The Avalanchedrive driving a wheel!

[LustInBlack]

[preoccupied]

Hi all,
I do not know! I leave you boys for less than 24 hour and look at the mess you have made, meow, meow, scratch, scratch, hope you guys bury it lol.
Hi Jim,
I have done some quick math’s, here is my working out,
The original Avalanche drive total T1 x2 - T2x1x2 wherein x2 = twice the speed T1 = T2 with very high friction on all the guides Not calculated!
The amended Avalanche drive at the start of this thread, units = weight or the equivalent weight,
T1 = 60 units + bottom gear radius torque advantage 16 units x 0.5 = 8, T1 = 68 units,
T2 = 24 units + torque advantage of moving twice as fast = x2 = 24 units, T2 = 48 units,
TG top gear with 10 balanced units,
T1 = 68 - T2 = 48 equals ( STS ) System Torque Surplus of 20 descending units minus minimum friction loses, as you can see there is a big difference, the above calculations are very fare, and the drawing at the start of this thread can be scaled and checked as it is in near proportions, so do your own sums if you like!
Note the sums do not count the motive force torque advantage of the 20 descending units.
What I post about the Avalanche Drive is Murilo’s to do with what he wants, there is no guarantee that it will work, and will take a build to find out, but that is Murilo’s call, there are still linkage problems to look at, and Murilo will improve on what I have added, a lot of my input, I am sure Murilo was already aware of. I have enjoyed looking into Murilo’s Avalanche Drive of which I thank Murilo for taking the time to explain it to me for I had missed what he was up to!
Regards Trevor
PS, Preoccupied, I think you will find that at the start of this thread it gives mention of keeping extra weight in the system than the weight in the cycle! perhaps a mechanical drawing of your proposal would help!

Hello Trevor Lyn Whatford,

What the hell, man.
I didn't read your descriptions. Your writing gives me a headache. I can't understand you. Your sentences don't seem to be going anywhere. I can't look up vocabulary you use to see why I don't understand you, because you are using simple language the wrong way.

I looked at your picture in the beginning. It doesn't say what is pulling what. If the gears are pulling something then that's that, like if they are falling across one another then why not just let something hang on a triangle? Because you will know immediately that won't work, it is even mentioned in the various museums of unworkable devices on the internet.

Maybe when you fail, you should go out and have a few beers, cool down, come home and do something to your wife's face that you wouldn't normally allow someone else to do. At least then I would understand you.

I don't care if you don't understand me or take my descriptions of my design seriously. I don't want to make a mechanical drawing of it. It's a broad conceptual piece of information that can make a multitude of working gravity wheels, if I am correct about what I have said. So, if you don't understand it, I am not bothering to explain it to you.

[Aemilius]

preoccupied "Over the two points on this line, like, all gravity driven designs try to outsmart the fact that regardless of efficiency if the same amount of weights passing over the two points are the same then they will be restricted. Even Emile, whose spinning mechanism is as efficient as possible, cannot pass those two vertically connected points entirely."

Clearly you've either not understood the results shown by the vector analysis up to this point under way at http://thecolemechanism.blogspot.com/ or you haven't even looked at it. My mechanism isn't based on any traditional over balanced arrangement designed to rotate just because it's lopsided, it's a new and uniquely balanced mechanical arrangement designed to rotate relatively forcefully in response to a slight periodic imbalancing action or "trigger force".

preoccupied "The avalanche drive I proposed here carries over an extra amount of weights equal to the amount of weights in a horizontal set. It is that extra amount of weights that makes Murilo's design different than mine. It is also the key to any other variation of gravity driven designs which only use gravity, and therefore defy the vertical straight line that I referred to in the second paragraph."

Talk is cheap, and remarks like this claiming to have the "key to any other variation of gravity driven designs which only use gravity" or the key to anything for that matter very effectively serves to remove any credibility you may have had (which wasn't much to begin with). I think it's safe to say at this point you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

preoccupied "The gravity driven avalanches are cursed."

So is your line of reasoning.

preoccupied "Once you realize how accurate I am, you might take me more seriously about what I said about Climate Change earlier, Jim. And if I get enough praise maybe I will tell you the best way to correct all Global Economies. But as a smug little man, I guess only a few people get to hear my wisdom, as I am not famous at all."

What a ridiculous thing to say. If your goal with this post was to make sure no one takes you seriously, you've succeeded admirably.

preoccupied "wuahahaha i'm the best and you all know it if you look hard enough."

"Silence is better than unmeaning words." - Pythagoras

Good bye preoccupied!

[Fletcher]

If you feed the amoeba it grows ...

[preoccupied]

preoccupied "Over the two points on this line, like, all gravity driven designs try to outsmart the fact that regardless of efficiency if the same amount of weights passing over the two points are the same then they will be restricted. Even Emile, whose spinning mechanism is as efficient as possible, cannot pass those two vertically connected points entirely."

