on?

These exist! More often on screwdrivers though. Look up bidirectional screwdrivers. It's really helpful for small screws so you don't need to find the groove again after every turn

@@NickCheng93 you mean a ratcheting screwdriver? That only ratchets the direction opposite to tightening. I'm talking about one that tightens by turn it both ways. So it would tighten on the backward stroke if that makes sense.. The one you're talking about stops while it ratchets backwards. Then turns when it locks. Then ratchets backwards then locks. My style would be ratchet forward tightens ratchet backwards tightens and so on and so on

@@MaNNeRz91 yes I think we're talking about the same thing. I have a small screw driver where if I turn CW or CCW the screw head always turns CW to tighten using some kind of reverser inside to translate the CCW to CW. Then you flip a switch and you can spin both CW and CCW to un-screw too. I haven't seen it on any bigger ratchets though

They’re called “Jesus clips.” What do you say when removing one and it disappears across the room into the carpet?

@@BitSmythe _"Oh, FFS!"_ clips? Well, I know I do! 😆

No, it doesn't need to be alternated. If you rotate in a single direction, the lever pushes the output wheel during half the input rotation and then pulls during the other half. It does this when rotating in either direction so inputting continuously in either direction will always be outputting. The real weakness of the magic lever is that the output varies depending where on the input wheel the lever is, but this is mitigated a bit on watches because they install it so that the lever is providing the most output when the watch's 3 o' clock position is pointed toward the ground, as it would be if you're walking around with the watch on your left hand.

Yes it can be continuous the magic lever isn't centered so after 180° of pushing there are 180° of pulling

Seiko wouldn’t use it in watches if they were having to replace them all the time.

Not yet, but I plan to. I’m hoping to create a pendulum clock that can run for at least 48 hours to make it properly functional. Sure, I’ll share the files once I have the design ready.

@@mechanistic3d Thank you !

I think the previous design is better, but not for that reason. If the input wheel of the second design keeps spinning in one direction, the arm mechanism will go up and down in an oscillatory motion, so it will keep winding the other wheel. I still like the first design better, however, as the second design seems more fragile

No. At the very end, you can see it go past 180 and switch arms in one rotation

I'm not entirely sure, but in terms of energy transfer efficiency, I believe the magic lever is slightly less efficient due to the lower torque limit each thin arm can transfer to the winding mechanism. On the other hand, the conventional design has the flexibility to use larger ratchet wheels to increase the torque transfer limit and lower output to input ratio.

I dont see any reason the magic lever couldnt turn indefinitely.

@@toastthemost2473 each rotation of the magic level it will slow down for half a rotation because it isn't a linear transfer and will speed up for the second half , it'll cause a sin curve of rotation in the output. You can see this is the case clearly as he's rotating the inputs differently in the video

I use unigraphics NX, but you can also use any cad software such as solidworks or fusion 360

ElectroBOOM, is that you? 😆