1. On the down side the object must be heavier than the same object on the up side.
2. At the bottom the object must change from being heavier on the down side to being lighter on the up side.
3. On the up side the object must be lighter than the same object was the down side.
4. At the top the object must change back from being lighter on the up side to heavier on the down side.
You're forgetting about moment arms. Even if the object on one side is heavier than on the other side, if the moments about the center of rotation are not correct the device still won't rotate.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/physgal.htm
Cola,
That is daum.
yep it's amazing how that little thing called "equilibrium" tends to get in the way
It is a function of time. If the same mass (upon which gravity applies a force) takes longer to fall than it does to rise then you have an energy producing machine.
Time is not a force, time does not have anything to do with gravity powered machines.
But time is a factor.
Like time*distance or distance/time is a specific force.
Acceleration is the change in velocity over time.
best,
sushi
Right sushimoto, F = ma, or F = m * change in velocity / change in time, or t * F = m * v. If you increase the time coming down you then have more than enough momentum to send the mass back up.
Brian quote: Time is not a force, time does not have anything to do with gravity powered machines.
Maybe this mistaken belief is why you have not built one.
As you see on the animation of the gravitywheel from TinselKoala, the weights is using less time to fall down at the right side, but also the total mass at the right sider is less accordingly. So no net fore is increased on that side. On the left side, the total density is greater, but again the speed is less accordingly.
So to make a working gravitywheel, you must create and destroy mass - which is yet very impossible to do. I had a try with a vacuum based gravity wheel by "creating" and "destroying" mass by decreasing and increasing a volume of vacuum, but after a few thaughts and tips from members here, I realized that it will never work. It's still hard for me to realize this fact :)
Br.
Vidar
Quote from: brian334 on February 19, 2009, 05:43:22 PM
1. On the down side the object must be heavier than the same object on the up side.
2. At the bottom the object must change from being heavier on the down side to being lighter on the up side.
3. On the up side the object must be lighter than the same object was the down side.
4. At the top the object must change back from being lighter on the up side to heavier on the down side.
This cannot be proved to be true.
I've been working on equations that will once and for all settle the matter of which weighs more, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead. I'm attempting to prove that x = y and as soon as that's accomplished the question will be resolved.
This work has brought me to a conclusion most gravity powered perpetual motion seekers ignore. Until this single idea is implemented no one will ever solve the problem.
QuoteWhere to build?
I'd suggest somewhere outside the boundaries of the known universe. Perhaps in your dreams.
Bessler007
Cmdr, MIB
007,
If you want to find out if a pound of lead or a pound of feathers
weights more I suggest this test.
1. Drop a pound of lead on your foot.
2. Than from the same height drop a pound of feathers on your foot.
After you get out of the hospital please give us a report on your test.
007,
All inventions are outside the boundaries of the known universe.
Until they are invented.
Brian334, your user name is rather cryptic....but I think I may have cracked the code.
You are 33 going on 4.
I kid, of course.
Statistically, I had to do it.
Quote from: TechStuf on April 16, 2009, 01:32:29 PM
Brian334, your user name is rather cryptic....but I think I may have cracked the code.
You are 33 going on 4.
I kid, of course.
Statistically, I had to do it.
TechStuf
This sounds like an interesting game so here is my try.
Brian has 3 kids and he is 34 when he made his name here. Or he is on his 3rd wife and he is only 34. LOL
anyone has tried to use the eddie current law that makes a magnet fall slowly in a tube of aluminium or copper to reduce the weight( creates drag) on the downside or the upside ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcVG6c_OvYU&feature=related
im sure it would be worth a shot to try if you use magnet as your weigth in a wheel.
1. On the down side the object must be heavier than the same object on the up side.
2. At the bottom the object must change from being heavier on the down side to being lighter on the up side.
3. On the up side the object must be lighter than the same object was the down side.
4. At the top the object must change back from being lighter on the up side to heavier on the down side.
The important question is how can this happen?
Quote from: brian334 on April 16, 2009, 06:16:45 PM
1. On the down side the object must be heavier than the same object on the up side.
2. At the bottom the object must change from being heavier on the down side to being lighter on the up side.
3. On the up side the object must be lighter than the same object was the down side.
4. At the top the object must change back from being lighter on the up side to heavier on the down side.
The important question is how can this happen?
Greetings Brian334
I would say descending and ascending sides. But you are correct for standard approaches. Bessler made the statement that to keep the weight on one side and not the other as well.
Quote from: brian334 on April 16, 2009, 06:16:45 PM
1. On the down side the object must be heavier than the same object on the up side.
2. At the bottom the object must change from being heavier on the down side to being lighter on the up side.
3. On the up side the object must be lighter than the same object was the down side.
4. At the top the object must change back from being lighter on the up side to heavier on the down side.
The important question is how can this happen?
The answer is to RELAY a weight from six o'clock STRAIGHT UP THE MIDDLE to twelve o'clock!
This type of wheel will not turn continuously, rather, it would turn 180°, stop, pass the weight back to the top, then turn 180° again, stop, and so on.
The question is: Would this stop and go action be a detriment to trying to get useful work from this device?
Quote from: brian334 on April 16, 2009, 06:16:45 PM
1. On the down side the object must be heavier than the same object on the up side.
2. At the bottom the object must change from being heavier on the down side to being lighter on the up side.
3. On the up side the object must be lighter than the same object was the down side.
4. At the top the object must change back from being lighter on the up side to heavier on the down side.
The important question is how can this happen?
By making object spin!
