Idea I had since elementary school

[James.Lindgaard]

I'm happy you decided to look at my post James. I wish I could understand what you are talking about but as usual none of it makes sense. Do you have a college degree in anti-communication?

If you already built it does it work!?! The long lever has the most torque when it first starts so having multiple application of that first larger torque could cause one weight to be reloaded. If you can imagine it the two moving weights from two machines might not be enough so a third machine could be added. From the first two machines the first weight would be slightly closer to being reloaded than with just the first machine and the third machine's moving weight could be enough to cause the first weight to be reloaded. If one weight can be reloaded then the machine can operate under the force of gravity. Only one weight needs to be reloaded at a time.

preoccupied,
There is a simple build you can do to understand what I said. Build a cross lever, one arm that has levers on both ends and pivots in the middle.
Try it with the lever being perpindicular to the force of gravity, that would be the 3 & 9 o'clock positions.
Then try the lever at the 6 & 12 o'clock positions.
Both times you think you will have over balance (a weight will be further from center on one side/moveable lever), the lever will try to back spin.
Both times will be for a different reason. Understanding both helps.
After this, it gets complex.

James (aka P-Mo)

[preoccupied]

You may be calculating it a bit wrong. If you get half more the next one will only give you half that more, thus for example the large Costa wheel in France.

I said a little over half but I didn't calculate the torque literally! That would be adding torques together and I can't calculate torques because I haven't figured out how to use windows scientific calculator feature correctly. But the third mechanism should produce slightly less change but not much less. The lessening of change given by each additional mechanism will increase gradually. I don't think it would be another half though but we can't know unless we do the math. The only person here that I have seen do any math is Jim_Mich and thank you Jim_Mich for your calculations!

[jim_mich]

Open the calculator.
check that Degrees are selected, and not Radians or Grads.
Type the angle, say 45 degrees.
Click the Sin button.
And you get the Sin of 45 degrees.
Which equals 0.70710678118654752440084436210485

Note: It is often written as Sin(45), but you need to type the angle value first and then click the Sin button, else if the calculator is showing zero and you press the Sin button you will get zero, because Sin(0) = 0.

[preoccupied]

The only thing I can remember from geometry is that there is no angle side side (ASS). I don't know how to find degrees inside a triangle and therefore can't find the aº in the calculations. I bet Tyler could make a graph using graphing calculator software. If I knew some geometry I could probably do that. But if I did know how to do the calculations here is what I would do to calculate the multiple machines. I would calculate where the first mechanism becomes balanced. Then I would split the new second long lever's torque in half and give half to the first mechanism's long lever torque. I would also at the same time split the first long lever's torque in half and give it to the second long lever's torque. The heavy weight would stay the same because I want that part of the lever to lift up. When the first long lever's torque is greater than its heavy weight's torque then the first weight is able to reload. If two mechanisms aren't enough to do that I would add a third mechanism. For the third mechanism I would calculate where the first and second mechanisms become balanced then I would split the first, second and third long levers 1/3 and give 1/3 to each. And I would continue in this pattern until the first mechanism has more torque than the heavy weight at the end of the fall. I don't know how to calculate how to know where they become balanced. I don't know how to calculate angles using side lengths.

[jim_mich]

Look. If one mechanism does not produce perpetual motion, then added more mechanisms will not make it work.

Maybe you should have learned geometry and trigonometry in school?

[preoccupied]

The reason I think more mechanisms might produce perpetual motion is because only one weight needs to be reloaded for the entire set of mechanisms to function. I guess looking for a perpetual motion machine is like a process of elimination. You know they are all going to fail but you want to look to new ideas to see if it would work, just in case. So lets not disregard furthering speculation on this interesting design, please! You never know, this could be the real deal and we wouldn't know about it until we calculate it. Most of the people I've met here don't care about math but I do I just can't use it because I forgot my education. I took trigonometry and geometry in high school and scored high but circumstances caused me to forget most of what I learned in high school due in part to some tragedy. Man, if I could calculate this I would.

[James.Lindgaard]

On radiusshift11 what is about the average torque for all positions going down on the long lever before the heavy weight 'turns the tables' and balances it out. If the average is enough to push up the heavy weight maybe multiple devices connected to each other might be able to complete the task. The lever when it is all the way up has the most torque so when it is half way down a different machine's weight can start at the top and contribute to both machines when its weight falls on the long lever. If the average for both machines is enough to move their weights to the correct positions then one machine can reload and the other machine can wait until the first machine can reach the long lever again. I think the ability for the weight to move the heavy weight partially with on the long lever comes from the weight rolling down the ramp but the full distance of the ramp is not the full distance of the mechanism so more than one mechanism is needed to complete the task.

