fusion

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Shuts off, so other patients can get their physiotherapy too... Not to mention normal people work their entire body, not just target areas. Can't imagine staring at a wall for 3 hours. My brain needs stimulation. Guess your zombie-drugs are working for you...

Who stares at a wall, I listen to music and browse the internet.

I pity sad sacks of shit like you who literally find reasons to justify not exercising.

Dopey

I get plenty of exercise, 40 hours a week. It's called work... Ever try it? You wouldn't last an hour doing my job. But, then again it would take longer than that to teach you how.

That was merely another excuse not to exercise, and support your local MD, who will prescribe you all sorts of goodies that will deteriorate your health further and make you dependent. Have faith, your work is narrowing your arteries as you read this.

PS. Sure I worked, my first day on the job I jackhammered for 8 hours before going to the gym for another 2 hours. Now stack the files and watch the trees closely Comey

GasGuzzler wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Shuts off, so other patients can get their physiotherapy too... Not to mention normal people work their entire body, not just target areas. Can't imagine staring at a wall for 3 hours. My brain needs stimulation. Guess your zombie-drugs are working for you...

Who stares at a wall, I listen to music and browse the internet.

I pity sad sacks of shit like you who literally find reasons to justify not exercising.

Dopey

I get plenty of exercise, 40 hours a week. It's called work... Ever try it? You wouldn't last an hour doing my job. But, then again it would take longer than that to teach you how.

I believe it was you who was mocking people who work for a living. Too funny!

HarveyH55 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Shuts off, so other patients can get their physiotherapy too... Not to mention normal people work their entire body, not just target areas. Can't imagine staring at a wall for 3 hours. My brain needs stimulation. Guess your zombie-drugs are working for you...

Who stares at a wall, I listen to music and browse the internet.

I pity sad sacks of shit like you who literally find reasons to justify not exercising.

Dopey

I get plenty of exercise, 40 hours a week. It's called work... Ever try it? You wouldn't last an hour doing my job. But, then again it would take longer than that to teach you how.

I believe it was you who was mocking people who work for a living. Too funny!

Wasn't me. I've been working most of my life, still am. Never been afraid of getting sweaty, or my hands dirty. Might mock someone who works out in a gym... Just plenty of productive ways to get similar exercise, for the same time spent.

GasGuzzler wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Shuts off, so other patients can get their physiotherapy too... Not to mention normal people work their entire body, not just target areas. Can't imagine staring at a wall for 3 hours. My brain needs stimulation. Guess your zombie-drugs are working for you...

Who stares at a wall, I listen to music and browse the internet.

I pity sad sacks of shit like you who literally find reasons to justify not exercising.

Dopey

I get plenty of exercise, 40 hours a week. It's called work... Ever try it? You wouldn't last an hour doing my job. But, then again it would take longer than that to teach you how.

I believe it was you who was mocking people who work for a living. Too funny!

Wasn't me. I've been working most of my life, still am. Never been afraid of getting sweaty, or my hands dirty. Might mock someone who works out in a gym... Just plenty of productive ways to get similar exercise, for the same time spent.

My apologies Harvey. I misread the multiquotes and thought it was Swan who said it. I misspoke and I admit it and I own it.

HarveyH55 wrote:


Lot's of people have that perpetual motion machine dream. Seems amazing that they all fail, yet people keep trying. Converting one for of energy to another is never one-to-one in practice. It's not an ideal, perfect world. There is gravity, friction, heat, imperfections in materials, fabrication, construction. Where would the extra energy come from, to overcome the loses? Not to mention the need to exceed the energy going in, to make the machine somehow useful (do work).

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:


Lot's of people have that perpetual motion machine dream. Seems amazing that they all fail, yet people keep trying. Converting one for of energy to another is never one-to-one in practice. It's not an ideal, perfect world. There is gravity, friction, heat, imperfections in materials, fabrication, construction. Where would the extra energy come from, to overcome the loses? Not to mention the need to exceed the energy going in, to make the machine somehow useful (do work).

Just an FYI, the Earth's mass is 5.97219 × 10^24 kilograms and if Bessler's Wheel weighs 20kg, then the wheel at most can consume 1/2.986095 x 10^23 of the Earth's energy. And when the Earth's energy is greater than that, the Earth will gain mass at a slightly infinitesimally small amount.
Place 24 zeroes between the 2 and the decimal. Then the energy going in is
g = G5.97219 × 10^24/6,371 km^2. That's a lot of energy compared to an insignificant mass of 20kg. I'm not sure if you know this or not but I happen to find math and science interesting.

