Grease power

[Fletcher]

Here's my best attempt at your infinite lever arrangement (Lever Train) as I understand your drawing .. (your drawing indicates both forces in the same downwards direction which I can not reconcile with) ..

I start the sim with no counterbalancing force applied - then I reset the sim and turn the balancing force ON (from inputs LHS) - and the Lever Train is unmoving indicating force (torque) balance ..

...............



...............

[preoccupied]

That looks right. If I'm right you might not even need a two weights. You could hold one lever or tie it up and just apply force on the light end. The idea is that the pillar is taking on less weight because the axles become lighter because of the previous axles levers.

I think if I focus on physics it's the opposite forces that would be making it lighter. Equal and opposite reactions that every action has. So I had drawn it that the short end was lighter but I think maybe the longer end would be lighter because it is pushing harder into the ground. It's like as if like the lever is trying to lift the other axles up and as an opposite force it is therefore lighter. The direction of these forces seems to indicate that it would become lighter for this reason after every other additional lever added because the far right would get lighter and then the next lever would be heavier and the third lever would be lighter and the fourth lever would be heavier. If there is opposite forces structurally in the form of gravity or anti gravity it will give those forces to the forces applied, so the only force being applied using mass and gravity would reduce the weight and the rest would be mechanically changed and apply stress on the structure, so it should make the far right lever lighter as anti gravity as a weight would become a lighter weight. If the far right is the lightest then it should start becoming lighter on the left about at the second from the left which will have a reduced opposite force pushing upwards structurally because it is wedging the far left axle upwards. So the second from the left axle might be 1/2 as much force and the far right axle would be 1/4th the weight. While at the same time it's likely the stress on the pillars between is twice as much but are not applying force against gravity but have their own gravity applying force against their structures.

[Fletcher]

Support Pillar Contact Forces (N's) is turned ON - i.e. vertical Red Arrows from where Pillars contact Ground ..

Balancing Torque Force turned OFF ..

..............



..............

[preoccupied]

The long end is resting on the block. Are the numbers different if the short end rests on the block? By the way you have a much better program than Algodoo.

There is greater tension on the far right pillar. If this were a trampoline you would become lighter as you fall into it with greater structural tension. I think this is an indication that if I'm right that the far right pillar's input force on the lever would be lighter downwards in the force of gravity. Since the only weight would be on the far right and the far left would be tied down, the total weight of the whole system in the form of gravity would be reduced by the structural changes.

I still think maybe that the structural and gravitational force on the levers might change by doubling or halving because the levers are 2:1 ratio. So the far right lever would be 1/4th its weight. If it is a direct lever relationship and not a tension on the pillars, then perhaps the ratio should alternate 2:1 and 1:1 so that one leverage doesn't cancel out the other when alternating directions that the lever turn. This way it's 2:1 facing down and 1:2 facing up in a lever train. Also if you multiply the lever ratios to get the total structural resilience it will be 2x2=4 structural resilience with 4 distance of lever used. but if you go 2x2x2 it will be 8 and have 6 distance of lever used. And furthermore if you go 2x2x2x2x2=32 structural resilience and 10 distance of lever used.

[preoccupied]

This is totally how I think it works now. I think it's a direct relationship between distance of the levers and the structural resilience that creates an anti gravity effect. It's more obvious with trusses like Jesus used because they apply forces to the whole system and won't apply those forces unless they have enough truss supports. Yes but seems it does have to be 3 or more sets of 2:1 ratio to get any effect that creates a difference between the amount of lever used in distance and its greater structural resilience by using additional axles.

I want to get credit for my ideas that me and my time travel duplicates used in their actions as original actors of the information. I ran past the speed of light on foot year 2003 and became Hermes the Greek God in the past and Jesus Christ who duplicated at a different time from another time traveler duplicating me, I think in 2007, should have used the same truss to walk on water because we both had the same knowledge base to work with. But Jesus had additional concussions from being assaulted more than Hermes did, if I'm right and they are both my time travel duplicates.

