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 these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



speed weight

Started by frii143, May 20, 2023, 04:51:09 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Cloxxki

I agree, there is no difference in energy, only in force and duration required to perform the lifting.
The one interesting thing with lifting a static object, is that if you allow it to fall along a gradual ramp to horizontal, your slow lifting can result in a rather rapid horizontal displacement.
Lift a cannonball (slowly) up a good 5 meter tall quarter pipe such as use for extreme sports, let go, and a good second later you have a cannonball traveling horizontally at 10 m/s. Friction and the next quarter pipe decide how far it will travel.
To push a static cannonball up to 10 m/s is quite a feet, it takes signficant equipment and/or force. Forcing the cannonball against the slow force of gravity and releasing it in a controlled way along the quarter pipe, tranfers all its potential energy (the 5 meters) into horizontal velocity.
At the time when we were teased by the Abeling gravity wheel, I was pondering (kinda still am) how we could use horizontal and radial advancement of weights on a wheel into persistent acceleration. A "simple" manner of saving time on the way up and starting to impart force on the downward side of the wheel ahead of schedule causing it to be unbalanced and accelerate. So far, no solution that I foresee working.

frii143

pumping water up one foot raises the water above it this is a proved water storage technique. they uses it today commonly for energy storage. when the water is released it turns a generator dropping the water a hundred feet. it doesn't drop the water free fall but turns a pump.

sm0ky2

Don't blindly believe what you have been told
The truth is we do not fully understand gravity


1) how much energy is required to lift an object through gravity?
    A) if the object is motionless
    B) if the object first falls, then rises using gravitational momentum?


How much energy is consumed by a plane to raise its altitude?
How much energy does a flying squirrel use by jumping down then flying up to a higher branch?


An Eagle or condor can slow itself down, causing lift, then soar back down to the original altitude
resulting in a higher velocity


A spacecraft can enter gravity at one angle, and leave at another at a faster speed


Momentum can exceed the potential energy of a gravitational system under the right conditions
the kinetic energy of the rise and fall are not equivalent,
Rising incurs an inverse acceleration, over time
Falling incurs an increasing acceleration, over time


Take the energy in 12 grains of black powder
And use that to slowly lift a mass of lead
And compare that to the height of a fired bullet straight up


Then compare both of those to the instantaneous force of impact when the bullet lands


in one condition the bullet falls from a great height and impacts at one velocity
In the other condition the bullet is moving much faster (often inhibited by terminal velocity)


lets take a 100 lb man with 100lbs of weights in his pockets
and also a 200lb man with no additional weight
Who has more stored energy available?
Who can jump higher?
Why are those two things not in agreement?


Newtonian Theory works, exactly as prescribed, in most circumstances
But it is not absolute, and conservation within the field is bound by certain presumptions
Go outside of these, and things change

There are the extreme examples of magnetism and buoyancy
but even two different uses of gravity alone can result in
differences between two sides of a system

Don't forget what we learned from William Skinner
I was fixing a shower-rod, slipped and hit my head on the sink. When i came to, that's when i had the idea for the "Flux Capacitor", Which makes Perpetual Motion possible.

sm0ky2

Consider the Boyle's Flask (which is pretty close to unity)
and use the kinetic energy of the falling fluid to close the loop
this is a mathematical overunity (never been accomplished that i know of)


the plank gravity engine works according to currently accepted scientific theory.
Our difficulties are in the engineering


There are many others, Chas Campbell comes to mind, though there was much controversy during his time, it has since been shown to have more merit than we gave him credit for.
Aspects of the system that were not, at the time, realized.


The book of baskara is theoretically sound, were we to accomplish the feat of designing "ideal systems", but alas the losses are what make his work underunity, not his designs themselves.
In a frictionless, lossless, gravitational field these systems would be perpetual and provide excess. As would many standard devices we use today, though thermodynamics includes system losses as input, on the basis that they theoretically must be overcome. Myself, I see this as a scapegoat to avoid discrepancies in the theory. How can losses be part of the input that is then lost?
If you added it as input, the input value would have to change! But no they want to add it in to balance their equations, not something that is physically added into the system.


Take the BTU equation for example:
Energy to boil a gallon of water


What about to boil 10 gallons?
Is that E * 10?


Are you sure? (Archer Quinn proved this to be false in a replicable experiment)











I was fixing a shower-rod, slipped and hit my head on the sink. When i came to, that's when i had the idea for the "Flux Capacitor", Which makes Perpetual Motion possible.

Willy



                       So, returning to declaration as posited by user frii143

Quote from: frii143 on May 20, 2023, 04:51:09 AM
you only have to pump up water one foot at any hight. if it is dropped at hight it would give you speed weight that more then its took pump it up. if you had a tower with two pockets a full one and an empty one the impacted could be hit a lever at the bottom that spins a generator to pump water to the top of the tower.

Greatings
                frii143

It requires the same amount of energy to lift an object against gravity's force
(a same amount of height),

1. When it is lifted rapidly.
   as
2. When it is lifted slowly.

This does not mean that the mechanism or the method to cause the lifting is as energy
efficient in both circumstances.

The same amount of energy is present in an object's falling due to gravity's force,
(a same amount of height),

1. When it falls rapidly.
   as
2. When it falls slowly.

It      SEEMS     as if     an object that has fallen rapidly had more energy, than the
same object had, in its being lowered gradually (a same amount of distance).

This is because we witness that energy of the rapid fall, all at once.
For example...  upon it having a sudden  impact.
... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

It requires the         same amount of energy       to accelerate an object of a given
mass, to some       given speed,         against the reactive force of its tendency to remain
at rest (its own inertia).....

1. When we accelerate that object suddenly to that given speed.
       as
2. When we gradually accelerate that object to that same given speed.
   and also note that
The object  when rapidly accelerated reaches that given speed sooner.
The object when gradually accelerated reaches that given speed in longer period of time.

The object  when rapidly accelerated reaches that given speed in a shorter distance of
travel.
The object when gradually accelerated reaches that given speed in a longer distance
of travel..