Big try at gravity wheel

[tim123]

The question is,have they achieved the task of automatically and mechanically switching the point of attachment of the two link systems, and will the machine accomplish this task on its own without any external forces aiding the link attachment?
Vince

Hi Vince,
  the shift between the 2 linkages is the problem: In order to transfer the weight from the 'neutral' upright bar, to the 'positive' connecting rod, the full weight (i.e. the weight at the end of the lever) has to be lifted by the crank. (as far as I can tell)

You can do it either at the top, or the bottom of the crank - depending on rotation, but it still has to be done, and it's a big sticky point...

I can not see how you can build something without understanding it first.

This is the essence of all research. You build experiments to better understand things...

1.. That weight on the downstroke needs to take advantage of a greater lever arm than the horizontal robervall arm length as measured from the vertical fixed pilar.
...
So we have two different levers applying torque to the rotation shaft (~ 2-1=1 =left-over).

Different leverage = different distance moved. It's not as simple as you assert... If you simply have different leverages on the up & down strokes - the weight will end up in a different place at the end of each stroke.

Red_Sunset, if you think you understand the machine, and you think it works - then please show us - build a replica, or post those detailed drawings you mentioned.

Regards
Tim

[Red_Sunset]

Quote from: Grimer on Today at 05:05:28 PM
    That's because my thinking is not stuck in a block of concrete. Logic says it won't work.But there are people out there smart enough to say phooey to that and prove anyone wrong.Science is taught specifically to hold people within a square in their thinking. You are taught to think nothing will work, so you move within your limitations of your self imposed square.It's always those who step outside it who make the waves and the future happen.[/font]

That's a very good approach, and one that most people here would agree with, otherwise why would you join an over-unity forum, but making claims that you can achieve over-unity or you know that it works when you can't prove it is not going to help anyone, and given the energy crisis the world is facing we could really do with a genuine solution that actually works and can be proven to work.

Powercat,
Interesting how you state these 2 quotes together and are acknowledged as such. 
I am convinced that NOBODY can be impartial, we are all the product of our upbringing exposure and that will be with us for life in varying degrees.

No matter what proof you seek , A video is no proof, neither a picture or even a physical demonstration can be deceptive, the biggest example demonstration of that fact was 911 & Iraq. 
Proof is in what YOU can figure out, sort deduct, interpret, reach to a logical conclusion, put to the test as truth, compare as facts. But that takes some work.
Keep in mind that Invention is business, an inventor will release information but never innovative details that are key to the invention, not even in a patent, they are always held close to the chest.  When it comes to money, or prospective income, an inventor will do all in its power to safeguard the future of his work and himself and his position in business.

So if you are on this website to receive blue prints with explanations, you are going to have to wait for a very long time.

Regards, Red_Sunset

[Red_Sunset]

..........................................................
.............................................
This is the essence of all research. You build experiments to better understand things...

Different leverage = different distance moved. It's not as simple as you assert... If you simply have different leverages on the up & down strokes - the weight will end up in a different place at the end of each stroke.

Red_Sunset, if you think you understand the machine, and you think it works - then please show us - build a replica, or post those detailed drawings you mentioned.

Regards Tim

Tim,
Building carries an initial high risk, that is, a good working design could be considered failed due to bad or incorrect construction.  Knowledge gives you the advantage by enabling you to do troubleshooting. Building when you have the understanding reduces risk.  If you come from the electronics field, this might make more sense than in the mechanical field.

. It's not as simple as you assert... it sure isn't and I do not want to minimize the effort and tweaks required to make it work. The key is that the distance should not change (much) because otherwise you reach the point of diminishing returns. The method used here is the key innovation of this invention.

Contrary to PowerCat statement, I never claimed or made a OU device. What I do is,  to look closer into analyse smart and creative devices in order to understand the innovative working principles and to stimulate my mind. I do not have any detailed drawings of this system other that quick references to features seen on the photo's.
Distributed / Personal power generation is going to be the next revolution, so my interest leans in that direction.

Unfortunately that is as far as I can help here. Never expect to understand a concept all in one day. Allow simmering time for an observation to take on shape and relevance, to evolve and mature.
Good luck, remember persistence pays !!
Regards, Red_Sunset

[powercat]

Powercat,
Interesting how you state these 2 quotes together and are acknowledged as such. 
I am convinced that NOBODY can be impartial, we are all the product of our upbringing exposure and that will be with us for life in varying degrees.

No matter what proof you seek , A video is no proof, neither a picture or even a physical demonstration can be deceptive, the biggest example demonstration of that fact was 911 & Iraq. 
Proof is in what YOU can figure out, sort deduct, interpret, reach to a logical conclusion, put to the test as truth, compare as facts. But that takes some work.
Keep in mind that Invention is business, an inventor will release information but never innovative details that are key to the invention, not even in a patent, they are always held close to the chest.  When it comes to money, or prospective income, an inventor will do all in its power to safeguard the future of his work and himself and his position in business.

So if you are on this website to receive blue prints with explanations, you are going to have to wait for a very long time.

There are hundreds of thousan of patented inventions that can be replicated and have been scientifically verified, showing how an invention works does not take your rights of ownership away.

[/font]Contrary to PowerCat statement, I never claimed or made a OU device. What I do is,  to look closer into analyse smart and creative devices in order to understand the innovative working principles and to stimulate my mind. I do not have any detailed drawings of this system other that quick references to features seen on the photo's.Distributed / Personal power generation is going to be the next revolution, so my interest leans in that direction.

Anyone can read your previous posts where you claim Wayne Travis's over-unity device works as claimed, they can also read your numerous posts where you defend Wayne travesties rights to keep back so called information on how the device actually works for commercial reasons, though at that time you and Wayne did intend to have the device scientifically verified by Mark Dansie as long as he signed a NDA to keep certain details of the device private, in the beginning this all seemed quite reasonable but as time went by it became clear what a load of BS yourself and Wayne were talking and that there was never any intention of having the device properly verified by anybody.

[fletcher]

Red .. here is a simple sim of a Roberval system, with lever arm & mass replacing one horizontal member - the lever arm can be latched [square pin joint] to either the vertical strut of the pantograph or the tilting arm to get up & down motion thru imbalance of forces - that is not & has never been in dispute AFAIK - run the sim to see the potential problem - I watch this RAR attempt with interest to see if they have a creative answer to the dilemma.