[Fletcher]

What you show is a linear progression of identical levers, on fulcrums, on pillars - the "lever train" scenario ..

** This can be easily built in Algodoo, or even in a spreadsheet .. **

The important factors are that the mass of each lever is evenly distributed (uniform), and they all have the same mass ..

The question to ask yourself is why does the rhs lever (rhs side of lever) fall and the far lhs lever (rhs) rise when no additional forces are applied ..

Answer .. Inputs .. COM/COG of each lever is to the right side of the respective fulcrum/pivot ..

Additionally, the leverage factor in the "train" is changing lever to lever .. that is, the 1st (lhs) lever falls, the 2nd rises, the 3rd falls, the 4th rises - but because the lever is 2 to 1 ratio the distances moved at each lever (and preceding ones) is a RATIO of the lhs lever falling distance until arrested ..

When you sum up the vertical falling distances from levers 1 and 3 against the rising distances of levers 2 and 4 you find that the total height lost (GPE) is greater than the height (GPE) gained - therefore the first lever will always fall (like water runs downhill so a system will lose GPE when and where it can), and needs a balancing force applied on the 4th lever lhs as the sim showed ..

As additional lever sets are added to the "train" (which could just be a linear geared system) the vertical distances moved get smaller and smaller until effectively there is no movement to be measured .. there is no magic there ..

.............

If you think that the force applied to each pillar is notably different (a pattern is established) then you need to build a simple test system and weight each pillar and lever setup i.e. put the pillar on a set of scales or hang them from roof mounted spring scales etc - then measure the weight force again at each pillar as the lever train is activated .. then you would have scientific fact to back up your theory of a mechanically induced anti-gravity effect ..

All The Best ..

[preoccupied]

With the most recent picture I posted the levers alternate from 2:1 to 1:1 which causes all of the levers to fall in the same direction that are a 2:1 ratio. This makes the leverage on the train not alternate. So the first 2:1 lever multiples with the second 2:1 lever making 4:1 lever. After that it's 8:1 with the next 2:1 lever doubling with each 2:1 lever like a gear train. If you have 20 2:1 levers then it's 1,048,576:1. If it's suspended on one end the opposite end is holding all of the force, literally one million pounds is on one end and 1 pound is on the other for it to be balanced. Do the pillars weight 1,048,576 + 1 pound? If you just tie down the million pound side it only weighs 1 pound with gravity. What if you tied down the million pound side so that it won't fall upwards when it wants to fall downwards if it is heavy enough. And you put two pounds on the other side allowing 2 million pounds to be lifted. It's tied down so that it won't lift because it's too light. Put one pound on the two million pound side. It can't be lifted because it's tied down. But it's suspended on 2 million pounds of leverage. The levers would try to lift up the weight but it's tied up so it can't. But the weight pushing down has to be anti gravity. It's

being resisted from being pushed upwards not falling down, it just has nowhere near the force to fall down with.

If the weight is not enough to push into a lever it might have anti gravity pushing upwards against it by the fraction of its input into pushing the load back but failing to. If the lever weren't tied down it would be pushing the weight upwards.

If I'm right about this scenario it might be called a lacking torque impact or a failing torque impact. Or a positive torque limited resistance. Limited resistance to positive torque. Or maybe it's negative torque. If it's negative torque that sounds sexier. Well the torque is applied against the torque being applied so maybe it is called negative torque. Excess Negative torque suspension, it is. Guys It's called Excess Negative torque suspension now. Coined it!

[preoccupied]

If this experiment works then it's a universal principle.

