The one you did has been done hundreds if not thousands of time and even 2 versions have been patented as gravity devises. Most of us who do this know that any thing with a stagnant ramp is high friction and can’t work.
None of them work, AB.
And friction isn’t a problem if the round bits on the end of the rods are cylinder bearings. Also you’ll note that as the spinning bearing gets closer to the centre, its linear velocity results in a greater angular velocity[*], hence it actually pushes up on the wheel. So rather than being a drag on the wheel, the ramp acts as an extra propulsion.
That is such a limeted view of math.
Yes, it’s limited to being correct. Nice as it is to suddenly decide 1=2 and make your household budget balance, the real world isn’t going to go along with it. And if you perform a path integral of an object in Newtonian motion, moving in a cyclic manner in a static gravitational field, and determine the work done, the answer is 0. Always. Always. Always.
So either Newton’s laws are wrong or calculus is. Funny how they seem to work in just about every other case they’ve ever been applied to? Apart (for Newton’s laws) from the odd relativistic one, natch.
Well it is also true if you can keep weight on the descending side and always shifting to keep it there?
Yes, if you expend energy to do so.
That is the basses of a gravity wheel/motor. No you cant lift up the same amount that is going down at the same time, it will equal out, and that seems to be the only math main steam science uses for some reason on all gravity wheels. How about the math for leverage and shift, these are what you need to look at it, not to mention rotation and centrifugal force.
Incorrect on all counts. Path integrals do not assume the same time, the law of the lever demonstrates conservation of energy, as do the laws for angular motion.
I don’t have time to teach what I know.
I don’t see why. I can’t imagine it will take long.
I’ll say something similar to what Bessler said. If you can lift 1 pound over with a 1/4 pound under in a rotation and repeat you can make a running wheel and keep it over balanced.
Except the laws of physics, specifically that leverage stuff you were just so hot about, say that your 1/4 pound will have to go down (slightly more than) four times as far as your pound went up, and what lifts up the 1/4 pound again so that you can ‘repeat’, the falling pound? Sure, that only has to fall (slightly more than) a quarter as far as the 1/4 pound has to rise, but that gets you nothing. As long as the weight weighs the same going down as it does going up (static gravitational field), there is no work done. Which is why water wheels work and overbalancing ones don’t.
I really like the laws and math of leverage. Once understood you will then see why I say, it does not break the laws of Physic.
You’re right, it doesn’t, which is why these overbalancing wheels always, eventually, come to a stop.
And if you are wondering about my Iq it is only 139. Not great, but not bad either.
And not meaningful, since IQ tests do nothing but measure your ability to do IQ tests.
As the creative writing dictum goes, “Show, don’t tell!” If you can build a perpetual motion machine, do so. Saying it’ll work is easy, and as pointless as claiming to know the formula for flubber.
[* The bearing picks up an angular velocity ω1 from it’s velocity (v) across the ramp such that ω1 = v/r1 where r1 is the radius of the bearing. But v is also given by the speed of the bearing around the wheel, determined by the wheel’s angular velocity (ω2) and radius (r2). I.e. v = ω2.r2.
However, as the bearing moves towards the centre of the wheel, it retains it’s angular velocity due to momentum, but now is only a radius of r3 from the wheel’s centre. This gives an angular velocity of ω3 = v/r3.
So, along the path of the ramp, the angular velocity of the bearing around the wheel changes from ω2 to ω3 = ω2.r2/r3. As r3
< r2, so ω3 >
ω2 and the bearings act to accelerate the wheel as they move inwards.]