It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

It took for me being a dissapointing long time in terms of my thinking being capable of this easily

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:23 AM
link   
and quickly should I have; as seeing on how apparent and obvious the solution that is likely the most logic came to mind after eventually looking to a new possibility of movements being manipulated apon for instance the issue that of how to make a wheel turn and always keeping the wieght on the pushing down side and removing it from the going up side. Well I won't tell you exactly but will tell you that you can manipulate sbstances within these sides so that they shift in ways that no energy other then that of any norm of force be if there were no gravity. Good luck. And you all will be first to be told and tell me; if I did share something of relevance such as this on this site; would it be documented as being my discovery undisputedally?
edit on 26-9-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)
There is a direction that I can dirrect you to take to obtain free torque; that is of levee from a drive shaft against another rotaty wise using oposed side and slightly before dead center at the end of the driver and apon the large driven gear; that one using a levee arm to connect to the driver one will continuously force it to turn not mattering it's size ; it would always use the same drive force .
edit on 26-9-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:33 AM
link   
so, by the same token... do you love me long time?



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   
I'll just have a number 2 with no onions. thanks



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 03:36 AM
link   
Michel

If that's your attempt at poetry for the love of god go back to inventing.

Cheers



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:09 AM
link   
.... Yes, in theory, if you could apply an unbalanced mass to one side of a wheel, it will turn so long as the mass remains unbalanced along an axis perpendicular to the influence of gravity. However, in all known systems, the mass will eventually reach an equilibrium.

To, again, unbalance the mass requires the addition of more mass or the relocation of existing mass. Currently, there is no known way of doing either of those things without the input of more energy into the system. Moving mass requires energy that is, at the least, equal to its final potential at its new location. Adding more mass requires mass to already be located at a higher energy potential - all known sources of which are finite or are replenished by the input of energy into other systems (that end up depositing said mass in a reservoir, of sorts).

It all comes back around to "if I had an unlimited supply of..." - indeed, if we do ever identify an unlimited supply of something - the issue of the conservation of energy becomes merely a concern with regards to application of locally finite sources. Until then... or until someone finds one heck of an interesting way of "tricking" the laws of physics... we're kind of stuck, dealing with "if I had..."

I believe we will, one day, be "post entropic" in terms of technology... but the discovery of it, I do not believe, will be so easy as our previous advances in power generation.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 04:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 
I will with this; explain how laws were prematurally labelled; - I want you to imagine a cylinder 10 feet in diametre 1000 feet deep filled of water and at the top I want you to place an operation that consists of simply a two feet thick insert that fits with a seal and make it heavyer than water so that it pushes the water down enptying the cylinder completely while use nothing but the same wieght of that of but 2% of what it had moved and what that is incredible is that you could rise that water using a tub , as high up as you want providing that that pusing down wieght always exeeds the extra wieght that the water in the tub weighs and another thing about this is that the larger you go with this ; the larger the difference you are able to obtain in ratio in terms of efficiency because of the comparison between the size differences of the hose and it's containing water and as it needing not to be enlarged even if one expand the system and actually funny but if after you want to return that 2 foot pussing part; all you would need would be to irrigate again the cylinder and if breaking the seal of the disc and having the float on it above it would make it rise until on top again.This here is in refrance to that of your friction theories where in many instances; you can like this one alternate systems being used where that disc is use as while pushing against the water as a separate component with a constant dispersing of a liquide and otherwise it being part of the water mass and the difference in augmented force is incrediblebecause you can make use of forces that have been harvested continuousally by using it's hight that it is now and weight and you can kind of chose any height that you want to drive it. So that is one that is against physics laws.



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MichelJCardin
 
I just thought of a cool one; to see-saws one on top of the other ; the top one has a fixed axel in the center and the bottom one has a weight in the center of it and two groves ; one on each side and close to the center but not too close and link the ends on both sides with strings like I will explain a bit more; the right tip of the top one is tied to the right bottom one and have the far enough apart of each other ; so when say the left groove is the one that the bottom pin that I forgot to mention; well then the right side would then be the heavyestthus with tweacking with how long the see-saws are; you would then be able to re-establish constaintly the bottom one's psition on the pin; making it heavier then on the other side. I just thought of that one but am pretty confident that it is how it would occure. Actually this one I could and might try right now.


edit on 26-9-2011 by MichelJCardin because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 05:24 AM
link   
Somewhere, many years ago, I read about a bunch of scientists who had made a electrical contraption that creates its own mass. Never heard of it again. Any ideas/theories on that?OP, punctuation is key if you want to have people's attention to this very worthy topic. Can somebody sub that?


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on Sep, 26 2011 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by MichelJCardin
reply to post by Aim64C
 
I will with this; explain how laws were prematurally labelled; - I want you to imagine a cylinder 10 feet in diametre 1000 feet deep filled of water and at the top I want you to place an operation that consists of simply a two feet thick insert that fits with a seal and make it heavyer than water so that it pushes the water down enptying the cylinder completely while use nothing but the same wieght of that of but 2% of what it had moved and what that is incredible is that you could rise that water using a tub , as high up as you want providing that that pusing down wieght always exeeds the extra wieght that the water in the tub weighs and another thing about this is that the larger you go with this ; the larger the difference you are able to obtain in ratio in terms of efficiency because of the comparison between the size differences of the hose and it's containing water and as it needing not to be enlarged even if one expand the system and actually funny but if after you want to return that 2 foot pussing part; all you would need would be to irrigate again the cylinder and if breaking the seal of the disc and having the float on it above it would make it rise until on top again.This here is in refrance to that of your friction theories where in many instances; you can like this one alternate systems being used where that disc is use as while pushing against the water as a separate component with a constant dispersing of a liquide and otherwise it being part of the water mass and the difference in augmented force is incrediblebecause you can make use of forces that have been harvested continuousally by using it's hight that it is now and weight and you can kind of chose any height that you want to drive it. So that is one that is against physics laws.


Here's where I think there is a problem in your scenario. From what I understand you have a mass on top of a cylinder to push water out of it. If you wanted the water to then flow back into the cylinder (after breaking a seal), you would have to have raised the water to a pressure head equivilant to that of the cylinder. Therefore, you couldn't just evacuate the water in the cylinder into a shallow reservoir, as it won't be able to flow back to the original height of the cylinder. These are well known laws of fluid mechanics. Therefore, the mass would have to be significantly large (and dense) to create enough pressure to force all the water into another container with an equivalent pressure head.

You claim to be able to use a float to raise the disc after its displaced the water in the cylinder. This would require displacing enough water so that the mass of the water displaced is greater than the mass of the disc. But if the mass of the disc were enough to displace the water in the first place, it is not possible to have a float that could displace more mass than the mass of the water itself.

While your theory is interesting, and does indeed go against physical laws, it is simply not possible. I hope I explained that well enough. I could go through the appropriate equations and calculations if necessary, but you can see that conceptually, this contraption could not work as you describe it.
edit on 26/9/11 by Curious and Concerned because: re format




top topics



 
0

log in

join