When a wheel is turning the falling weight or the driving weight is weightless and the lifted weight is heavy and applies torque on the axle. Isn't that right? What if it's the torque that applies force on the axle only and the weights don't matter? If the torque is a negative torque suspension then the torque on the axle is fractional for the weight in negative torque suspension. If there were gravity bound weight pulling the wedge, in that a wedge is tied up on one end then the torque would be that weight not falling. But if no weight is falling, if it's a spring holding a negative torque suspension then it's all structural except for the compromised torque of the weight on the negative torque suspension. The torque on the axle is almost nothing from the weight. If the weight of the wheel is from the torque and not from the weights themselves because they are on levers then the negative torque suspension would work in this experiment and the weight would be 1/10th its weight in anti gravity.

[Fletcher]

When a wheel is turning the falling weight or the driving weight is weightless and the lifted weight is heavy and applies torque on the axle. Isn't that right?

In a steadily turning wheel a "falling" weight appears weightless and therefore applies little or no torque to the wheel (depending on attachment method, if any) while transitioning, as compared to after its motion is arrested within the wheel ..

By the same token a weight "lifted" in the same turning wheel applies torque to the wheel while transitioning from below to above - it is accelerated and decelerated ..

....................



....................

[preoccupied]

I think if the gravity on the axle is based on torque then you can structurally change the torque in a suspension to create anti gravity using a negative torque suspension. During a suspension all weight apply force but it's based on torque. Torque would be 1:1 in a suspension but that might not be true in a negative torque suspension in which the static torque on the lever is less than is required to hold it in place. I guess if you have a wedge but it's tied back like a crowbar but the crowbar is blocked, would the force you push into the crowbar reduce the weight of what you're wedging? I'm not sure thinking about it like that. What's the difference between pushing really hard into the crowbar that is tied back and not as hard when a weight is on the crowbar that would fly or be hit hard if the crowbar weren't tied back? Well the wedge would push into the axle and so would the weight on the other end but the tied down crow bar acts like a different kind of wedge, it's as if there is a partial axle at the tip where the negative torque suspension is where it is tied down and applying weight to the lever at any point moves that axle (wedge) closer to the main axle rather than two weights being on the same surface. If there were no negative torque suspension then that means that the wedge axle would cease to exist and the lever would fall on the heavier side that was tied down so that it won't rise. So really it's like I am thinking the weight on the negative torque suspension likely applies force as if it moves the wedge axle closer to the main axle rather than actually being a weight. If I were to be correct about this hypothesis then that is probably a geometrical way to calculate it potentially.

[preoccupied]

I don't think that the falling weight is weightless on the axle. I think it has a combination of positive torque and negative torque suspension. I think that the positive torque on the axle and the negative torque suspension is split fractionally between the weights being lifted and the weights falling. I had suggested that the torque was based on how far it traveled upwards but this was an assumption that I think was wrong. I think that the leverage splits the torque between the positive torque and negative suspension on each weight. So if there is a weight 4 units away and a weight 2 units away there would be positive torque on the 4 units away weight but also some negative torque because it's not in free fall, it's in partial free fall. Actual free fall would be faster. I think speed upwards produces torque on the axle and lack of speed downwards. The lack of speed downwards is effected by how close the weight is up and down on the axles horizontal line because that effects the angle of descent. What causes weightlessness of a weight is movement but is it movement or is it just torque? If it's just torque then you could suspend a weight with negative torque suspension statically as an anti gravity. When a weight is being lifted up it's in a state of negative torque suspension. The negative torque is suspending it and pushing it upwards, it can't push downwards with its torque. I think that the negative torque suspension puts force on the axle as a wedge. The force of a wedge on a tied up negative torque suspension is the total weight of the opposing lever. Does that make it heavier? I haven't thought of if it made it heavier? The weight would be 1 unit but if it were wedged by a one million to one lever system it would push 1 million pounds into the axle. If you had one pound on the 1 unit distance side of this 1 million to one lever it would be a very insignificant part of the wedge. Can't you see it the way I see it? I think that the negative torque suspension makes the weight lighter or anti gravity and the wedge from tying down the suspension makes the opposing weight heavier on the axle. If the wedge lever is purely structural then perhaps the anti gravity can be purely gravitational and it would act as anti gravity. If there were a 1 million to one wedge tied down and 1 pound on the 1 unit distance part of the lever then the weight would apply 1/1 millionth of a pound into the wedge and that is how much it should weigh using gravity too because that is how much it is effecting the axle.

