A paradox...

[iacob alex]

...will be for the next generations,in my opinion ,this strange situation, that we have in front of us , a real monumental gravity engine,but we don't know how it can work.
If the master hand ,wizard of this amazing chef-d'oeuvre, Mr. Aldo Costa dismantles all the spokes,but two opposite remains on the hub,he has the height,the time,the free fall velocity,so momentum/vis-viva to collect gravity power,turned into pulsatory waves,in a self manner.
It can be a simple mirage for me,so then a personal delusion.
But if it is a true case,it can be a real fact for you.
All the Bests! / Alex

[LustInBlack]

What are you talking about !?

[Fletcher]

Aldo Costa's machine that worked on air pressure differentials from altitude, IINM. His wheel is enormous & of course gravity causes the pressure gradient. At least that how I think it works, not sure if it is really known ?

[iacob alex]

Hi Fletcher!
About Aldo Costa's wheel,searching a little on this forum,I know that ,there were some comments. Sometime ago, I visited his site.In my opinion this is as a monumental performance!
The details about the spare parts,and his method to realize the long arm-short arm switch,are for me a small concern.
I appreciate,the fact that the wheel is big;it means that it has the possibility to be energized by a free fall.
A big wheel with many spokes is determined to perform a jerky motion;the fall is environ two successive spokes.
If we have a big wheel,with only two spokes(a "minimal" wheel,that's a lever,a long arm-fulcrum-short arm type ),we are certain about a maximum energizing free fall .
This was my suggestion regarding an Aldo Costa's Wheel...with two spokes only.
Again,I do not enter in details.As I see the steps to design ,you can find at "In-Ex..." topic.
On the eve of this paradox,as I said,we have another one.
This is the classical "mgh" theoretical interdiction to imagine a gravity power engine.That "any way in a potential field....".
Now,think about two equally masses at the ends of an unequal lever(long arm-short arm) ,in a free up-down fall.
If the arm's difference,let's say "h" is the same,but the radius/ arms, become bigger and bigger ,we get a more and more energized system.
To "remake" the fall,we must switch the long arm-short arm,ready to fall again, "paying" from a bigger and bigger stored energy,the same tax:"mgh".
Now,how about it?
I think that Mr. Aldo Costa,at his 81 age,is a real hero in this long time search of the "engineer's dream machine".Vive la France!
All the Bests! / Alex

[Vic Hays]

A flotation wheel has a pressure gradient without being too large. No one has a good flotation wheel either.

[LustInBlack]

Potential gradient..
Easy ..

A balance lever with 2 weights on it, lift one side higher, there you have a gradient, no need to change the mass or the length of one side ..

Why, because gravity wants to pull either side with the same force..

Just don't let the weight fall at the same height, you will keep your gradient of force ..


Simple concept, that I find to be overlooked by many ..

[Fletcher]

I think what you are proposing Alex is what has been coined here as the "trading width for height" conundrum.

We can easily move one weight sideways (2 equal opposing weights at the same radius) at right angles to the force of gravity acting vertically. This gives us normal leverage results which will temporarily unbalance the lever causing it to rotate past the 6 o'cl position & eventually find its 'keeling' position at 6 o'cl (assuming CW rotation).

The trick is that we must then move that displaced weight back to its original radius & since what is effectively a pendulum won't get past 9 o'cl (especially with any sort of load applied to it) it means we must lift the weight a vertical distance to achieve this. That requires energy. When normal system losses are accounted for there is insufficient to achieve this.

[Gravmaster2000]

I am of the opinion that moving weights out will NEVER work; others here agree. The double lift kills you-once at the bottom, and again at the top (to reset) I am attempting to make a wheel with no weight motion or temporary motion only to get around this...

[iacob alex]

...can be the simplicity of a two blades propeller.
This one is a good performer in a flowing medium(air,water),as a driver(thrusting the fluidic medium) or as a follower(collecting a fluidic mass thrust).
By the way,a man in Italy is flying his small airplane,with a one blade(only!) propeller.
So,why we must imagine a simple follower/gravity power collector,in a so sophisticated manner?
Sometimes,less is more.
All the Bests! / Alex

[iacob alex]

.....is a statement seemingly self-contradictory but in reality expressing a possible truth.

And now the statement ,or assertion if you like: let's say that Aldo Costa's wheel has two oopposite spokes,only.

Can it change the working of his performance?

All the best! / Alex

[rasselasss]

About a year ago i made a 12"wheel with just two spokes ,each spoke was curved ,looking from the front (ignoring the hub)they resembled an "S"shape...the idea being if i could get the wheel turning the loose weights sliding up/down would be delayed so to speak and discourage the keeling effect ....the mistake i made which i realise now was believing heavy weghts were needed,when a lighter weight would produce rotation possibly in a better manner...but i'll have another look at it...possibly a larger wheel would be better. and a larger radius on the spokes.

[iacob alex]

Hi !
A pivot (support,fulcrum) is a "blind" spare part.
In gravity,it has a single question : have you some (torque) difference?...and no inquiries about the shape or weights.

For a pivot,the whole is simpler than the sum of its parts...his "thinking" is about leverage only.

As usually,when thought is too powerless to be simply expressed,we have "no exit" from our "thinking labyrinth".

All the best! / Alex