Big fall,small jump...

[iacob alex]

   
    ...is an open suggestion,for a possible PM

        To play the well known long arm-short arm concept (a torque inequality on the same side of the fulcrum) ,we can think about a high and retarded drop down of a thinkable simple unbalanced arrangement,so to get easy, a small jump up (the "remake" of the starting imbalance).

        For simplicity,we can imagine a "minimal wheel" :two spokes,only.

        One spoke,with a fixed mass,plays a reference torque (medium).

        The second spoke,with a mobile mass,plays a "go between" torque (bigger,smaller vs. medium).

        The big fall is the elevation (diameter).

        The small jump up,is the  difference of long to small arm,nothing more.

        So,we have a single problem :the mobile mass.

             All the Best!   
                                         Alex

[iacob alex]

    ....as a simple understanding,can be depicted at:   www.geocities.com/iacob_alex/Some_Drafts/text028.JPG

        Here,you can experience (imagine ,then test) your's own variable arm procedure(VAP),as a minimal set of actions,so to play ,the long arm-short arm game.

        If  (M1=M2)  and  (R3-R1=constant arm difference),but the diameter of the wheel is little by little increasing, as in :   www.geocities.com/iacob_alex/Some_Drafts/text045.jpg   ,then have we a "small confusion"?!...or are  we unable, to tell the difference between them?!

            All the Best! / Alex

[iacob alex]

  .....concept has two parts:

    -big fall "H" (spoke),so greater v=g*t, EK=1/2m*v*v

     -small jump "h"(m*g*h=const.,or h=const)as a spring,leap,hop,vault motion...

        All the Bests! / Alex

[iacob alex]

   ...in simple words,it's a different manner to think about a possible "PM",in the most easy way:as a motto.

      We can take advantage of a longer gravity drop down (natural "avalanche"/big fall ),so to can provide the same small jump up ("remake" of the next unbalance sequence).

      Big fall down-small jump up,can help us not only to perform the self(for a museum piece...),but most important,to get out some  useful power...for the real life.

      Anyway,a question remains:why make it easier,when we can make it...not possible!?

      Why to play Archimedes,rather than ornate our papers  ,with decorative "arabesque" flowers/wheels...it's more "simpatico",doesn't so?!

      This is dynamics vs. statics...

          All the Best! / Alex       

[sm0ky2]

force/torque on the imbalanced arm is exactly equal to the mgh of the movable appendage (VAP).

throughout an entire cycle, the system remains the same
+ then -

it would be the same as having two identicle arms, and simply spinning the 'wheel' with the force you would have used to move the (VAP)

perhaps a stationary magnetic array (archer quinn) to move the VAP for 'free' ?