Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Simpson Baton Gravity Motor.  (Read 16054 times)

Gregory

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 135
Re: Simpson Baton Gravity Motor.
« Reply #15 on: October 21, 2006, 10:13:54 PM »
Hi Dale,

Good tryout!
Look forward for your next one, but don't forget to have a sleep sometimes.  8)

FreeEnergy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
    • The Freedom Cell Network
Re: Simpson Baton Gravity Motor. This has to work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2006, 10:40:07 PM »
*login to see image


what if half of this machine was put into water and the arms were to be foam? what side would sink into the water first? :)

truth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Simpson Baton Gravity Motor.
« Reply #17 on: December 14, 2008, 10:18:14 AM »
What a heartbreaker!

Shot down on conservation of energy without even getting to the problems with the mechanics of such a device.

That band holding all the ends with full perpendicular weight would be something of a challenging design project.

I had the thought of adding a third wheel to pass the baton from 45 degrees to 45 degrees instead of at 90 degrees, but the math still balances.

Adding water only equals adding friction.

Thanks for the mental stimulation.

pequaide

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 139
Re: Simpson Baton Gravity Motor.
« Reply #18 on: December 20, 2008, 10:24:49 PM »
The lower wheel has one spoke out of balance, because it loses its upper spoke to the upper wheel. The upper wheel has one spoke out of balance because it loses its left spoke to the ladder of spokes.  The ladder of spokes have less leverage: its torque is not generated by its center of mass half way down the spoke. Its torque is generated from an application of force right up against the bearing (the small center circle). Each ladder spoke will have much less torque than the individual fully extended spoke.

So you have 2 out of balance spokes that are fully extended and 10 (or nine) spokes whose mass (force) is up against the bearing. The length of the spoke not only determines the number of spokes in the ladder but it also determines the leverage difference between the ladder leverage (up against the center wheel or bearing) and the fully extended spoke leverage.  Rough estimations show that these are about the same, 2 spokes with a lever arm of 6 and 10 spokes with a lever arm of 1.  I predict that the system will not cycle.

If however you drop ten one kilogram masses (in the ladder) .1 meter they (all ten) will be moving 1.4007 m/sec and they will have 1.4007units of momentum. If you can transfer all of that momentum to the mass on the bottom of the ladder it will rise 10 meters. The ladder has 10 spokes (masses) that are spaced at .1 meters; for a height of 1.0 meters. Ten meters is greater than 1.0 meters. Toss your spoke back up beyond the top and you will have your machine.

hansvonlieven

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2558
    • Keelytech
Re: Simpson Baton Gravity Motor.
« Reply #19 on: December 20, 2008, 11:59:50 PM »
G'day all,

This is a variation of an old idea that does not work.

It was called:  Simanek's Silly Slinky Device

You can see it here: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/annex.htm

There have been many variations on that theme over the years, all of them do not work.

Hans von Lieven

truth

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 54
Re: Simpson Baton Gravity Motor.
« Reply #20 on: December 21, 2008, 12:32:53 AM »
@ hansvonlieven,

Spring ratio 1:2 AND gear ratio 1:2
Arranged to balance into 1=1
Total power input exactly equals total power output IF friction equals zero.

Why is it so much easier to get something for nothing from a person than from nature?

Even the patent office applies that principle/law to fees/inventors.  SAD ::)