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:


Lot's of people have that perpetual motion machine dream. Seems amazing that they all fail, yet people keep trying. Converting one for of energy to another is never one-to-one in practice. It's not an ideal, perfect world. There is gravity, friction, heat, imperfections in materials, fabrication, construction. Where would the extra energy come from, to overcome the loses? Not to mention the need to exceed the energy going in, to make the machine somehow useful (do work).

Just an FYI, the Earth's mass is 5.97219 × 10^24 kilograms and if Bessler's Wheel weighs 20kg, then the wheel at most can consume 1/2.986095 x 10^23 of the Earth's energy. And when the Earth's energy is greater than that, the Earth will gain mass at a slightly infinitesimally small amount.
Place 24 zeroes between the 2 and the decimal. Then the energy going in is
g = G5.97219 × 10^24/6,371 km^2. That's a lot of energy compared to an insignificant mass of 20kg. I'm not sure if you know this or not but I happen to find math and science interesting.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:


Lot's of people have that perpetual motion machine dream. Seems amazing that they all fail, yet people keep trying. Converting one for of energy to another is never one-to-one in practice. It's not an ideal, perfect world. There is gravity, friction, heat, imperfections in materials, fabrication, construction. Where would the extra energy come from, to overcome the loses? Not to mention the need to exceed the energy going in, to make the machine somehow useful (do work).

Just an FYI, the Earth's mass is 5.97219 × 10^24 kilograms and if Bessler's Wheel weighs 20kg, then the wheel at most can consume 1/2.986095 x 10^23 of the Earth's energy. And when the Earth's energy is greater than that, the Earth will gain mass at a slightly infinitesimally small amount.
Place 24 zeroes between the 2 and the decimal. Then the energy going in is
g = G5.97219 × 10^24/6,371 km^2. That's a lot of energy compared to an insignificant mass of 20kg. I'm not sure if you know this or not but I happen to find math and science interesting.

Then you should be familiar with some things work better on paper, than in practice. What works in a lab, doesn't mean it's going to work outside a controlled environment.

Unfinished wood absorbs moisture, or dries, depends on humidity, type of wood. Water weight, swelling will have some affect on function. I'm sure there are ways to compensate, or negate, and Bessler knew all the tricks, and exploits. It is interesting that no one has been able to replicate the magic show in all these years. We have better materials, higher precision tools, and fabrication techniques, that weren't even imagined possible in Bessler's day. Whatever he did then, could be done much better now. Perpetual motion is always going to be a dream. Pursuing dreams is one of the things the sets humans apart from animals. Unfortunately, modern dreams are often drug-induced theses days, and the dreamers are more interested in the drugs, than the dreams. And have no clue about how to achieve any of those drug induced dreams, or even if they are possible. The drug-dream is close enough to reality, they don't need to be concerned about it. Only concern, is getting more drugs. A google search is almost as good as an education...

Even nearly perpetual motion would be a good thing to achieve, considerably less energy used, to perform the same work. There will always be some appeal. It's also been very profitable for many. Which also attracts a lot of fraud.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:


Lot's of people have that perpetual motion machine dream. Seems amazing that they all fail, yet people keep trying. Converting one for of energy to another is never one-to-one in practice. It's not an ideal, perfect world. There is gravity, friction, heat, imperfections in materials, fabrication, construction. Where would the extra energy come from, to overcome the loses? Not to mention the need to exceed the energy going in, to make the machine somehow useful (do work).

Just an FYI, the Earth's mass is 5.97219 × 10^24 kilograms and if Bessler's Wheel weighs 20kg, then the wheel at most can consume 1/2.986095 x 10^23 of the Earth's energy. And when the Earth's energy is greater than that, the Earth will gain mass at a slightly infinitesimally small amount.
Place 24 zeroes between the 2 and the decimal. Then the energy going in is
g = G5.97219 × 10^24/6,371 km^2. That's a lot of energy compared to an insignificant mass of 20kg. I'm not sure if you know this or not but I happen to find math and science interesting.

Then you should be familiar with some things work better on paper, than in practice. What works in a lab, doesn't mean it's going to work outside a controlled environment.

