First I would just like to apologize for any disrespect that I might have been displaying. I have been having headaches for like a decade and recently I have felt some relief from doing lower back stretches. I think that my brain was being squished into the roof of my skull because my spinal cord was twisted. So there might have been something wrong with me physically that could have made me agitated.
I drew a new drawing for a gravity wheel that tries to keep the weights continuously over balanced. My inspiration for this was a solution that I discovered for loading weights. If you split up a scenario into four sections and use a 4:1 ratio from the very top to the very bottom, you can lift from the third section up to the top section four weights from one weight dropped from the top to the bottom. Then if you drop from the top to the bottom again with a 3:4 ratio to lift from the bottom to the third section up you have a slight gain. I calculated that you could drop 4 weights and lift 16 from the third section to the top section. Then you could drop 16 weights from the top section. That's 16*(4/3)=21.33. So a total of 20 weights have fallen to the bottom and 21.33 were lifted to the third position up. So you could by loading and dropping numerous weights create a perpetual motion machine with these ratios and positions.
I wanted to take this mathematically correct design and make it useful because lifting and dropping weights with minimal effect don't do much. I thought that there was a pattern. So I drew a design that I think could cause a wheel to be continuously seeking overbalance. There might be several designs like it but this is the design that I drew. There might be several designs like it because the secret might be in the four to one ratio moving weights from the third position up to the top position and the top position to the bottom position.
My wheel at its most efficient positions possible for the weights have about 20 to 18 overbalance when all of the weights have swung into position if the heavy weight is about 6 weight and the lighter weights is about 1 weight. Then it's about balanced on the other 45 degree of the turn.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
I made a wheel like this in the beginning. It had eight fulcrums at the perimeter, so i tested with 8, 4, and 2 levers at different lengths and stopping points. It could not make a complete rotation. The weights all end up at the bottom. It was good for learning.
Last edited by spinner361 on Mon Sep 26, 2022 6:28 pm, edited 3 times in total.
spinner361 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 26, 2022 5:44 pm
I made a wheel like this in the beginning. It had eight fulcrums at the perimeter, so i tested with 8, 4, and 2 levers at different lengths and stopping points. It could not make a complete rotation. The weights all end up at the bottom. It was good for learning.
Do you still have pictures of your design that you can easily post in this topic? I would like to see them. You didn't say anything about the weight loading solution though. The weight loading solution is a technical success but it's not very useful. If there can be success then a similar design might exist that works more usefully. That's what I was trying to accomplish was trying to get a similar design to the weight loading solution but with swinging weights.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
I did not do the weight loading solution. I do not see how it can work, but I suggest trying it. Cardboard and popsicle sticks will show you quickly.
This was about twenty years ago. I do not have any pictures from back in those days. When my ideas did not work and it was so obvious as to why, I was so embarrassed at the useless monstrosities that I created. That is how I felt at the time.
Last edited by spinner361 on Mon Sep 26, 2022 9:37 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The weight loading solution is a calculation that works. I'm not going to build it because it can't produce useful work but it's mathematically correct. First step is to drop a weight from the top position to the bottom position and lift 4 weights from the third position up to the top position. So as long as you have enough weights in the third position you only need one weight in the top position to do this infinitely. So remember that. You only need one weight at the top to do this forever as long as there are weights in the third position. SO you only need to reload the third position fully. Here is a drawing.
The first math is the 1:4 ratio that loads the weights from the third position to the top position. That's easy. One weight loads four weights. Then the second math is the 3:4 ratio that lifts from the bottom to the third position. That's about 1.33 times the number of weights falling from the top position. So if you had 48 weights fall you would lift about 63 weights to the third position up. You require 12 weights to fall to lift 48 weights to the top position. 12+48=60. You have three extra weights in the third position now. You only need 1 extra weight in the third position for this to work forever because it only takes one extra weight at the top position to restart the process forever.
I don't care about the weight reloading model that I invented with the 1:4 ratio and the 3:4 ratio. It just proves that there is a geometrical variant in lifting with the 1:4 ratio in certain positions and I think that my drawing with the swinging weights is the swinging weights version of this geometrical variant. So while your designs didn't work at random chance, mine are correlated to this weight loading design and might work because the weight loading design works mathematically. I think that the key to my swinging weights working is the position of the heavy weight between the furthest position and the center of the axle. So I think the length of the heavy weight's lever should be about 3. But it could be a little more or less than three if it can be more centered between the furthest position and the axle. However I think my design would work without being perfectly precise. I think that the lever can be 3 and the weight of the heavy weight can be 6 and not something too specific like 5.33 and it would still work.
This needs a very professional builder or it will become public domain in a year because I do not have the resources to build it. I'm referring to the weight swinging design that I think is worth building and not the weight loading design that would work just on math itself but is USELESS.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
How about show it step-by-step? I cannot follow you. If you cannot explain it that is fine, but I want to let you know that I do not understand. Maybe the mass amounts will make it understandable.
Last edited by spinner361 on Tue Sep 27, 2022 4:08 am, edited 3 times in total.
