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



Sjack Abeling Gravity Wheel and the Worlds first Weight Power Plant

Started by AquariuZ, April 03, 2009, 01:17:07 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 45 Guests are viewing this topic.

Omnibus

Quote from: hansvonlieven on April 20, 2009, 06:34:25 PM
The problem lies with complex shapes like the one below. WM2D goes haywire if you do this. The curved or straight polygon tool in WM2D is unreliable.

Hans von Lieven

Well, again, why would the one polygon be preferable before the other in terms of complexity. Both seem pretty complex. Besides, what is the role of the polygon in the calculations? What is being calculated, it seems, are the trajectories of the balls with the corresponding constraints. So, you mean, wm2d prefers given constraints before others? This has to be understood better.

Omnibus

Quote from: hansvonlieven on April 20, 2009, 06:39:55 PM
Stefan and Broli,

If you don't believe my torque analysis simply print it out, glue it on a piece of cardboard, cut it out, stick a small coin over where the weights are and put a pin through the centre. You will soon find out which way it wants to turn.

Hans von Lieven

Well, better yet, replicate Aneling's device. I think @Dusty is doing that and we'll know soon of the outome. The question here is why shouldn't wm2d be of any use for the analysis of a device such as the discussed one?

broli

Quote from: Omnibus on April 20, 2009, 06:40:23 PM
Well, again, why would the one polygon be preferable before the other in terms of complexity. Both seem pretty complex. Besides, what is the role of the polygon in the calculations? What is being calculated, it seems, are the trajectories of the balls with the corresponding constraints. So, you mean, wm2d prefers given constraints before others? This has to be understood better.

Omnibus, are you saying that you believe this model works? What makes it different from any other ramp model? You could use slots to remove the whole complexity at once and see it has no tendcy to rotate either way.

AquariuZ

Quote from: Omnibus on April 20, 2009, 05:36:02 PM
@All,

Check this out. If I haven't overlooked something then that's it. And, let me add, if that's it then @eisenficker2000 rulez!

This should not turn to the left...

???

O, Hans already said that

hansvonlieven

What I am saying Omnibus is that the more complex the polygon the weirder the programme reacts. I have given up on the polygon tool after too many failures.

Hans
When all is said and done, more is said than done.     Groucho Marx