Unfinished wood absorbs moisture, or dries, depends on humidity, type of wood. Water weight, swelling will have some affect on function. I'm sure there are ways to compensate, or negate, and Bessler knew all the tricks, and exploits. It is interesting that no one has been able to replicate the magic show in all these years. We have better materials, higher precision tools, and fabrication techniques, that weren't even imagined possible in Bessler's day. Whatever he did then, could be done much better now. Perpetual motion is always going to be a dream. Pursuing dreams is one of the things the sets humans apart from animals. Unfortunately, modern dreams are often drug-induced theses days, and the dreamers are more interested in the drugs, than the dreams. And have no clue about how to achieve any of those drug induced dreams, or even if they are possible. The drug-dream is close enough to reality, they don't need to be concerned about it. Only concern, is getting more drugs. A google search is almost as good as an education...

Even nearly perpetual motion would be a good thing to achieve, considerably less energy used, to perform the same work. There will always be some appeal. It's also been very profitable for many. Which also attracts a lot of fraud.

Again if you want to build a practical perpetual motion machine you need to start with a stable isotope of Moscovium (element 115). However they will never let this be achieved as this will destroy all other forms of energy

Swan wrote:

Seems that the natives are not allowed to discuss a real perpetual motion Moscovium based machine, that may or may not already be quite real

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Seems that the natives are not allowed to discuss a real perpetual motion Moscovium based machine, that may or may not already be quite real

I have every reason to believe my build will work. It starts with
f(x) = (2/3) Δy/Δx = n and +mv - n = +(L = Iw) + -(L = Iw). v = 1/2d/t which is what the linear velocity would be for a weight dropping distance d.
That basically describes how to convert torque into meaningful work.

Swan wrote:


How are you bypassing the first and second laws of thermodynamics?

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:


How are you bypassing the first and second laws of thermodynamics?

The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form.

Newton's First Law of Motion (Inertia) An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

Linear momentum can be conserved because conservation of angular momentum allows for it.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmnkQ2ytlO8

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Seems that the natives are not allowed to discuss a real perpetual motion Moscovium based machine, that may or may not already be quite real

I have every reason to believe my build will work. It starts with
f(x) = (2/3) Δy/Δx = n and +mv - n = +(L = Iw) + -(L = Iw). v = 1/2d/t which is what the linear velocity would be for a weight dropping distance d.
That basically describes how to convert torque into meaningful work.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Seems that the natives are not allowed to discuss a real perpetual motion Moscovium based machine, that may or may not already be quite real

I have every reason to believe my build will work. It starts with
f(x) = (2/3) Δy/Δx = n and +mv - n = +(L = Iw) + -(L = Iw). v = 1/2d/t which is what the linear velocity would be for a weight dropping distance d.
That basically describes how to convert torque into meaningful work.

And in this case, the meaningful work, would be raising a weight, to be dropped. The 'classic' perpetual gravity wheel... But, even if perfectly balanced, and equal, you would need a little 'extra', otherwise you could only achieve equilibrium. When two surfaces rub against each other, there is some friction, and energy dissipated as heat. Zero friction only occurs, if surfaces never touch. Construction, and materials are never zero-tolerance. Each weight, is going to fall within an 'acceptable' range, based on precision of the method of measuring them. The distance the weights travel, will vary slightly as well. It's a lot easier to balance an equation on paper, than a gravity wheel in motion... But, even perfectly balanced, isn't enough, since the energy you used to stat the wheel spinning, will slowly dissipate through friction, and heat. Unless the wheel can harvest and convert energy from some other source, it will stop spinning. Then comes the need for the machine to perform useful work. Which of course requires energy, beyond what's needed to keep the wheel spinning.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Seems that the natives are not allowed to discuss a real perpetual motion Moscovium based machine, that may or may not already be quite real

I have every reason to believe my build will work. It starts with
f(x) = (2/3) Δy/Δx = n and +mv - n = +(L = Iw) + -(L = Iw). v = 1/2d/t which is what the linear velocity would be for a weight dropping distance d.
That basically describes how to convert torque into meaningful work.

And in this case, the meaningful work, would be raising a weight, to be dropped. The 'classic' perpetual gravity wheel... But, even if perfectly balanced, and equal, you would need a little 'extra', otherwise you could only achieve equilibrium. When two surfaces rub against each other, there is some friction, and energy dissipated as heat. Zero friction only occurs, if surfaces never touch. Construction, and materials are never zero-tolerance. Each weight, is going to fall within an 'acceptable' range, based on precision of the method of measuring them. The distance the weights travel, will vary slightly as well. It's a lot easier to balance an equation on paper, than a gravity wheel in motion... But, even perfectly balanced, isn't enough, since the energy you used to stat the wheel spinning, will slowly dissipate through friction, and heat. Unless the wheel can harvest and convert energy from some other source, it will stop spinning. Then comes the need for the machine to perform useful work. Which of course requires energy, beyond what's needed to keep the wheel spinning.

