... decided to censor the previous subject line as being too titillating for some. Hey- the word 'titillating' is pretty naughty by itself.
Anyway, to backtrack: Pendulums (penduli ?) are efficient, no doubt about that. The swinging (two vector) version may not end up going over the line (unity line) but is three a charmed number? The Milkovic hackers certainly think two is adequate: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Milkovic_Two-Stage_Mechanical_Oscillator I was not aware of the SAM (Atwood) underpinnings of this niche, and apparently neither was Milkovic and his fellow mecs. Here is Wiki's take on the SAM. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swinging_Atwood's_machine ... so the SAM's club information was not included when I posted a fanciful piece on "700 years of OU" some time ago here: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg19075.html If it is in any way accurate - from extending the Hamiltonian of the swinging version of Atwood's machine, which can be verbalized in one POV as: "Energy conservation constrains the motion to a three dimensional subspace in a four dimensional phase space" .... Does that, by any stretch of the imagination, imply OU when phase-space is considered, and is a "virtual four-space" which accommodates mechanical phase-shift, remotely possible? If arguably possible, what about arranging two separate swingers orthogonal to each other and out of phase -- to simulate "virtual phase space"? Maybe it is easier to simulate four space if you are well-connected (as a Cistercian Monk would be)... More on that later. Too many other good things happening in the world of alternative energy this past week to get side-tracked on yet another, which is already been "censered" [sic] ... ;-) For the pun-challenged: a censer is an incense burner. For the YouTube challenged, who want to follow a more potentially useful approach to OU- check at the latest from MrH2O2 and imagine that as evolving into a future... hmmm... Meyer-Kanzius-Joe cell type of power supply for efficient water-splitting? Jones