According to "Bruce DePalma - Spinning Ball Experiments" a spinning object falls faster and ALSO going up faster compared to non spinning object. Se this page:
http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm
/Thanks
Quote from: brian334 on February 19, 2009, 05:43:22 PM
1. On the down side the object must be heavier than the same object on the up side.
2. At the bottom the object must change from being heavier on the down side to being lighter on the up side.
3. On the up side the object must be lighter than the same object was the down side.
4. At the top the object must change back from being lighter on the up side to heavier on the down side.
Well, the object must go from being heavier on one side to lighter on the other side - sideways. Not vertically. So the energy required to lift the object back on the top is less than the object release when falling down on the other side. How you do that is by showing that gravity isn't a conservative force. Very tricky that one ;D
Vidar
Quote from: 3decimal14 on April 17, 2009, 04:36:51 AM
By making object spin!
According to "Bruce DePalma - Spinning Ball Experiments" a spinning object falls faster and ALSO going up faster compared to non spinning object. See this page:
http://www.evert.de/eft907e.htm
/Thanks
Also, see the gyroscopes work of Tesla and Eric Laithwaite.
I cannot fault the 4 things that were mentioned, seems very logical, unless of course we could have teleportation or an exchange with a parallel universe, then we could rewrite the 4.
Alas that seems unlikely so..
I think 3 things are required for any gravity power device to work.
1. Faith (just have to believe real hard)
2. Hope (and never give up)
3. Charity (and maybe nature might give you a break for sticking with it for so long)
The object has to be submersed in a liquid.
Quote from: Yortuk Festrunk on April 17, 2009, 03:31:17 AM
The answer is to RELAY a weight from six o'clock STRAIGHT UP THE MIDDLE to twelve o'clock!
This type of wheel will not turn continuously, rather, it would turn 180°, stop, pass the weight back to the top, then turn 180° again, stop, and so on.
The question is: Would this stop and go action be a detriment to trying to get useful work from this device?
OK people, I just gave you a HUGE clue on how to make a working system.
Can any of you figure out how to relay a weight UP from six o'clock to twelve o'clock?
I already know how, I want to see how creative the thinking is here.
You will be amazed when you see how this works.
I'll check back in one week to see if anybody else can figure out how to raise a weight in a self contained system.
This idea is very new so I haven't ran it through extensive thinking yet but I like to share it anyway in it's "primitive" form.
If you had a very long tube standing up filled with water. And let's say at the bottom you "trap" a small height of water and drag it up. We all know that this requires no work right? Because both buoyancy and gravity cancel out. So nothing really changes.
Now let's replace this experiment with something that would float up. The below presentation should explain everything. Before you try to close your mind on it do some proper thinking first because this has something you have to "get" for yourself as I feel that too much hand holding isn't good either.
Follow the numbering. You also might want to open the image in a separate window as it's too big for this forum and thus needs annoying scrolling.
I just realized you do not even need a liquid.
Edit: I then realized I was mistaken in an assumption I made so that's close to the end of that run ;D.
Yeah, you realized the axle placement has to keep changing on the pillar so energy balances.
Keep working Broli,
Think buoyancy machine.
Re-read the 4 requirements necessary for any gravity
powered machine to work.
I am going to add a fifth requirement for any gravity powered
machine to work.
#5. The machine must be submersed in a liquid.
Quote from: brian334 on April 20, 2009, 09:19:12 PM
I am going to add a fifth requirement for any gravity powered
machine to work.
#5. The machine must be submersed in a liquid.
Why do you feel this is necessary?
Quote from: Yortuk Festrunk on April 20, 2009, 01:44:47 AM
The answer is to RELAY a weight from six o'clock STRAIGHT UP THE MIDDLE to twelve o'clock!
This type of wheel will not turn continuously, rather, it would turn 180°, stop, pass the weight back to the top, then turn 180° again, stop, and so on.
The question is: Would this stop and go action be a detriment to trying to get useful work from this device?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK people, I just gave you a HUGE clue on how to make a working system.
Can any of you figure out how to relay a weight UP from six o'clock to twelve o'clock?
I already know how, I want to see how creative the thinking is here.
You will be amazed when you see how this works.
I'll check back in one week to see if anybody else can figure out how to raise a weight in a self contained system.
So it's been a week. Were any of you able to figure out how to make a system like this work?
The key word is "RELAY".
I will start a new thread for this system. This will revolutionize energy production since it is one hundred percent mechanical and gravity driven.
I'll be looking forward to it.
Its kind of like boobs in water, are they heavier at the top or bottom of the pool?
Quote from: jane36d on June 07, 2009, 04:22:12 PM
Its kind of like boobs in water, are they heavier at the top or bottom of the pool?
I don't understand, can you post a picture? ;D
make it float up and sink down
Quote from: broli on April 20, 2009, 10:02:10 AM
This idea is very new so I haven't ran it through extensive thinking yet but I like to share it anyway in it's "primitive" form.
If you had a very long tube standing up filled with water. And let's say at the bottom you "trap" a small height of water and drag it up. We all know that this requires no work right? Because both buoyancy and gravity cancel out. So nothing really changes.
Now let's replace this experiment with something that would float up. The below presentation should explain everything. Before you try to close your mind on it do some proper thinking first because this has something you have to "get" for yourself as I feel that too much hand holding isn't good either.
Follow the numbering. You also might want to open the image in a separate window as it's too big for this forum and thus needs annoying scrolling.
The weight that bearly floats up will bearly provide energy back. Bearly - bearly = 0
Vidar