Jhula principle - increase speed by applying brakes.

[xnonix]

Hi all,

In this "simple" model we have to many variables to tweak at the same time to make it as efficient as possible (I "still" think is not overunity).

We have two solutions to this problem:
1. Make a program that simulates millions of setups possibilities to find working patterns to find the best options.

2. Try ourselves by trial/error. This way is funnier for us but I think the best solution is above.

I will try to tweak only the weights of pendulum and lever in a dynamic way  with wm2d keeping lenght an geometries constant.

Good luck with your models,
xnonix

EDIT: One more thing. Gravity is not like wind. Wind need contact surface to induce a force. Gravity only need MASS (but not surface) to act.

[aleks]

EDIT: One more thing. Gravity is not like wind. Wind need contact surface to induce a force. Gravity only need MASS (but not surface) to act.

Simply perceive objects as porous when comparing gravity to river stream.

We do not know much about gravity, but there's no reason to say 'no' to such devices since: 1. physics does not know anything for sure about gravity. 2. if you will be using your own concepts about gravity, it won't change anything for bad due to 1.

So, we are safe not to look like dumb-asses when dealing with gravity. Because those who instantly say 'no' are more dumb-asses than we are. 

[xnonix]

So, we are safe not to look like dumb-asses when dealing with gravity. Because those who instantly say 'no' are more dumb-asses than we are. 

Well, I won't enter this spiral. Gravity is gravity and there is not known shield to avoid it. But we can put a wall to avoid wind. So I won't compare both. If you find a gravity shield you find overunity.

[aleks]

So, we are safe not to look like dumb-asses when dealing with gravity. Because those who instantly say 'no' are more dumb-asses than we are. 

Well, I won't enter this spiral. Gravity is gravity and there is not known shield to avoid it. But we can put a wall to avoid wind. So I won't compare both. If you find a gravity shield you find overunity.

Your "gravity is gravity" does not talk about the essense of gravity, from the point of view of atomic level physics for example. It talks about visible effects only.

I know that modern science tends to look at the gravity as an effect of skew of space-time continuum... But even in that case what's more important in all this stuff is that gravity creates motion.

For example, as far as I know some japanese inventor created a working naval vessel that uses random underwater currents and transforms them into a directed motion. This is not related to gravity, of course, but this shows an alternative TECHNICAL approach to the problem.

Beside that, physics has a strong economical trace in its studies. So, in my opinion physics is not about studying effects, but about measuring economical feasibility. That's why it may not count some effects that can be used to extract free energy. It's like a filter of perception: due to the filter (physics) you do not see some things, because if you start seeing them, most instruments immediately become obsolete (including physics as a part of economical science). One of the filters created in 1773 (if I'm not mistaken) in France is that 'perpetual motion is impossible'..while this of course, contradicts things we see: winds blow, rivers flow, sun shines..seemingly forever (at least for our civilization's lifespan).

That's just my point of view - no need to argue with it. I'm certainly wrong.

[prajna]

Here is a version that should be good to study because a) it is about as simple as I can get and have it running well. b) it is very well balanced. c) we have got best speed (about 120rpm).

I think the pendulum swing has most effect when it is swinging left and right at the top and bottom of the counterweight rotation.  When it swings left at the top and right at the bottom then the pendulum's momentum increases the torque.  When it swings right at the top and left at the bottom it reduces the torque. If the torque increases or decreases too much then the period of the pendulum gets out of sync with the rotation of the counterweight.  When we start the system the rotation is too fast for the pendulum to be in sync and the average angular momentum of the counterweight begins to slow.  If we are lucky (we have a fairly regular period on the pendulum and a narrow range of angular momentum on the counterweight) then the system gets in sync and stays in that state because as the load tends to slow the counterweight it brings the pendulum period more in sync with the top and bottom of the counterweight rotation.  As that happens the pendulum accelerates the counterweight.  Too much acceleration and the pendulum 'overshoots' and gets out of sync. Too much load and the pendulum undershoots.

How is that for a theory?  Can we test it or analyse it from the model?

I suggest we leave the gravity debate alone: Gravity is the same on both sides of the device; any acceleration from gravity on the left is matched by deceleration on the right.  I think my theory is more likely and logical.