Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of this Forum, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above
Thanks to ALL for your help!!


Gravity seems to yield unequal results.

Started by isodecryptor, February 18, 2014, 05:10:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

isodecryptor

Here is an idea that i cannot prove. But interesting.

isodecryptor

The reason i would like to see this configuration is because it would take alot less work to lift the middle weights back up, once they have the seemingly additional potential of m2 and m3, which would assist the middle weight to go back up. I know it would take significantly less work to return the middle weights back to the top, now that there is a seemingly surplus in potential from m2 and m3. So the falling weight would be less impacted to push it back up in a vertical direction, especially since cscx has the asymptotic behaviors with the changing angle. Remember that this would be considered a vertical lift. I will try to find an integral that would suit the work needed to lift the middle weight up vertically, with the assisting vertical vector components of t1 and t2 from m2 and m3. If its equal, than the function is just confusing. If nothing else, it may make a cool see saw. Or a carnival ride :).

isodecryptor

and please, if anyone is good with physics simulation software, i would love to collaborate on a model of this.

isodecryptor

A cool result i noticed with varying outside weights is the, oh shit, we weigh more then him affect. The middle weight would fall so far, lifting so much mass that it would pause for a moment, then readjust the middle weight back up to a tension equal in magnitude with respect to theta. This only took place when the outside weights sum was more than 1.5 times the middle weight. I am aware of elasticity, but this looke slightly different. It was an abnormally long pause that took a while longer to reconfigure than expected. Almost like the outside weights themselves were the main force that was spinning it bqck up, to reach equalibrium. But it seems as though equilibrium would have allowed no movement at all. In almost all other work, torque, tensions ,relationships i have observed. And if there was a difference in weight, it would appear as a mechanical advantage trade off. i move more less distance etc etc. Not, i move more the same distance, then confuse myself as to what just happened.