Roll on the 20th June

[usama salah]

thanks  quinn Atcher
but ,  your magnetic wheel also is working

[dani1]

Archer Quinn,

show a picture of your working device, here or at your site
All other is only blabla

[libra_spirit]

This is a most intresting thread, lots of good comments and observations by everyone, from both the conventional and latest physics models. I feel that all of us inside really would like this to be true, but then the doubts. I have to admit I just may have to try some of this. I think the real question is will the wheel accelerate? As gravity is an accelerating force.

Intresting thing about gravity is that all objects fall at about the same velocity of acceleration, 32 feet per second squared.
Since the wheel is balanced does it matter how much weight you add to one side? Because inertial momentum and gravity are suposedly the same force functionally, will the balanced weight oppose the resulting pull of gravity by a squared function also? If true this means that altering the offset weight ratio will effect the acceleration of the fall, and we no longer are observing gravity, but a combination of inertial momentum opposing gravity. What is the best ratio?

Rod offset weight must exceed 1/32 of the wheels weight for a squared gain in acceleration of the wheel. This is because 1 squared is 1 and will offer only a linear gain.

Some rough and quick Calculations:

Set up a balance beam.
16 pound weights on both ends of a balance beam falls 1 foot to reach a 45 degree position where one side hits the floor.
Add 1 pound weight to one side, this side accelerates at 1 foot per second squared straight down, the other side accelerates upwards at 1 foot per second squared [best case]? This is because the 1 pound weight is about 1/32 of the total weight of the balanced inertial mass it is working against [best guess].

[So gravity is balanced for 16 pounds on each side, leaving 1 pound of acceleration down at 32 feet / sec ^2 and 32 pounds of resistance from inertial momentum. 1 pound moving it into motion now at 1 foot per second squared acceleration. The balance accelerates at ~1 foot per second for 1 foot and hits the floor traveling 1 foot per second. Inertial momentum is about 33 foot pounds per second? If true I will not be placing my finger under this. This assumes the balance is firmly attached to the weights on both ends and the upward moving wieght pushes the downwards moving weight also as it stops.

We now double the length of the balance beam and see that the force is squared because the motion is an acceleration with twice the drop distance, [2 times the acceleration distance]. However 1 foot per second squared is still 1, so we see there is a minimum weight ratio for gains here! The counter weights off set balance, must be heavier then 1/32 of the wheels balanced weight, to create acceleration of a squaring increase above 1 where only a linear gain is present. In the above example the impact should be doubled for a doubling length of the fall, but if we use a 2 pound weight then we get 4 times the impact or about 2 feet per second squared. However we still only have the same resistance from inertial momentum to overcome = the balanced weight so the wheel acelerates faster.

With a 2 pound weight dropping 2 feet we now get a velocity of 4 feet per second hitting the floor with inertial momentum of 132 pounds of force. This is a ratio of 1/16 on offset weight to balanced weight giving a 4X gain of force in 2 feet of motion.

In the wheel this is the actual power of the system, and although it can not increase per fall it can speed up to make more falls per second.

Inertial momentum will be constant on both sides of the balance beam but opposite in direction? Gravity will be reversed from momentum on one side but cancelled for the wheels weight side to side. At the end of the motion do we now also have 132 foot pounds lifting the weight that moves up, or do we only have 2? Did we gain energy from momentum over simple starting gravity force of the offset of only 1 pound after aceleration is added in? Is there a x foot per second gain of the off balanced weight?

Is this not the question?  Is there not a minimum diameter and weight ratio involved as suggested? The wheel must be large enough and the rods must land in the correct weight ratio to the wheel?

Will the 132 foot pounds per second be enough inertial momentum to raise the 4 pound rod at 45 degrees [best case] an inch or so?

You can see if this works the diameter of the wheel will set the power of the device by a squared function of the difference of offset weight to balanced weight being greater then a 1/32 ratio! Less then this ratio will offer less then 1, and increase may offer the square of the gain. Now the larger diameter will mean you have to move the rod further to get the same offset of balance as this is based on diameter ratio to offset distance, There will be a size that is too large for a magnet to push this far smoothly. The repelling magnet will have to be pulsed at high speed over a certain diameter, and probably increased using diamagnetic motion rather then magnetic motion as it is a much stronger repelling force.

Consider also that at the intersection of opposing magnets gravity is lower. If the rods do jump up and get grabbed by the overhead magnets and "float" through 30 to 60 degrees of turn we have now reduced the weight even more on one side of the wheel, by the complete rod weight. The opposing magnets at bottom only need raise the rods off the wheel to take the weight of the rods completely. As the wheel turns past bottom the weight slowly drops back to the wheel. In this sense the rods shift from inertial momentum to offset gravity devices. If there is a magnet at the bottom and it lifts the rod only a mm, it has totally lifted the weight of the rod off the wheel. At 45 degrees it only needs lift half the weight.

Did I not read somewhere the electromagnet only fires for millisecinds? This denotes it will shoot upwards and the overhead magnets will now grab the weight barely holding it until release.

Sincerely,
Dave L

[MrGrynch]

The phenomenon we call "gravity" is the result of the curvature of spacetime.  Matter and energy curve spacetime. 

Thanks, that really clears it up.
So next question, what is spacetime and how is it curved by matter and energy?

Everything you just explained to me like I was a physics major sounds like a lot of theory and not much application.

My point again is that we have created an elaborate structure to explain the way we perceive the universe without any actual understanding of it.  This is how science works, theorise, test, observe.  One day someone will propose an alternate theory based on further understandings and observations and this will become the next explanation and so on until the Grand Unified Theory of Everything occurs so somebody.

It seems to me that gravity is one of the most basic and fundamental phenomena?s we know of and yet, while we understand its observable qualities we are still only theorising why or how it works.

Until we have this basic understanding, I believe there is far more for us to yet know than is already known about the universe.
Unless you can fill me in over a few paragraphs.

If you would like a different (in my opinion, more plausible) explanation, please see my theory paper:

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/roscoe.pdf

Also an experiment concept to prove or disprove the hypothesis, which will also prove or disprove a key feature of general relativity.

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/roscoe2.pdf

Cheers,
-Dave

[erickdt]

The phenomenon we call "gravity" is the result of the curvature of spacetime.  Matter and energy curve spacetime. 

Thanks, that really clears it up.
So next question, what is spacetime and how is it curved by matter and energy?

Everything you just explained to me like I was a physics major sounds like a lot of theory and not much application.

My point again is that we have created an elaborate structure to explain the way we perceive the universe without any actual understanding of it.  This is how science works, theorise, test, observe.  One day someone will propose an alternate theory based on further understandings and observations and this will become the next explanation and so on until the Grand Unified Theory of Everything occurs so somebody.

It seems to me that gravity is one of the most basic and fundamental phenomena?s we know of and yet, while we understand its observable qualities we are still only theorising why or how it works.

Until we have this basic understanding, I believe there is far more for us to yet know than is already known about the universe.
Unless you can fill me in over a few paragraphs.

Okay. E=MC^2 That's how gravity works/what gravity is.