Persistent Motor aka Avalanchedrive aka Gravity Turbine

[preoccupied]

I don't see anything but 1:1 levers. Why doesn't this work then?

You have a real Over unit CONCEPT. You just need to fix your drawings.

This is the flaw that I think exists with your mechanism: Even though you have 1:1 leverage and more weights on one side, Your weights are trying to fall out of place. They are pushing to the sides all of their excess energy, like a magnet stuck to a refrigerator. You can keep your concept and if you draw a new device that doesn't do this, you would have it, IMO. In the modified pictures using MS paint, the black arrows represent gravity pushing against the sides and the orange arrows represent it trying to fly out when it is in motion.

I think people give a lot of bad explanations for why your machine wouldn't work Murilo. This is the reason that I think it wouldn't work.

[LustInBlack]

It lifts faster and drops slower. That's why it does not work.

[murilo]

I don't see anything but 1:1 levers. Why doesn't this work then?

You have a real Over unit CONCEPT. You just need to fix your drawings.

This is the flaw that I think exists with your mechanism: Even though you have 1:1 leverage and more weights on one side, Your weights are trying to fall out of place. They are pushing to the sides all of their excess energy, like a magnet stuck to a refrigerator. You can keep your concept and if you draw a new device that doesn't do this, you would have it, IMO. In the modified pictures using MS paint, the black arrows represent gravity pushing against the sides and the orange arrows represent it trying to fly out when it is in motion.

I think people give a lot of bad explanations for why your machine wouldn't work Murilo. This is the reason that I think it wouldn't work.

preoccupied,
your appreciation upon the TOP, makes me think that the other parts are OK for you!
This is really great! Thanx! B)

Please have in mind a stuff: everything that will happen will happen very slowly and just under high torque, HOLD by 'charge administration' at the axle.

In other words: no free gravity, but hold gravity, besides some of the acceleration will be a gain.

TC!
M#i#

[murilo]

LustInShadow saiid:
''It lifts faster and drops slower. That's why it does not work.''

Not clear...
Do you mean 'drops' to the reposition on the top?
In positive case, it will depend of the chosen 'V' for all system - see above.
If it will not work, surely this will be NOT the cause.
BTW, the reposition and the wheel at TOP are purely passive.
TC!
M#i#

[LustInBlack]

From what I understand, the heavier side will move slower than the lifting side. The speed differential will consume the heavier mass differential..

In other words : Speed differential - Mass differential == zero

The design is essentially a gearbox.

[preoccupied]

It lifts faster and drops slower. That's why it does not work.

That's not a scientific law, it just always happens that way. That's like saying centrifugal force exists, because it is always observable. The reason Avalanche drive wouldn't run is because of a specific force that happens on the way down when the excess weights are falling. Do you think my explanation is wrong and a different force exists that makes it not work?

Murilo, I think your avalanche drive will hug itself very tightly unless you remove its trait of hugging itself. You have more force because of real vertical over unity but that force is like a Hand that is gripping very tightly around the long tall avalanche drive by creating horizontal pressure, all the way up the long tall avalanche drive, and all the way down, a very hard grip, and it will just create a lot of friction if you add momentum to it. I can tell this device is pleasurable to you or you wouldn't want to give it up but its style of perpetual motion has to be rough and uncomfortable and everybody seems to think your are doing something wrong. Relax. Let other people have perpetual motion contributions with you instead of being stubborn with this one idea. That would feel good too. No reason to become defensive about it. People like perpetual motion. They crave it. You could probably go up to a random person on the street and say would you like to have a perpetual motion machine build with me, and indeed they might. You have a working concept. You just need to loosen the grip around your device. I hope my explanation makes sense. I can barely understand what you are saying half of the time.

[LustInBlack]

preoc, stop talking about scientific laws, this is a perpetual motion machine forum for christ sake.

Btw, on my table I'm looking straight at two gears that have two different diameters (a gearbox), and I don't see them moving on their own, why is that?

Let me remind you that leverage is using a speed differential to achieve a greater distance trade, to change the output torque of the system.

That reminds me of murilo's machine.

[preoccupied]

Okay here's my rebuttal: Generalizing doesn't help. Being specific about scientific laws and trying to question them is a good thing. Specifics rule!

