Roll on the 20th June

[exxcomm0n]

@ Chet

Yeah, i did say minor alterations man.

This is like a piece of music, and I posted my rendition.

The lift lever is not the same orientation or length.
The weight is not suspended.

Once you have the concept you can play with it (I still think my 1st idea has merit, but depends on pre-seeding the tank side).

Damn it!

There you go.....making me explain things and I said I wasn't gonna!

I guess I'll live w/ that.

@ AB

I did not see his demonstration exhibit the kind of momentum to really capitalize on that effect and achieve advantage.

But you are right and with significant momentum the swinging force does come into play enough to alter the outcome.

It even does in his demo!

But not enough to negate the outcome.

I did not see that effect enough to alter the production, but in my representation I took that away.

If you want to, make a toy and show me the swing effect please.

I like toys!



EDIT: Jeff Buckley's "So Real" just started playing. How apropos. 

[helmut]

...and then Archers idea as presented (even if incomplete. I have no quarrel with that fact.)
I tried to make things proportionate, but it's still an approximation.

I'll just idle back in the tide waters and wait for the warm jets (any Eno fans out there?)



EDIT:

If you wanna make a toy (my favorite proof method) just convert meters to centimeters, or ?decameters? (american stoner here....I mean a group of 10 cm).

Let's have some fun!

I really wish there was a "groove" icon here.

Hey ExxcommOn
Very good illustration . Thanks for work and thanks for sharing

helmut

[Rusty_Springs]

Hi All
Changed my mind again and desided to post, I know nothing about how planes work but I find dirts statement hard to beleave when he said he uses less fuel going up then comming down.
If thats the case wouldn't the space shuttle need a bigger tank comming down then the 3 or so story tank it uses to go up, how does it come down with no fuel at all, also bransons spaceship lands without fuel, to save weight it uses another places fuel to get it up, its own to fly around and none to land.
Call me stupid but I can't see how you can use less fuel to go up then you use to come down.
Take Care All
Graham

[Bubba1]

Below is my drawing of how this operates.  The red/blue boxes represent the Mounting Brackets where the sliding mechanism connects to the wheel. The Red side is the side that experiences the Force of the graviationally-imbalanced Rod. The Green arrow indicates the Direction of that Force.

the GREY part of the rod acts as the FULCRUM. - YES its a very WIDE Fulcrum. The distance between the weights and the two mounts represents your "lever arms"....

Smoky2:
Am I looking at this correctly?  You have the green arrow on the left pointing up.  Do you mean to say that gravity pushes up on the left side?  The way it is offset, the right side would tend to overpower the left side, but I think gravity would also pull down on the left side.
Spaghetti Brain

[exxcomm0n]

@ Rusty(Graham)

Do not EVER think about flying a plane man, you may be hell on wheels for critical analysis, but your avionics is sadly lacking I'm afraid sir.

The plane wing needs atmosphere, the thicker the better sometimes.

It's the atmospheres movement over the wing that provides lift.

Since the upper curved part is longer, it takes more time for air to travel over it, providing lift (or this is my present understanding).

The space shuttle uses enough energy to get back sync w/ the earths spin, an then into the grip of gravity to be pulled down fast to "break into" atmosphere.

Too fast and it takes special shielding to defray the heat from friction with the air.

If they were using a lot of energy, I'd think it would be to slow down, but they ain't built that way.