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

Seems that the natives are not allowed to discuss a real perpetual motion Moscovium based machine, that may or may not already be quite real

I have every reason to believe my build will work. It starts with
f(x) = (2/3) Δy/Δx = n and +mv - n = +(L = Iw) + -(L = Iw). v = 1/2d/t which is what the linear velocity would be for a weight dropping distance d.
That basically describes how to convert torque into meaningful work.

And in this case, the meaningful work, would be raising a weight, to be dropped. The 'classic' perpetual gravity wheel... But, even if perfectly balanced, and equal, you would need a little 'extra', otherwise you could only achieve equilibrium. When two surfaces rub against each other, there is some friction, and energy dissipated as heat. Zero friction only occurs, if surfaces never touch. Construction, and materials are never zero-tolerance. Each weight, is going to fall within an 'acceptable' range, based on precision of the method of measuring them. The distance the weights travel, will vary slightly as well. It's a lot easier to balance an equation on paper, than a gravity wheel in motion... But, even perfectly balanced, isn't enough, since the energy you used to stat the wheel spinning, will slowly dissipate through friction, and heat. Unless the wheel can harvest and convert energy from some other source, it will stop spinning. Then comes the need for the machine to perform useful work. Which of course requires energy, beyond what's needed to keep the wheel spinning.

The mistake that scientists made is with the 1st law of thermodynamics;
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy can be converted from one form to another with the interaction of heat, work.

Newton's 1st law of motion states;
An object at rest remains at rest, and an object in motion remains in motion at constant speed and in a straight line unless acted on by an unbalanced force.

With Bessler's Wheel, the disc is an unbalanced or external force. It conserves linear momentum and conservation of angular momentum, a different force. This is why the math. It quantifies how much work is required to lift weights. This value can be subtracted from the net torque. This allows for a positive (in a working design) net force which would be realized as the moment of inertia for the wheel.
I'm using tapered roller bearings which have some play in them. This allows for a rolling friction which has much less resistance than a regular roller bearing which would have its bearings rubbing against each other.
And if the design I'm building works it will be because only a percentage of the net torque (overbalance) is being used to lift weights. This is where leverage at a 4 to 1 ratio should allow for 75% of the overbalance to rotate the wheel.

James_ wrote:
Swan, nothing delusional about it. Conservation of angular momentum is not the same force as linear momentum. Energy is being converted from linear into angular and then becomes a different linear momentum.
When gravity accelerates a weight, that is one kind of linear momentum. Then when weights change their distance from the axis of rotation that is conservation of angular momentum.
The weight being rotated upwards is not the same linear momentum as the weight that is dropping because they are different distances from the axis of rotation.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Swan, nothing delusional about it. Conservation of angular momentum is not the same force as linear momentum. Energy is being converted from linear into angular and then becomes a different linear momentum.
When gravity accelerates a weight, that is one kind of linear momentum. Then when weights change their distance from the axis of rotation that is conservation of angular momentum.
The weight being rotated upwards is not the same linear momentum as the weight that is dropping because they are different distances from the axis of rotation.

You are sure doing a fine job of confusing yourself. We eagerly await your rewrite of the first law of thermodynamics. Can I be the first to request a signed copy, for the hospital bulletin board?

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Swan, nothing delusional about it. Conservation of angular momentum is not the same force as linear momentum. Energy is being converted from linear into angular and then becomes a different linear momentum.
When gravity accelerates a weight, that is one kind of linear momentum. Then when weights change their distance from the axis of rotation that is conservation of angular momentum.
The weight being rotated upwards is not the same linear momentum as the weight that is dropping because they are different distances from the axis of rotation.

You are sure doing a fine job of confusing yourself. We eagerly await your rewrite of the first law of thermodynamics. Can I be the first to request a signed copy, for the hospital bulletin board?

Have you ever considered learning something about science?

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Swan, nothing delusional about it. Conservation of angular momentum is not the same force as linear momentum. Energy is being converted from linear into angular and then becomes a different linear momentum.
When gravity accelerates a weight, that is one kind of linear momentum. Then when weights change their distance from the axis of rotation that is conservation of angular momentum.
The weight being rotated upwards is not the same linear momentum as the weight that is dropping because they are different distances from the axis of rotation.

