Reversing an assumption...

[conradelektro]

   Hi !
My intention was to expose a very short (from 0:30 to 0:38) sequence from an explanatory movie ,at :
www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGBANgbRkws
This is related to a variable leverage , as a basic idea of a possible gravity motor.
Sometime ago , I submitted for the public domain (now... "archived")  a lot of designs regarding  this topic , at:
      www.geocities.ws/iacob_alex     (see "Some drafts")
   All the best ! / Alex

Well, did you build anything for a real trial run?

I do not see a connection between the attached picture from the video (from 0:30 to 0:38 sequence) and a variable leverage (e.g. your designs)?

To be influenced by a passing moon (like the tides), your apparatus must be enormous and would move very slowly (like the tides)?

I am not obsessed by the tides, but the tides are the only practical mechanism to harvest the moons influence on the gravity (on the surface of the earth).

The moon might also cause the liquid core of the earth to turn at a different speed than the crust (and such creating the magnetic field). But this is speculation and not proven.

Greetings, Conrad

[iacob alex]

             Hi Conrad !
For me , the starting image of a gravity motor (self running due to gravity "fall" of an unbalance) is the basic mechanics.
The basics mechanics starts with a lever ,let's say a see-saw ( full rotating 360*...so,not swinging just a little).
In your attached image , the fulcrum is the fixation ,the Earth is the "sleeping"(fixed) partner/"M" mass  and the Moon is the moving ("sliding to and fro") partner/ "m"mass , at the other end of the beam. (M~ 81 m).
Now,let's play this simple game ,with a single active partner ,so to move ("switch") the torque difference on the same side of the fulcrum:
-in the bottom position,the active partner must move up (to the fulcrum)
-in the top position,the active partner must move up again ( from the fulcrum).
For the bottom position we have a "self" solution : the simple hinged arm (see so many designs of the Middle Ages).
For the top position...we can imagine a lot of simple methods of solving this (only one !) to get a "self",also.
To be short : in my opinion , we need to solve a single "critical point".
For me ,the main aim is the " know how" in the limits of the simple child-like game , accessible for everyone.
    All the best ! / Alex

[conradelektro]

To be interested I need a bit more than words.

How about a device, even if it does not work?

Greetings, Conrad

[iacob alex]

   Hi Conrad !   
Ok ! I understand :"to be interested" , you need something more than words...but,you see ...then "the game is over".So,to preserve the "charm and suspence" of this secular quiz contest...I think it's better to  remain "in the middle".
About the "device" ,to be expressive ,"das ist eine kindergarten spiele"...you need ,nothing more   than  : fulcrum,beam,two masses (fixed"M",oscillating"m") + imagination to make it self moving.
Take a look at : www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6G5aC9BtSc
   All the best ! / Alex

[circle]

   Hi Conrad !   
Ok ! I understand :"to be interested" , you need something more than words...but,you see ...then "the game is over".So,to preserve the "charm and suspence" of this secular quiz contest...I think it's better to  remain "in the middle".
About the "device" :"das ist eine kindergarten spiele"...nothing more : fulcrum,beam,two masses (fixed"M",oscillating"m") +our imagination to make it self moving.
   All the best ! / Alex

what good is it to dismiss one errant assumption only to substitute with equally faulty replacements?

really?
ONE fulcrum?
ONE beam?

thanks to johann bessler,   ..we already know there are two weights per set...