[LustInBlack]

I personally, wouldn't waste my time with this.. But please proceed..

In the end, gravity is not a force, it's slope. You are trying to move a ball up and down a slope at different speeds. As in :

Speed ball #1 : 0.75 Speed ball #2 : 0.25

Speed ball #1 + #2 == 1.0

Unless there's A FORCE present that will change the speed of the balls, as t make them go overunity, I would proceed with maths. But it's not happening here.

[preoccupied]

If gravity is not a force then gravity cannot give out energy. I hope gravity is a force or I would have spent a few hundred hours being a crank.

I lost a green dot...

[LustInBlack]

Gravity is a field.

It's making space amorphous.. I mean, it's really bending space.. That's why space-time relativity is what it is.. It's really not a force.

A gravity wheel is like two cars of equal mass on an abrupt slope with a puley on top of the slope and the two cars linked with a strap up to the puley..

You can do what you want, they won't move on their own unless you start the engine of the car and move.

That's why another force has to come into play.. Like centrifugal force, but that needs enough speed to have some inertia.. There is no inertia in murilo's wheel. I see no force acting..

[LustInBlack]

I meant little inertia, not no inertia.. .( How come I can't change my post 5 seconds after posting, useless forum rule)

[murilo]

From what I understand, the heavier side will move slower than the lifting side. The speed differential will consume the heavier mass differential..

In other words : Speed differential - Mass differential == zero

The design is essentially a gearbox.

Lust,
no!!!

The stuff falls just like falls the heavier side of a 2 plates balance with 50% imbalance ( as 1000's times said here! B(

The weird stuff is that this 'fall' is repetitive... Nothing else... B]

There is a fulcrum, two different potentials and the comparison is applied... No scape!

The 'management' on the axle means that the gravity behavior will be managed much before the cancellation between free equal product systems.

I can't see a gearbox on it, so as I don't know WHY a gearbox should be bad.

[murilo]

It lifts faster and drops slower. That's why it does not work.

That's not a scientific law, it just always happens that way. That's like saying centrifugal force exists, because it is always observable. The reason Avalanche drive wouldn't run is because of a specific force that happens on the way down when the excess weights are falling. Do you think my explanation is wrong and a different force exists that makes it not work?

Murilo, I think your avalanche drive will hug itself very tightly unless you remove its trait of hugging itself. You have more force because of real vertical over unity but that force is like a Hand that is gripping very tightly around the long tall avalanche drive by creating horizontal pressure, all the way up the long tall avalanche drive, and all the way down, a very hard grip, and it will just create a lot of friction if you add momentum to it. I can tell this device is pleasurable to you or you wouldn't want to give it up but its style of perpetual motion has to be rough and uncomfortable and everybody seems to think your are doing something wrong. Relax. Let other people have perpetual motion contributions with you instead of being stubborn with this one idea. That would feel good too. No reason to become defensive about it. People like perpetual motion. They crave it. You could probably go up to a random person on the street and say would you like to have a perpetual motion machine build with me, and indeed they might. You have a working concept. You just need to loosen the grip around your device. I hope my explanation makes sense. I can barely understand what you are saying half of the time.

preocc,
sorry... your words make no sense to me.
There are no horizontal forces on the stuff.
I try to manage the condensed side, since it will find NO ways to be 'conservative'!
Very soon I'll come with a simulation...[/b]
One more important stuff: since the axle is 100% hold by ground, the potentials will NOT find assembling as 'inverted roman arch'!

[murilo]

Gravity is a field.

It's making space amorphous.. I mean, it's really bending space.. That's why space-time relativity is what it is.. It's really not a force.

A gravity wheel is like two cars of equal mass on an abrupt slope with a puley on top of the slope and the two cars linked with a strap up to the puley..

You can do what you want, they won't move on their own unless you start the engine of the car and move.

That's why another force has to come into play.. Like centrifugal force, but that needs enough speed to have some inertia.. There is no inertia in murilo's wheel. I see no force acting..

Sorry, I have no competence to discuss the TIDES of theories.
For me, gravity is an effect of a mass field and it's a FACT of daily life.