The top position falls to the bottom like on an elevator that is 4:1 ratio and lifts the third position up to the top. Because it falls four distance and lifts one distance up it can lift 4 weights. It's the total weights falling to the bottom from the top, plus one extra on the top to restart the process that is needed to be lifted to the third position to keep it running perpetually. There will always be extra weights in all of the positions if you put them there. The question is whether there are enough being reloaded at the different steps to keep it running perpetually. The reloading that needs to be done is to the third position up and one extra in the top position.
First lift 48 weights to the top from the third position by dropping 12 weights from the top to the bottom. That's the 1:4 ratio. Second drop the 48 weights to the bottom from the top on a 3:4 ratio. That's 1.33*48=63.84 weights that can be lifted to the third position up. The total weights that fell is 12+48=60. The total weights that were lifted were 63. If you drop those three extra weights from the top position to the bottom you can lift 12 more weights from the third position to the top position. It doesn't matter that those three weights are in the third position because all of those weights can be considered to be in the top position because you can simply have extra weights in the top position that move extra weights from the third position to the top position. What matters is how many weights fall to the bottom and are lifted to the third position up. The extra weights lifted to the third position up are automatically considered to be in the very top position for the purposes of determining if it can run perpetually because that's where the weights fall from to reach the bottom and any amount of weights still at the top position would restart the process of loading weights because they lift more weights from the third position than are dropped, four more weights.
Look the loading weights design is simply mathematically sound. It's not useful though. The real insight into this is how to make a design that uses the same pattern and does it usefully. I think that my swinging weight design is one of those versions. There might be more versions that take advantage of this pattern.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
That's right my calculations are all focused on balanced formations. But that's fine. If there are all balanced formations and in part of the ratios there is a gain, then it can operate perpetually. So you are kind of splitting hairs.
I don't plan to build the weight loading device. It merely shows that there is a pattern that exists that can create over unity that can be used for other designs such as my weight swinging design. Where you blindly created a weight swinging design like mine, you didn't focus on a pattern that exists that works like my weight loading design.
I think that the pattern that exists is that the loading device is split in sections. If one weight loading is in the top third section up and one goes from the bottom to the top, I think that is the key. The position on my swinging weight design that puts the heavy 6 heavy weight half way between the 1 heavy weights, it makes the wheel balanced in part of the turn and overbalanced in part of the turn. There is no counter torque. The counter torque would come from the wheel turning too quickly and the weights not swinging into position in time.
If the length of the large swinging weights lever is 3 and the large swinging weight is 6 heavy then wouldn't the wheel be balanced for 45 degree of the turn and unbalanced the other 45 degree of the turn except when the weights are swinging?
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
There is a larger difference the larger the number of weights that are transferring. When you ended your counting with 4 trading for 3, it was the minimum variation that is perfectly even. But say you dropped 50 weights to lift 200 to the top and then drop 200 weights you would get 266 weights to the third position, that's 16 weights extra. The operation requires that only one weight needs to be extra at the very top to restart the process. Any extra weights being lifted to the third position over one weight is then going to allow the operation to go forever and more than one weight exists at 200 weights being dropped at an astounding 16 extra weights. 15 more weights than necessary to achieve over unity. I mean there is a larger difference the larger number of weights are being used. You can't just end the calculation at 3 traded for 4 because that will be perfectly even. Besides I don't care about the weight loading model that works mathematically. The goal is to find the solution that is useful from knowing about the weight loading model. I think that my weight swinging design is one of those. My weight swinging design should work.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
Tarsier79 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 28, 2022 12:51 pm
P. Show the math as I have, but how you want to do it. It always works out equal. There is no magic or trick/leverage overunity.
Spinner, If there was OU at the end, some of this could be used to move the weights around. There is not.
What do you mean show the math? I wrote several examples already. There will always be extra weights at every position, the goal is to make it so that it will not run out of weights at the top. To do that you only need to reload an extra weight to the third position up. Like in the 200 weight example, you need to drop first 50 weights from 1:4 ratio and then 200 weights from 3:4 ratio to lift 266 weights. The total weights dropped was 250 but the total weights lifted was 266. Dropping an extra weight or 50 weights at the top to restart the process means nothing as long as there was an extra weight loaded to the third position up. Say you dropped five weights from the top you would get 20 weights in the top position. Drop 16 of those weights and you get 21 weights in the third position. You then have 4 extra weights in the top position and 1 extra weight in the third position. Say you drop 10,000 weights to lift 40,000 weights to top position. Then you drop 40,000*1.33=53,200 for an extra 3,200 weights being lifted to the third position up. Because that's 50,000 fallen minus 53,200 that were lifted. I don't have excel spreadsheet. I'm not rich. Microsoft office costs me money. Can't you take what I say at face value? This is magic or trick/leverage overunity but it's really useless, we need to find the other solutions that are the same as it that use different methods like my swinging weight design that uses the same patterns.
Last edited by preoccupied on Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:36 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." - Mark Twain
