Check out our Youtube channel for the latest Playlists and updates:https://www.youtube.com/user/overunitydotcom/playlists?view=1&flow=grid

Hope you don't mind if I disagree with you on this point;"The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed" The reason being is that the slower something moves, the more force it can impart. Also, the greater the distance it travels between 2 points gives it a greater potential. An example of this last part is if point A is 9.8 meters above point B. Either way, via the straight line or if travelling with a radius of 9.8 meters, they are considered to have identical velocities at point B minus resistence. How ever, with aradius of 9.8 meters, the velocity of m*9.8m/s/s/9.8*3.14 is greater tha work = mass times distance travelled. By increasing the radii, the amount of work that can be performed increases exponentially. As such, the greater the radius of a weights downward path,the greatness in the amount of work it can perform increases like wise. Jim

One example my father gave me a long, long time ago was a weight dropping 1 meter can only lift another weight 1 meter.

"The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed" is based on using galactic time as the yardstick instead of kilometers or miles. You were taught to use kilometers or miles as a measure of distance, whereas I'm referring to using galactic time as the yardstick. This is hard to explain to those who are unaccustomed to seeing things from a different point of view. Instead of going into complicated mathematical calculations to determine, let us say, the diameter of the Earth's orbit in the number of kilometers this represents, I'm referring to its equivalent in galactic time. In other-words, if you're impelled by a force which takes you 100 hours to make a round trip through a galaxy, and I'm impelled by a force which takes 1 hour to make a round trip, then I know the force which is impelling me is 100 times greater than the force which is impelling you. I could also say, the distance or space you traversed was 100 times greater than the space I traversed, because in reality the force doesn't exist. All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it.According to your logic above, the greater the distance between 2 points, the greater the potential is given to it. If this is true in all cases, then we should be able to raise a ball higher than it's original starting position just by having a greater distance (a slope or curved path) between 2 points as it rolls down a ramp while having a shorter distance (more of a straight path) between 2 points as it rolls up the ramp.By increasing the radii, the amount of work that can be performed increases exponentially is also false. Willem Gravesande monumental contribution to physics and discovery involved his experiment in which he would drop a lead ball from varying heights into a bed of soft clay. From these varying heights the ball would then obtain different velocities into the clay surface. Willem then discovered that a ball with two times the velocity would leave an indentation in the clay that was four times as deep, and that a ball with three times the velocity would leave an indentation nine times as deep, and so on. This is exponential. But you're confusing two different things. It's similar to the "difference" between a ball that is moving horizontally in space and the ball that Willem Gravesande used in his experiment (one that is Accelerating as it falls to earth). It's the difference of the Velocity of Gravity. A falling weight loses it's acceleration factor as it does work, which is proportional to the amount of work it is doing, thus the exponential factor you are familiar with no longer applies. A good example is a 10 kilogram weight at a height of 20 meters can't do any more work in lifting a 10 kilogram weight than a 10 kilogram weight at a height of 1 meter. How is this exponential? It can't do any work because it has no acceleration to do so. Even if they both had the same velocity at the very moment of starting the work, it wouldn't be exponential because they will both decrease in velocity at the same rate. I don't mind if you disagree with me, but at least have a good argument.Gravock

Overunity is here! Have a little fun with this...http://youtu.be/7Vch0p2VlDYAnd I made the music too. MagnaMoRo

Magna, Haven't kids always been considered perpetual motion machines ?

A short answer is yes.The answer, however, depends on what he is looking for, or which force value he is wishing to use.By manipulating the forces within a system such as this it is possible to have a short moment within the system where the forces compound, or add together, this takes a small outside force to guide the normal interactions.When using the "pull" force, in my past experiments, a dual mass system that has 2 counter rotating arms works best and is lightest on the parts, it is also better to have them express the force on a common component, IE a steel ring that both masses are running around the inside of, using bearings as the contact and the steel ring as the point of output, and then you need to limit the motion to a small part of the natural motion the system would have.IIRC 2 5lbs masses on 12 inch arms rotating at 1200 RPM would generate over 2000lbs of force with a natural motion of close to 2 inches, limit this to 1\2 inch and the system is almost fully conservative but will supply 2000lbs over 100 FT per minute, or 200,000 lbs\ft per minute. One HP is 33,000 lbs\ft per minute.I have not tried the acceleration part too much so am not sure what works better yet, however I have noticed that the input stroke length decreases with RPM, torque output to input increases with a smaller mass on a longer arm as compared to a larger mass on a shorter arm. Simple tests I have done show me no real numbers as of yet but when I take a mass 10x or more the size of the other mass I am playing with but on a 5 inch arm I can bring it up to approx. the same RPM as the smaller mass on an 11.5 inch arm and stop it with my finger rubbing on a gear really quick and easy, not so with the smaller mass on the longer arm which also "feels" like it takes less input. I have also seen that I can use a spring to assist in storing and returning some of the force so that the input force from me goes down, in this case I "help" the arm compress the spring at the right moment and then I have the spring "help" me change the angles of interaction to accelerate the mass,again at the right moment.Does he want to make a drive force thing out of it? you can do that as well, the trick to that one is that you need to waste a bunch of force and put it back in in the correct orientation for both of these events.

In re-reading what I wrote I made a small error, the large mass was on a 1.25 inch arm, but it still did not perform as well at the 5 inch length but was closer.Jim,Not sure, I would need to play with to get a feel for it.