On 9/30/2014 6:50 AM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
It didn't seem to me that there would be enough leverage introduced by the weight of the water given the length of the
hammer arm and its mechanical advantage. Perhaps there's a hidden counterweight that I can't see.
That seems an odd approach to an empirical Moose.
1. The thing obviously works, so any theory that proposes it won't is not worth
considering.
2. Operation depends on a certain minimum power behind the falling strokes. A counterweight will slow that down,
requiring a smaller pounding end, and being less efficient.
Thus I think we can assume there is little or no counterweight and water is the
entire operating force.
I have no idea how you conclude that it doesn't look like enough water. Some factors I can think of that might fool you
are:
1. Density of the wood operating lever, Only the pounding thingie (pestle?)
need be hard, durable wood.
2. Optical perspective distorts the size relationship between close and far
ends.
3. The hood on the water end hides part of the reservoir.
Empirical Mind Moose
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|