Gravity machine in panacea lessons.

[bugler]

Hi there,

what about someone here replicating this machine?



You can find the explanation in panacea lesson 4.

What do you think? Sound rather interesting. Why is it that nobody has done it?

[Peter Lindemann]

Intrigued

Bugler,

I have wondered the same thing about this design. I finally came to the conclusion that it can't work because gravity is working equally on both sides, and no other forces contribute to the movements. The problem is "unseen" in the drawing, but the weights and connecting rods rising on the right side of the drawing, even though there are fewer of them, must rise 4 times faster to keep the system going. Work is measured in "foot-pounds" and my guess is that the two sides are equal from a force point of view, even if it is not apparent visually.

Peter

[Stealth]

I have to agree with Peter. It looks feasible at first glance, but even with the large weight on the left side, the right side would have to move very rapidly to offset the balance in this system. It is not an easy design to replicate either. It would take a lot of time and materials to make this machine. If you could set up an animated program to test it, you would probably find that it would equalize shorly after starting. I think most people are looking for much simpler designs to replicate, even if they don't work as expected. I think it would have a better chance of working if it didn't have all those stacks, but instead were a constant steam of jointed lenghts in a "D" pattern, where the longer side was with the curved part of the D, overpowering the shorter upward moving lenghts. Good Luck. Stealth

[CloudSeeder]

The left side to right side ratio appears to be about 35:7, representing a tremendous mechanical advantage because that's 35 pulled down on by gravity versus just 7 pulled down on by gravity.

It's a difference engine that looks like it should work because it has set up an imbalanced force accumulation. It has 7 canceled out and 28 remaining without opposition. However, I suspect a lot of that force is being expended to make the remaining units negotiate through the tight curve at the bottom.

All of the units concentrated in the bottom turn are being pressed down by the total in both the left and the right stacks = 42. I think that would cause a log jam friction failure. This exercise is somewhat similar to the one put to me several months ago which did work according to the poster.

This one is somewhat mashed together; the other one was a triangle with the right side extended. Yep.

[Cloxxki]

After initially loveing the idea, I'm also with Peter on this one.

Also, the x and d measurements seem to be there to indicate torque advantage. Heck, it could have been something versus nothing, and it would still not work. The links travelling up are moveing faster. Run up a long staircase twice as fast, and notice he difference. I'll offer this hint : is not air drag what's making it so hard. Going faster uptill is doing more work per second against gravity.

Better ideas may follow from this one. Possibly taking gravity out of the equasion mostly. I do like the compactness of potential on the left hand side.

[CloudSeeder]

It's settled then! Cloxxki gets to build it!

[ashtweth]

Hi bugler, Peter et All. I think that's from the old Patrick Kelly days, the only gravity ones we have are the ones that have been built and tested, like the Milkovic 2 stage oscillator and the Buzz saw (check the Panacea university site). I hope to have a small two stage oscillator some time this year for all. I am going to talk to Milkovic personally so i know i get the right information. Some of those OLD PDF"s may have some R and D value in them?, but now our policy is to label what is RESEARCH and what is built and tested . Thanks to Peter's help on that.

Ash

[CloudSeeder]

Cloxxki's off the hook. Maybe it will work better with a few shots of WD-40.

[bugler]

Hi bugler, Peter et All. I think that's from the old Patrick Kelly days, the only gravity ones we have are the ones that have been built and tested, like the Milkovic 2 stage oscillator and the Buzz saw (check the Panacea university site). I hope to have a small two stage oscillator some time this year for all. I am going to talk to Milkovic personally so i know i get the right information. Some of those OLD PDF"s may have some R and D value in them?, but now our policy is to label what is RESEARCH and what is built and tested . Thanks to Peter's help on that.

Ash

Good. I will then download again the lessons and read them to get new ideas.

thanks all for your answer specially Peter with the clever insight of the different speeds.