Posted by Jonathan (68.14.212.239) on October 09, 2003 at 02:03:23:
In Reply to: Re: Update; Question for Scott Ellis?Jon posted by Michael on October 08, 2003 at 14:24:45:
Thanks! Interestingly enough, you know how I said that the usual weight distribution was a convientient and unavoidable result of the driving principle? Well, the same process that causes that from the driving principle also makes the ascending weight ascend FASTER than the descending weight falls, so you're starting to worry me that I am repeating your mistakes. One thing gives me hope on this one though: the fact that both the math and the undersized (hand-driven) model I made show both these effects. IF I do succeed in perpetual motion, I bet I could spent hours just watching the thing run (I'd need to design some sort of rpm govenor though), it is really quite elegant, but that's IF it works and IF I don't do a crappy job making it :).
: Hi,
: I'll try to get around to taking a few pics and I'll send them to Scott. A pic is worth...you know. On second thought Jon., they may be completely different ideas, but I was working on a gear difference with sections that needed to be stationary (as in the hanging weight idea). Actually I am a little embarrassed at having spent so much time on this paticular idea when it is so obvious why it doesn't work. Somehow I managed to fool myself into thinking I was lifting an equal weight higher than the one that fell. Still scratching my head over that because I measured time and time again. The weights must have been different weights, but I was sure they were the same.
: Regards,
: Michael