You are sure doing a fine job of confusing yourself. We eagerly await your rewrite of the first law of thermodynamics. Can I be the first to request a signed copy, for the hospital bulletin board?

Have you ever considered learning something about science?

Well I designed an external SCSI hot swap hard drive once that worked amazingly well, but it went much the same way as the dude who built an engine that ran on water. Long story

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
Swan, nothing delusional about it. Conservation of angular momentum is not the same force as linear momentum. Energy is being converted from linear into angular and then becomes a different linear momentum.
When gravity accelerates a weight, that is one kind of linear momentum. Then when weights change their distance from the axis of rotation that is conservation of angular momentum.
The weight being rotated upwards is not the same linear momentum as the weight that is dropping because they are different distances from the axis of rotation.

You are sure doing a fine job of confusing yourself. We eagerly await your rewrite of the first law of thermodynamics. Can I be the first to request a signed copy, for the hospital bulletin board?

Have you ever considered learning something about science?

Well I designed an external SCSI hot swap hard drive once that worked amazingly well, but it went much the same way as the dude who built an engine that ran on water. Long story

What? Your investors wanted their money back? With using water, my experiment might have engineers considering if they could do something similar. Basically could they mimic a natural process?

James_ wrote:
Swan, Aldo Costa's wheel works. With Bessler's Wheel, it's not patentable.

p.s., The Earth's gravity is an external source of energy.
To go with what Newton said, the relationship between a weight on the wheel and the Earth is g = Gm1m2/r^2.
Then you say gravity acts equally on a weight dropping and a weight being lifted when it doesn't. And yet you'll say it does.

Swan wrote:

There is no perpetual motion machine that works. Gravity acts both as an accelerator and a drag simultaneously and as such it is not a source of energy.

Which brings you to a quandary, either you are smarter than Newton, or you are dumber than a Bart Simpson pez dispenser?

So how is your psych experiment coming along?

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

There is no perpetual motion machine that works. Gravity acts both as an accelerator and a drag simultaneously and as such it is not a source of energy.

Which brings you to a quandary, either you are smarter than Newton, or you are dumber than a Bart Simpson pez dispenser?

So how is your psych experiment coming along?

I did ask if you've taken some time to learn science. I find it helps. Kind of going back to 3rd grade here but maybe you'll understand this. If you have 2 weights that gravity is acting equally on and one is 50cm/20 inches from the fulcrum and the other weight is 25cm/10 inches from the fulcrum, what will happen? And remember that gravity is acting on both weights equally.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:

There is no perpetual motion machine that works. Gravity acts both as an accelerator and a drag simultaneously and as such it is not a source of energy.

Which brings you to a quandary, either you are smarter than Newton, or you are dumber than a Bart Simpson pez dispenser?

So how is your psych experiment coming along?

I did ask if you've taken some time to learn science. I find it helps. Kind of going back to 3rd grade here but maybe you'll understand this. If you have 2 weights that gravity is acting equally on and one is 50cm/20 inches from the fulcrum and the other weight is 25cm/10 inches from the fulcrum, what will happen? And remember that gravity is acting on both weights equally.

Swan wrote:

You need to give up your disinformation gag, though it is pretty frikin funny at this juncture

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

You need to give up your disinformation gag, though it is pretty frikin funny at this juncture

This is funny. In reality, gravity acts on all weights equally. And yet leverage disagrees. Kind of why engineering isn't physics.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

You need to give up your disinformation gag, though it is pretty frikin funny at this juncture

This is funny. In reality, gravity acts on all weights equally. And yet leverage disagrees. Kind of why engineering isn't physics.

Leverage cannot disagree, unless a schizzo like you personifies the term.

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

You need to give up your disinformation gag, though it is pretty frikin funny at this juncture

This is funny. In reality, gravity acts on all weights equally. And yet leverage disagrees. Kind of why engineering isn't physics.

Leverage cannot disagree, unless a schizzo like you personifies the term.

I'll explain the difference between science and engineering. Science is the natural order of things and understanding what laws, rules or principles govern how they are considered. Engineering is when a person applies those laws, rules or principles to do other work.
Nuclear bombs are the result of engineering using the laws of science to change the use (motion of a body) of energy in motion (heat, a flow of energy) to serve another purpose allowing for meaningful work to be performed (cause and effect).