Clearly you've either not understood the results shown by the vector analysis up to this point under way at http://thecolemechanism.blogspot.com/ or you haven't even looked at it. My mechanism isn't based on any traditional over balanced arrangement designed to rotate just because it's lopsided, it's a new and uniquely balanced mechanical arrangement designed to rotate relatively forcefully in response to a slight periodic imbalancing action or "trigger force".

preoccupied "The avalanche drive I proposed here carries over an extra amount of weights equal to the amount of weights in a horizontal set. It is that extra amount of weights that makes Murilo's design different than mine. It is also the key to any other variation of gravity driven designs which only use gravity, and therefore defy the vertical straight line that I referred to in the second paragraph."

Talk is cheap, and remarks like this claiming to have the "key to any other variation of gravity driven designs which only use gravity" or the key to anything for that matter very effectively serves to remove any credibility you may have had (which wasn't much to begin with). I think it's safe to say at this point you don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

preoccupied "The gravity driven avalanches are cursed."

So is your line of reasoning.

preoccupied "Once you realize how accurate I am, you might take me more seriously about what I said about Climate Change earlier, Jim. And if I get enough praise maybe I will tell you the best way to correct all Global Economies. But as a smug little man, I guess only a few people get to hear my wisdom, as I am not famous at all."

What a ridiculous thing to say. If your goal with this post was to make sure no one takes you seriously, you've succeeded admirably.

preoccupied "wuahahaha i'm the best and you all know it if you look hard enough."

"Silence is better than unmeaning words." - Pythagoras

Good bye preoccupied!

Aemilius and Fletcher,
I guess I could be wrong Aemilius. But are you sure?

The “4 extra� mentioned before is the amount on a horizontal set. There are a total of 140 weights going down and 140 weights going up.
144/140=
2.85714% that is that it requires a gear ratio where horizontal weights fall 2.86% slower.
This also means that at the end of the fall that the vertical space would have been four weights heavier, but since it is in a gear ratio, and therefore that amount is added gradually and the avalanche effect covers the loss. Like I said before too, the more weights that are in a horizontal set, the more effective it will be, because of a stronger beginning when refilling the towers.

But I will note: that without the gear ratio, the added four weights would prevent there from being an Avalanche effect. Although I did not mention this in the previous descriptions, it was pretty obvious anyway. But not obvious enough, since Fletcher and Aemilius can’t even see the workability of the conceptual piece of information, if I am correct.

Is someone going to come to my defense? Because Fletcher and Aemilius could be inaccurate. Aemilius, private message me your Facebook, and get my friend request. I like you and also the way you present yourself is artistic and appealing. Fletcher can go suck on a toad.

OFF TOPIC:
Does anybody else like Dragonball Z clips that have music attached on YouTube.com?
They are pretty neat. I was a little DBZ Saturday morning cartoon spectator growing up.
The video quality is good in this German guys video…….
DBZ - Goku gegen Cell (Teil 4)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIX31t2164g

[murilo]

If I were you Murilo, I'd STFU and change the way I spend time, instead of arguing all over the invernet about your poor misunderstood machine, I'd use that time to make it work by simply engineer it differently, augment the design or I'd simply find another hobby than Trolling every single person of this world..

Sincerely, STFU!

Hello someone!
Would someone tell me what is the meaning for SFTU?
Thanx!
Best!
Murilo

[jim_mich]

Murilo, you spelled it wrong. It is Shut The F##k Up

[preoccupied]

Hello someone!
Would someone tell me what is the meaning for SFTU?
Thanx!
Best!
Murilo

I will use bad source material to help you: Wikipedia

LMFAO, ROFLMFAO, LOL, OMFG, OMG - STFU Murilo!! J/K……..

STFU is an Acronym which is very commonly used. YDKWTFYTA could have been used by Aemilius towards me instead of spelling out the words and I would have understood it because it is a common phrase but that particular acronym is not very common.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym_and_initialism

STFU is talked about here specifically.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shut_up

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Preoccupied,
I do understand your theory, it is a variation of Murilo’s Avalanche drive theory only without the advantages of the folding chain, wherein it does not hang on a triangle as you think ( that is a common misunderstanding), it drops and closes the links onto a pile of closed links! Murilo has suggested he will explore increasing the number of chains, weights, sizes, and lots more after he gets it working.
Until you come up with the control and drive mechanism it is just a theory. Do not expect people to believe you until you have a working model, it is the only way to prove a free energy theory, and even then most people will still not believe.
Good luck with your theory and hope you make it a success!
Sorry I am not very good at English but believe it or not I am getting better, Regards Trevor

[LustInBlack]

[preoccupied]

