Gravity seems to yield unequal results.

[isodecryptor]

Im going to add a rough estimate of the frictional losses, because friction is a real part of our world. so workt1(@)=(a*m*g)/2*integral cscx from 5 to 85 degrees -(uk*a*m*g)/2*integral cscx from 5 to 85 degrees. uk is kinetic friction, a =
height of the pole. a pretty high kinetic friction coefficient, for ball bearing, .3 (much higher than it would be by far) work t1(@)= ((1*500*9./2*integral cscx 5 to 85 - (.3*1*9.8*500)/2*integral cscx from 5 to 85) Because friction would increase and decrease with theta as well. This turns out to be workt1(@)=7457.6-heat loss to friction(2237.28) joules. That would be roughly 5220.6 joules of work for t1 and 5220.6 joules of work done was not lost as heat due to friction. So it could do 10,441.2 joules of productive work.

[isodecryptor]

I built a poorly constructed model out of old fishing poles. I must say the results were interesting and hard to interpret. I played with the amounts of weight on the outsides. What immediately caught my attention is that the middle weight could drop no more then the weights would on the outside would rise. So it seemed that this would make calculating the work done easier. What is confusing is that the middle weight could in fact pull the outside weights up, which did actually weigh more. And of course these weights rose equally as much as the middle weight fell. The middle weight has to have twice the amount of line to fall the same distance as either of the outside weights. So there is no mistaking how much potential from the middle wieght is lost, Compared to the new potential of the weights on the outside, who's sum of weight did equal more than the inner weight that is falling. Different outer weights m2+m3 were always more than m1. As i would add more weight to m2 and m3, the rise would decrease, but the middle weight would never fall further than the outside weights would rise. The confusing part is the middle weight would fall short of falling all the way, so some of its potential remained in the system at equal librium. So it has the feeling and look of overunity, but i am having trouble being sure to calculate energy in, opposed to out. there were times when i was almost certain it had overunity abilities, but will of course remain skeptic, as i do have a limited understanding of physics. Otherwise, it has some mechanical advantages that could be used to do work. I have never seen anything quite like it and am baffled at the results and how to interpret them, nevertheless. I would say it is at least invention worthy. especially if you needed to do some heavy lifting.

[isodecryptor]

I am going to add a detail writing of my findings. I must also add that my machine was thrown together just to see if it behaved in the ways that i suspected, mathematically. The keeping of the symmetry of the function cscx is highly destitute to the expected results. The less the mechanical configuration represents cscx, the less work it does by a very significant amount. My middle weight was initially a fishing weight that had a hook embedded in it. This allows the weight to free  shift on the fishing line, which allowed physics to adjust the weight into the middle, helping to reserve its closer symmetrical representation for cscx. I did not realize how important this truly was until i changed my weights, using a regular solenoid shaped weight for the middle. This did not slide as well, and also altered the connections of the two tensions holding it up, and SEVERELY affected the amount it could do on the way down. Once i realized this I put a proper hooking device to it that was cut to have a negligible impact on the mass of m1. I have a strong suspicion that the cscx asymptotic behaivior is having some very interesting affects on my machine.Even enough for a possible overunity affect. Please remain ooen minded, as i share my personal experiments, free of charge.
:-t

[isodecryptor]

Here is a more detailed list of my configurations and findings.

[isodecryptor]

Another equally far fetched idea is to have two of the structures facing each other with an equally balanced lever under the two middle weights.