Well, if you don’t mind, I’ll stick with my diagram, since I had a hard time making anything out on yours.
Some hints you may appreciate:
Those little blobs on the end of the leaf springs aren’t accidents. At one end they act as catches, preventing the BB from rolling back down the slope, while at the other they become a trigger, when the tension on the leaf spring bends it far enough, the blob will be rotated out of the way of the BB, causing the mechanism to fire (for speed, I just used a dot on the end, in reality it would be better to use a standard pawl shape). This inbuilt trigger should cause the BB to fire at a consistent point on the cycle, whereas relying on friction would not; an early misfire would obviously leave the ball at the wrong end of the travelling arm and the wrong side of the leaf spring, breaking the cycle.
The leaf spring is deliberately shown bending through the travelling arm. If the LS were completely contained in the arm, its distortion may actually trap the ball, causing it to release too late, if at all. A better design is to leave the LS unconstrained along at least part of its length, which can be accomplished via a small open slot on one side of the travelling arm.
And some you will not:
The active weights will of necessity have to be much heavier that the BBs, otherwise they will not tension the leaf spring sufficiently to fire the BB. Similarly the leaf spring must be stiff enough or it will reach its maximum deformation without storing enough elastic potential energy to launch the BB to the other end. These two facts have an important consequence.
If you built your design with weights and springs capable of firing the BB from the 8 to the (just past) 2 o’clock positions then set it up with one arm exactly vertically, you would see that the wheel appears unbalanced by the presence a BB at the 3 o’clock position that is not present at the 9. However, looking closer, you would also see that the much heavier active weights at the 7 and 8 o’clock positions are raised slightly higher that those at the 4 and 5. This would create a sight imbalance in the opposite direction.
Using my version of your mechanism as a guide, I calculated that an active weight of about 40 times the mass of the BB (the actual number depends on the stiffness of the leaf spring, which I didn’t bother to work out) would be sufficient to launch it the full distance, but that then the opposing moment of the elevated weights was greater that the intended moment generated by the BB. In short, the wheel would slow with every BB fired and eventually stop.
It is allot of fun to debate with people who specialize in reporting and debunking hoaxes
I don’t specialise in it. But I did do an engineering degree that included a healthy dose of statics and dynamics. Analysis by which does not support your claim.
When you build a working one, I’ll eat my words. But until then, I’m afraid, you’re a loony!
P.S. Whether it works or not, if you built a brass ‘steampunk’ version, I’d buy one!