...is an open suggestion,for a possible PM
To play the well known long arm-short arm concept (a torque inequality on the same side of the fulcrum) ,we can think about a high and retarded drop down of a thinkable simple unbalanced arrangement,so to get easy, a small jump up (the "remake" of the starting imbalance).
For simplicity,we can imagine a "minimal wheel" :two spokes,only.
One spoke,with a fixed mass,plays a reference torque (medium).
The second spoke,with a mobile mass,plays a "go between" torque (bigger,smaller vs. medium).
The big fall is the elevation (diameter).
The small jump up,is the difference of long to small arm,nothing more.
So,we have a single problem :the mobile mass.
All the Best!
Alex
....as a simple understanding,can be depicted at: www.geocities.com/iacob_alex/Some_Drafts/text028.JPG
Here,you can experience (imagine ,then test) your's own variable arm procedure(VAP),as a minimal set of actions,so to play ,the long arm-short arm game.
If (M1=M2) and (R3-R1=constant arm difference),but the diameter of the wheel is little by little increasing, as in : www.geocities.com/iacob_alex/Some_Drafts/text045.jpg ,then have we a "small confusion"?!...or are we unable, to tell the difference between them?!
All the Best! / Alex
.....concept has two parts:
-big fall "H" (spoke),so greater v=g*t, EK=1/2m*v*v
-small jump "h"(m*g*h=const.,or h=const)as a spring,leap,hop,vault motion...
All the Bests! / Alex
...in simple words,it's a different manner to think about a possible "PM",in the most easy way:as a motto.
We can take advantage of a longer gravity drop down (natural "avalanche"/big fall ),so to can provide the same small jump up ("remake" of the next unbalance sequence).
Big fall down-small jump up,can help us not only to perform the self(for a museum piece...),but most important,to get out some useful power...for the real life.
Anyway,a question remains:why make it easier,when we can make it...not possible!?
Why to play Archimedes,rather than ornate our papers ,with decorative "arabesque" flowers/wheels...it's more "simpatico",doesn't so?!
This is dynamics vs. statics...
All the Best! / Alex
force/torque on the imbalanced arm is exactly equal to the mgh of the movable appendage (VAP).
throughout an entire cycle, the system remains the same
+ then -
it would be the same as having two identicle arms, and simply spinning the 'wheel' with the force you would have used to move the (VAP)
perhaps a stationary magnetic array (archer quinn) to move the VAP for 'free' ?
Hi sm0Ky2!
Sorry,but your message is as a cloudy mass of suspended word-particles.
Try to get a condense state,a more easy understanding thinking.
A simple "no any" manner, cann't help a message-dialogue.
All the Best! / Alex