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



1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%

Started by cipbranea, May 21, 2014, 01:38:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

2020man

THANKS so much for doing this! Very helpful. Very encouraging.

But friction will be irrelevant with such a high gain . . .

Best wishes

2020

thngr

How come so easily made mistakes to overcome our wishes?

2020man

Quote from: thngr on November 03, 2014, 05:03:18 PM
some little math on it...

I can't find the post I saw last night redoing this analysis showing COP=1 . . . Which represents the reality?

My gut feeling is that the top of the pole must be directed and not driven, simply loosely following the motion of the arm so that the weight does its work in wanting to fall and the top of the shaft is merely preceding the position to maintain that situation. As the weight wants to fall the top of the shaft should want to move forward and so not provide a backwards force causing work to be needed to be done . . . so no energy input at the top . . . ?

Best wishes

2020

MoRo

Quote from: 2020man on November 04, 2014, 03:06:04 AM
My gut feeling is that the top of the pole must be directed and not driven, simply loosely following the motion of the arm so that the weight does its work in wanting to fall and the top of the shaft is merely preceding the position to maintain that situation. As the weight wants to fall the top of the shaft should want to move forward and so not provide a backwards force causing work to be needed to be done . . . so no energy input at the top . . . ?

Best wishes

2020
The weight will merely pursue balance at a lowest point. It does indeed require energy in the form of torque to rotate the top of the rod around a center point, to cause the imbalance which the weight will continue to pursue. (see my earlier post)

ARMCORTEX

The device never worked, video and claims were wrong.

Who is to blame for all this commotion ?