This could be a real perpetual motion machine!

EDIT

Also interesting to note is that if two machines don't manage to reload one machine a third machine's weight could be used because any amount of machines can wait to be reloaded and still be able to complete the task.

Pardon my saying this, but using only one set may work better. Maybe someone on here can help you do a stress analysis. Only way to be sure.
Going to the second set is only duplicating your effort.
Do like it :-)

[preoccupied]

I think one set is impossible, James. Two, three, four sets might be impossible too. But the thing that makes me interested in more than one set is that the area with the most torque ratio would combine with the area of the least torque ratio from all machines and average out. One mechanism should be able to almost reach itself when it is most efficient so a second mechanism should be able to push the first weight to reload, I think. Tell me more about modifying the first mechanism, James.

[James.Lindgaard]

preoccupied, one set has all the components required for a ppm.
With more than one set, the one reloading would need energy from the second set as you put it.
I would consider no more than two sets so the force interacting with the mechanics can be better understood. I think first though I would analyze one set, This would help to you to know where you're generating force and where it's lacking. This would allow you to know how using a second set could compensates as needed. Once this is understood, then if you need more sets to complete the cycle of having one help another, you will understand why doing so is either necessary or just making it more complicated.
Of course, if you had 2 sets at the same level, then they could be linked to perform a locomotive motion. It may be easier to see how one supports the other by seeing how they have opposing movements that support the other set. Just a thought.
This link is an easy to use trig calculator. If you save the page, you save the calculator and then can work off-line.

James
http://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp

edited to correct spelling
edited to correct grammar; what the heck, ponimesh?

[James.Lindgaard]

I'm happy you decided to look at my post James. I wish I could understand what you are talking about but as usual none of it makes sense. Do you have a college degree in anti-communication?

preoccupied,
Just wasn't on the same page :-)

edited to add;

It was nice having met you preoccupied. But I think between dealing with medical problems and Alan, Bessler is not that important.
Of course, I have a European (not native English speaking) father which makes it different for me. I have noticed the bias against such people in these forums. I guess if I lived in my father's country, then I would be where they think I belong and then it would be okay. It will alwaays be that way.

[nneba]

Cool,

I just happen to be working on the same thing, there is much potential there I think.

Good luck to you!

[preoccupied]

nneba, What have you done so far for the idea? We can make this public research so that the appropriate people get recognition for it. I think I'm the first person to design this idea but you say you are also working on it so lets work together and I will assume we created the design at the same time.

[greendoor]

If one mechanism cannot reach unity, then multiples won't either. Your argument that only one needs to be reset isn't valid. In such a setup, all the Energy input comes from resetting that one mechanism. All te other mechanisms become friction losses - you are far better off without them.

A lot of people fall for the basic ideas that I believe you are holding to. Yes - leverage creates mechanical advantage, or Force Multiplication if you prefer. But always at the expense of Distance. Trading one for the other never achieves any Work (Work being defined as Force acting over a Distance). A lever cannot perform Work without additional Energy input. It can multiply Force, but only if it divides Distance. Or it can multiply Distance, but only if it divides Force.

Is your swastika component supposed to move or flex or spring in any way? If not - then you can prove it achieves nothing by imagining that you simply strengthen the swastika by increasing the thickeness of the arms. At some point, the arms will become so thick that they touch each other, and become a square. Will a square achieve the effect you want? I don't think so - it's just a lumpy flywheel, which is cool if you want an under-unity Energy storage device, but it can't create Energy itself.

[nneba]

nneba, What have you done so far for the idea? We can make this public research so that the appropriate people get recognition for it. I think I'm the first person to design this idea but you say you are also working on it so lets work together and I will assume we created the design at the same time.

Hi,

I am only at the preliminary stage of experimentation with this concept. If you are unfamilliar with my stance; I feel as though the wheel relies on some sort of ancient symbol. The star of david and the octogram were my initial prototypes, and I have moved onto the swazi. I beleive it was P_F who was messin about with the swazi before as well, but he has a habit of outdoing himself (no offence :)
Some of the people here can be a bit harsh, just do your thing brother. The difference between a runner and clunker could be the finest of calculations, or the most insignificant alteration. JUST KEEP IT SIMPLE!

oi!

[Axelf]

A lever cannot perform Work without additional Energy input. It can multiply Force, but only if it divides Distance. Or it can multiply Distance, but only if it divides Force.

lever needs energy, that's right
but
you think wrong, you can extend the distance with the same force!