Hi Preoccupied,
I do understand your theory, it is a variation of Murilo’s Avalanche drive theory only without the advantages of the folding chain, wherein it does not hang on a triangle as you think ( that is a common misunderstanding), it drops and closes the links onto a pile of closed links! Murilo has suggested he will explore increasing the number of chains, weights, sizes, and lots more after he gets it working.
Until you come up with the control and drive mechanism it is just a theory. Do not expect people to believe you until you have a working model, it is the only way to prove a free energy theory, and even then most people will still not believe.
Good luck with your theory and hope you make it a success!
Sorry I am not very good at English but believe it or not I am getting better, Regards Trevor

I don't think the folding chain is an advantage. I think that folding chain is deceiving you and Murilo. It is the reason your designs don't work, because it looks like it helps but it actually is nothing special. If you knew how to calculate the chain, maybe people would take you entirely seriously. You appear to not know what you are doing.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Preoccupied,
As your theory is just a variation of the Avalanche drive theory it looks like Murilo and me are in good company! So you could be right maybe I do not know what I am doing, time will tell, see my signature!
Regards Trevor

Edit, As it stands now, Murilo and me have both put forward mechanical options right or wrong, where as all you have shown is a bead counter, and for that to add up would depended how you move the beads, good luck!

[preoccupied]

Hi Preoccupied,
As your theory is just a variation of the Avalanche drive theory it looks like Murilo and me are in good company! So you could be right maybe I do not know what I am doing, time will tell, see my signature!
Regards Trevor

Edit, As it stands now, Murilo and me have both put forward mechanical options right or wrong, where as all you have shown is a bead counter, and for that to add up would depended how you move the beads, good luck!

No. Not "have both put forwards mechanical options right or wrong", just wrong. As you produce your designs while insisting on your "mechanical options", ready yourself for infinite criticism from people who know better than you.

For example, when you responded to jim_mich posting how to calculate the Avalanche drive by inputting the amount of weights you see on one side, you negated to calculate what angle they were falling on. I think it is safe to say now that YDKWTFYTA, okay?

The avalanche concept I provided actually has an effect that is like an avalanche and is worthy of the name. Your designs don't move at all. So you're right, you are in good company, because I am the best. No one is better than me. Believe it.

[murilo]

If I were you Murilo, I'd STFU and change the way I spend time, instead of arguing all over the invernet about your poor misunderstood machine, I'd use that time to make it work by simply engineer it differently, augment the design or I'd simply find another hobby than Trolling every single person of this world..

Sincerely, STFU!

Hello someone!
Would someone tell me what is the meaning for SFTU?
Thanx!
Best!
Murilo

Thanx guys!
Thanx so much for the lights of your minds to my obscure brain!
I think that it could be worst.... 8(
Best!
M

[murilo]

Guys,
there is something I need to confess!
Ya... I'm a retarded moron and due to more than one stuff!

Firstly: a moron because in all these years I had fail in the construction of the model... a deep fail and a shame... what makes me a unexcused moron.

Secondly: this is not the straight forum to discuss avalanchedrive! Now I see this very clearly, indeed... and I'll be a moron if I insist!

You guys have deep skills to 'know about mechanics', but not at the way I need... not as the way an inventor need.

You are able to understand to cars, planes and any other stuffs that ALREADY exist, that you can disassemble, assembly again, and explain HOW they work and/or how they could be, or what you think about virtual mistakes, improvement and so on... but, the stuff MUST be ready right under your nose!

This means that your brain is full of information, just as ordered and concatenated, or collected files... you are not guilty for this, even when you look to be mad and upset... it's a question of, let's say, 'specialized culture'!

This is the reason why some of you will never understand avalanchedrive, in the point now it is, because it's a stuff that is pure conception, ideas and flexible diagrams, not ready, not finished scheme, more untouchable than a cloud and very similar to a piece of art in the mind of an artist... a guy that dares to create a stuff... bad, good, stupid, crazy... don't mind what it is or will be.

This is why I have sent several explanations to you and you just don't read or reach to it, even if you try! I'm so sorry for this!

You can deal to projects and draws but not to DESIGNS and diagrams!

You can not follow an idea in the air, but you can smell and touch heavy and existing pieces of iron, true photos, realistic draws... this makes you in panic and in the need of google to help you... to think, to go to toilet and/or to vote... whatever!

To the main fixed argument of Jim I sent in JB 3 different responses with 'zero' return and attention. Other will think that I'm hiding something and tricks... other will 'see' to the stuff totally at the contrary... or will fix his mind to a single secondary detail...

An important thing I told several times is that YES, this is a closed energy system, just like all other!

The 'power' at both sides will be absolutely equal, if things are well done. You need to have in mind that this system WILL NEVER be FREE up to its higher power, or maximum equilibrium point!

The axle of the under wheel WILL hold bigger part of the moving and will collect a great torsion, or torque - at very low speed!

Thirdly: I'm tired but truly a real moron since I STILL insist in explain!

TC!
Murilo
PS: WOOOSH...