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

You need to give up your disinformation gag, though it is pretty frikin funny at this juncture

This is funny. In reality, gravity acts on all weights equally. And yet leverage disagrees. Kind of why engineering isn't physics.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

You need to give up your disinformation gag, though it is pretty frikin funny at this juncture

This is funny. In reality, gravity acts on all weights equally. And yet leverage disagrees. Kind of why engineering isn't physics.

Leverage doesn't vote.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

You need to give up your disinformation gag, though it is pretty frikin funny at this juncture

This is funny. In reality, gravity acts on all weights equally. And yet leverage disagrees. Kind of why engineering isn't physics.

Leverage doesn't vote.

That's actually the definition of a paradox. This is because gravity's acceleration is 9.8m/s which has the same effect on each weight.
Yet if the 2 weights are different distances from the fulcrum then it's x/x + y = n then n * 9.806m/s. An example are distances of 10 (y) and 15 (x).
Then 15/25 = 0.6 then 0.6 * 9.806m/s = 5.9m/s. Then if divided by 2 is then the average acceleration rate of gravity. As you can see, leverage causes gravity to act differently on both weights, why it's a paradox.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

You need to give up your disinformation gag, though it is pretty frikin funny at this juncture

This is funny. In reality, gravity acts on all weights equally. And yet leverage disagrees. Kind of why engineering isn't physics.

Leverage doesn't vote.

That's actually the definition of a paradox. This is because gravity's acceleration is 9.8m/s which has the same effect on each weight.
Yet if the 2 weights are different distances from the fulcrum then it's x/x + y = n then n * 9.806m/s. An example are distances of 10 (y) and 15 (x).
Then 15/25 = 0.6 then 0.6 * 9.806m/s = 5.9m/s. Then if divided by 2 is then the average acceleration rate of gravity. As you can see, leverage causes gravity to act differently on both weights, why it's a paradox.

Gravity does not accelerate things that are not already in motion, and gravity does not put things in motion, in fact it slows them down and stops them

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

You need to give up your disinformation gag, though it is pretty frikin funny at this juncture

This is funny. In reality, gravity acts on all weights equally. And yet leverage disagrees. Kind of why engineering isn't physics.

Leverage doesn't vote.

That's actually the definition of a paradox. This is because gravity's acceleration is 9.8m/s which has the same effect on each weight.
Yet if the 2 weights are different distances from the fulcrum then it's x/x + y = n then n * 9.806m/s. An example are distances of 10 (y) and 15 (x).
Then 15/25 = 0.6 then 0.6 * 9.806m/s = 5.9m/s. Then if divided by 2 is then the average acceleration rate of gravity. As you can see, leverage causes gravity to act differently on both weights, why it's a paradox.

Gravity does not accelerate things that are not already in motion, and gravity does not put things in motion, in fact it slows them down and stops them

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

You need to give up your disinformation gag, though it is pretty frikin funny at this juncture

This is funny. In reality, gravity acts on all weights equally. And yet leverage disagrees. Kind of why engineering isn't physics.

Leverage doesn't vote.

That's actually the definition of a paradox. This is because gravity's acceleration is 9.8m/s which has the same effect on each weight.
Yet if the 2 weights are different distances from the fulcrum then it's x/x + y = n then n * 9.806m/s. An example are distances of 10 (y) and 15 (x).
Then 15/25 = 0.6 then 0.6 * 9.806m/s = 5.9m/s. Then if divided by 2 is then the average acceleration rate of gravity. As you can see, leverage causes gravity to act differently on both weights, why it's a paradox.

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Swan wrote:

You need to give up your disinformation gag, though it is pretty frikin funny at this juncture

This is funny. In reality, gravity acts on all weights equally. And yet leverage disagrees. Kind of why engineering isn't physics.

Leverage doesn't vote.

That's actually the definition of a paradox. This is because gravity's acceleration is 9.8m/s which has the same effect on each weight.
Yet if the 2 weights are different distances from the fulcrum then it's x/x + y = n then n * 9.806m/s. An example are distances of 10 (y) and 15 (x).
Then 15/25 = 0.6 then 0.6 * 9.806m/s = 5.9m/s. Then if divided by 2 is then the average acceleration rate of gravity. As you can see, leverage causes gravity to act differently on both weights, why it's a paradox.

Gravity does not accelerate things that are not already in motion, and gravity does not put things in motion, in fact it slows them down and stops them