Overunity, Green Energy, Powered by Gravity!

[MeggerMan]

Hi Tim,
Yes, I would agree, maybe I was a bit hasty there.
After I posted the comment, I drew an idea out on paper and now I am convinced it can work.  I think I lost a few hours sleep just trying to think of ways you could construct a proof of concept device.

Idea 1.
Using 360 ball bearings for weights attached to wheel at 1 degree intervals in a sliding cage with two possible positions on the radius, say 10cm and 20cm from the hub.
When each ball (10cm radius position) reaches the top (0 degrees) it engages a horizontal track with a very slight gradient, enough for the ball to roll, with the cage either side of the track.
The wheel continues to rotate and when 45 degrees rotation is reached the ball drops off the end of the track and is locked into the 20cm position. I need to check my maths on this as I am not sure if at 45 degrees the radius will be double or more.

With the wheel rotating clockwise the rotational force of the right side will be much greater than the left side and will continue to rotate.

When the wheel reaches 135 degrees, the ball engages a second lower track to roll back to its 10cm radius position where it is locked into place at 180 degrees until it reaches 0 to start all over again.

At any given time there are going to be 90 balls on the two horizontal tracks (45 on each) but because of the sum of the forces for the remaining 270 balls are out of balance the wheel will continue to rotate.
Even though you have 180 ball bearings on the upward side and 90 on the downward side the majority of the torque is created at between 45 degrees and 135 degrees, also and most important, you have twice the torque on the right hand side for this segment.

Where at 0 degrees to 45 and 135 to 180 there is very little.
With a few calculations I could work out the difference.

So I am asking myself now, where is the flaw in this design?
I have looked at all the angles I can think of.
I will need to write a small program to work out the energy created and to calculate the minimum number of spokes to get rotation.
4 would be the minimum I guess. 8 would be better.

Regards

Rob

[MeggerMan]

Hi Tim,
After carefully drawing it out and using a marked out CD and substitute weights (some capacitors) I did a dry run of what should be happening and what the torque would be for any given position. It started to look promising until I realized that the extra radius at 45 degrees is not 2 x but only 1.4 x.
This then puts a real damper on the whole thing.
I carried on and did a spreadsheet to work out the exact torque values and guess what, it balances out exactly, so no net gain, no over-unity.

So there we have it, I cannot see how it can work but I would love to be proved wrong.

See attached spreadsheet for the figures and calculations.

Regards

Rob

[VANDUGEGS]

kingrs,

>>unless part of your wheel is sitting in some strange dimension<<

I was asked if my machine was pointing north, it was.
I do not think it matters.

You asked some questions, so I took a look at what video's I mite be able to post and they all showed to much, I will keep looking.
All I will say is do not build to small, the machine needs to have some weight to it. After all, it uses this weight to operate the machine.

Remaimber,( Divide and conqour ).

Darrell

PS You may get more information, while talking on MSN.

[VANDUGEGS]

I said I would keep looking, so here it is. This video shows an experiment a few years ago.
It should be odvious that I have done more then just paper work.

Let me know what you think &

  Have a Happy New Year

Darrell

[FreeEnergy]

I said I would keep looking, so here it is. This video shows an experiment a few years ago.
It should be odvious that I have done more then just paper work.

Let me know what you think &

  Have a Happy New Year

Darrell

uh huh here we go again....lol

sorry but that video is just plain crap. good day sir.

peace