[preoccupied]

I saw someone talk to Chat GPT on the forum asking about something similar to this I can't remember where I saw it. The Chat AI said that weight is applied by the movement upwards and downwards on the pendulum. But I dare say it's because of a more specific calculation because of torque on the axle involving all of the angles and speeds. And in a static situation the leverage and forces if negative torque suspension reduces the gravity of a weight. I don't know how to use Chat GTP if another person wants to ask it about my idea please post it here.

[preoccupied]

https://chat.openai.com/c/c71a2b82-5b66 ... fcfb851146

I had a conversation with Chap GPT. I am not very good at it but I got it to agree with me about my concept. I think it's just being agreeable to my idea and what I say so far. It agreed that a million to one lever would reduce the weight on a scale to one millionth if in negative torque suspension. So it's anti gravity but it says it requires real world testing and is an assumption.

[preoccupied]

I heard somewhere that Chat GPT 3.5 is more agreeable than 4 but I haven't used 4 because it costs money. Who here has Chat GPT 4 and is willing to question it for me about my idea? I am not very interested in paying out money for that right now. If someone could help me, please. I know that you guys love this AI stuff here.

I've basically accomplished nothing by convincing Chat GPT 3.5 anything because it's already super agreeable software. By the way did anybody read the link? It's my first Chat with an AI. I mean does the link work?

The use of springs could offset weight on buildings using the negative torque suspension. You could have light flying cities. I guess if you had a flying city that it would be heavy on every part of the city except the platform that it rests on. So gravity would drop among the structure except where it is mechanically lightened by contact with the surface of the negative torque suspension like a glue that makes you light by touching it. I do not recommend just using this on a gravity wheel because using gravity for energy would probably damage the planet. You all want the glory of being a gravity wheel entrepreneur but I say no. No to your money. No to using gravity for perpetual work. And if it's about money if people celebrate the temporary display of a perpetual motion machine it could be honored with concerts like pop stars have and gravity could be used for energy only for demonstration purposes only.

[preoccupied]

Guys I think that I had a bank that started in 1875 which comprised of that savings and investments plus my life's work in audio products which I regularly contributed to while I was a kid. I think that I was a high IQ kid and graduated from University remotely during kindergarten having had first gotten a GED in preschool. I think my early childhood medical research and billions of dollars of collectables and possibly hundreds of millions of dollars of precious items like gold was left in a house that i owned that i lost contact with in Oregon that I owned as a minor, and that I had Bessler's information there that I paid 5 billion dollars for initially. I think that my property there was taken without me knowing it and technically without me realizing that it existed and I bet that some or all of the information that you guys have from Bessler might come from my private collection that was stolen from me without me knowing that it existed. I think that my mother Candice when I was a kid refused to live in my house because I wasn't sharing money with her and she decided to force me to move in order to live with her and later she adopted me and my brother to her sister Alice later too. Then I got several concussions for various reasons during my life and eventually forgot about my strong early childhood development and I had limited access to my bank and didn't spend money on myself except for what I did when I was very young, because I was either confused about what I had or couldn't remember enough about my bank to know what to do, all due to the concussions. Man I really think that someone got my house in Oregon with all of my research, my medical lab, and my billions of dollars worth of collectables which I think included Besslers work in it and I think that is what all of you have now is part or all of that.

So this is my take on MT 16. The right angled levers tied together by red lines in typical MT fashion might be overbalanced by itself but I made it more interesting by pulling up a weight by a string on a Leonardo da Vinci style overbalanced wheel to make that overbalanced as well within the wheel which is very MT fashioned thing to do.