DON'T TRY TO SOLVE A PROBLEM
THAT ACTUALLY DOESN'T EXIST!
Publishing such an unusual work in such an unusual way, publishing these proposals, these two problems do exist since the very beginning.
The first problem is a spontaneous(?) reaction that "all things are perfect as they are; do not try to solve a problem that actually does not exist!".
However, all things are NOT perfect in the field of the wind turbines, of the turret-carrying vehicles, of the vessel azimuth thrusters, and so on.
Studying the long-time Evolution of Science, especially the Evolution of Engineering, we can find many cases where real revolutions began by ... "disputed proposals for problems that didn't actually ... exist".
Of course, we are not so conceited to believe that these proposals can touch off such a revolution.
The second problem is that doubts are likely to arise about the feasibility of these proposals; in other words, the mechanisms of these proposals is almost or just IMPOSSIBLE to exist.
Both these mechanisms, indeed, are unusual and strange but NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
There is a complete theoretical work, both in Mathematics and Physics, behind them, and fully operational prototypes for both mechanisms already do exist.
"DOGMAS" THAT HAD TO BE BROKEN
Here is a brief presentation of these deeply rooted perceptions -in fact almost dogmas- that stood against the free design that means the rational and effective solving of problems:
Concerning the EXTREME Concept:
There were mainly these three "dogmas", that had rendered the design of a reducer or increaser with a very high transmission ratio (as the EXTREME mechanism is) to be considered as impossible:
- Usually a planetary mechanism comprises internal gears and the perception that this is the best configuration was the first "dogma",
- The second "dogma" was that the module of the teeth of the gears must be the same throughout the whole mechanism, by a tacit admission, so there are very strict limits in teeth numbers setting and
- However, there was a third -discrete- "dogma" that can be stated as follows: when setting up the teeth number of each of the two branches of the planetary mechanism, the one branch must have always the partial ratio: 1:1, by a tacit admission, leaving the other branch to achieve an effective transmission ratio.
Concerning the ELEUTHERO-STROPHE Concept:
When, some centuries ago, the need of variable orientation of the horizontal axis of a windmill appeared in order to follow the wind front for better exploitation of the wind energy, the solution was a complicated configuration, where all the necessary work -wheat milling, for example- was taking place "up there", in a whole building which was supported onto a rotatable base.
The continuous designing and redesigning of similar windmills established a specific practice for the construction of the windmills in general.
At the same time, this fact established a perception, a "dogma", that this is the only way to have a variable orientation of the axis of the windmill and to use this wind energy on-site only, without the capability to transmit it onto a stationary frame ...
The windmills of other types, either used only reciprocating motion to transmit power to the ground -the water-pumping windmills for instance- or produced electric power "up there"; and they are still producing electric power "up there" until today.
These facts, through the last centuries, empowered the "dogma" that the design of a mechanism, such as the ELEUTHERO-STROPHE, is just impossible.
The first problem is a spontaneous(?) reaction that "all things are perfect as they are; do not try to solve a problem that actually does not exist!".
However, all things are NOT perfect in the field of the wind turbines, of the turret-carrying vehicles, of the vessel azimuth thrusters, and so on.
Studying the long-time Evolution of Science, especially the Evolution of Engineering, we can find many cases where real revolutions began by ... "disputed proposals for problems that didn't actually ... exist".
Of course, we are not so conceited to believe that these proposals can touch off such a revolution.
The second problem is that doubts are likely to arise about the feasibility of these proposals; in other words, the mechanisms of these proposals is almost or just IMPOSSIBLE to exist.
Both these mechanisms, indeed, are unusual and strange but NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
There is a complete theoretical work, both in Mathematics and Physics, behind them, and fully operational prototypes for both mechanisms already do exist.
"DOGMAS" THAT HAD TO BE BROKEN
Here is a brief presentation of these deeply rooted perceptions -in fact almost dogmas- that stood against the free design that means the rational and effective solving of problems:
Concerning the EXTREME Concept:
There were mainly these three "dogmas", that had rendered the design of a reducer or increaser with a very high transmission ratio (as the EXTREME mechanism is) to be considered as impossible:
- Usually a planetary mechanism comprises internal gears and the perception that this is the best configuration was the first "dogma",
- The second "dogma" was that the module of the teeth of the gears must be the same throughout the whole mechanism, by a tacit admission, so there are very strict limits in teeth numbers setting and
- However, there was a third -discrete- "dogma" that can be stated as follows: when setting up the teeth number of each of the two branches of the planetary mechanism, the one branch must have always the partial ratio: 1:1, by a tacit admission, leaving the other branch to achieve an effective transmission ratio.
Concerning the ELEUTHERO-STROPHE Concept:
When, some centuries ago, the need of variable orientation of the horizontal axis of a windmill appeared in order to follow the wind front for better exploitation of the wind energy, the solution was a complicated configuration, where all the necessary work -wheat milling, for example- was taking place "up there", in a whole building which was supported onto a rotatable base.
The continuous designing and redesigning of similar windmills established a specific practice for the construction of the windmills in general.
At the same time, this fact established a perception, a "dogma", that this is the only way to have a variable orientation of the axis of the windmill and to use this wind energy on-site only, without the capability to transmit it onto a stationary frame ...
The windmills of other types, either used only reciprocating motion to transmit power to the ground -the water-pumping windmills for instance- or produced electric power "up there"; and they are still producing electric power "up there" until today.
These facts, through the last centuries, empowered the "dogma" that the design of a mechanism, such as the ELEUTHERO-STROPHE, is just impossible.
