Self-moving hoop...

[iacob alex]

    Hi Jim !

  As usually,the best teacher is reality.

  The problem is not the "intelectual property" in an open space,as this forum.

  An idea,if it can be a real solution,is a "key" to open the curiosity of people interested to build and test solutions.

The believers,in any domain are so diverse...but the people who realize are most important.

For me,the "key" is simplicity  of pendulum...

     All the Bests! / Alex

[Low-Q]

   ...can be an amusement toy ,for someone involved in self-motion, due to gravity.

      Thus,again take a look at :   www.geocities.com/iacob_alex/Some_Drafts/text013.jpg

      In this drawing,take off the "green" mass (M1)  and the "red" mass(M2).

      Right now,we have a simplified design:

        -a hoop,ring /playing as a rolling support

        -a connecting rod /playing as an eccentric mass

        -two lock-unlock systems

               All the Bests! / Alex

Well. Simply put: A mass that starts and ends in the same hight, cant gain energy. Not much help, but it might help to inform something that might make you guys think in another direction to gain OU

Vidar

[iacob alex]

     Hi Vidar !

  Your statement,manifesto ..."a mass that starts and ends in the same hight,can't give energy"...was put into a minimal expression,long time ago as an  "m*g*h  interdiction " in a potential field .

This is the old lesson "on  paper",if you remind our high school.

If you agree,that the best teacher is reality(experiment),we can tackle two cases ,only:

-m*g*h,or simply "h" intediction is correct,and "lasciate ogni spranza"

-"h" interdiction is a scientific "falsetto",and we have a real hope...

  It's difficult,in my opinion, to imagine a more "abecedarian" experiment than a self-moving hoop ...the problem is that we like too much the simulation(computer,paper,mentally beliefs) ,but not the a real simple test.

Where are you Aldo Costa,Vandugegs and others?
 
       All the Bests! / Alex   

[Low-Q]

     Hi Vidar !

  Your statement,manifesto ..."a mass that starts and ends in the same hight,can't give energy"...was put into a minimal expression,long time ago as an  "m*g*h  interdiction " in a potential field .

This is the old lesson "on  paper",if you remind our high school.

If you agree,that the best teacher is reality(experiment),we can tackle two cases ,only:

-m*g*h,or simply "h" intediction is correct,and "lasciate ogni spranza"

-"h" interdiction is a scientific "falsetto",and we have a real hope...

  It's difficult,in my opinion, to imagine a more "abecedarian" experiment than a self-moving hoop ...the problem is that we like too much the simulation(computer,paper,mentally beliefs) ,but not the a real simple test.

Where are you Aldo Costa,Vandugegs and others?
 
       All the Bests! / Alex   

Experiments in practice shows that all other ways to lift a mass a given hight requires the same energy regardless of its path. So why does not this apply to the gravity wheel, or hoop...? I believe that there is enough practical experiments that prooves the theory.

An experiment will therfor be yet another proof of this theory.

Vidar

[iacob alex]

    Hi Vidar!

  If so (the integral loop in a potential field is null and void),they missed the inertial effects:the "resistive underworld" ,that's inertia.

Again,we have here two possibilities:

-if the "h" interdiction (that takes into account the gravity,only..) is correct,a reasonable person will close the "PM dream shop"...it's simply a waste of time.

-it the "h" interdiction is an ideative misconception,we have the chance of experiments..to help the evolution of the old theory.

By the way: a wheel has many spokes,a hoop only two.

A wheel becomes "frozen" in this specific accelerating gravity flow:it acts as a comparative,weighting machine,nothing more.

A hoop,lever can take advantage for a longer fall...so to store and use it later...here,it's a big difference.

    All the Bests! / Alex