Overunity.com Archives is Temporarily on Read Mode Only!



Free Energy will change the World - Free Energy will stop Climate Change - Free Energy will give us hope
and we will not surrender until free energy will be enabled all over the world, to power planes, cars, ships and trains.
Free energy will help the poor to become independent of needing expensive fuels.
So all in all Free energy will bring far more peace to the world than any other invention has already brought to the world.
Those beautiful words were written by Stefan Hartmann/Owner/Admin at overunity.com
Unfortunately now, Stefan Hartmann is very ill and He needs our help
Stefan wanted that I have all these massive data to get it back online
even being as ill as Stefan is, he transferred all databases and folders
that without his help, this Forum Archives would have never been published here
so, please, as the Webmaster and Creator of these Archives, I am asking that you help him
by making a donation on the Paypal Button above.
You can visit us or register at my main site at:
Overunity Machines Forum



IS THIS A REACTIONLESS DRIVE OR A PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE?

Started by George1, July 21, 2018, 08:11:37 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

nix85

it's not the same, tesla stove reminds me a lot of tsirigakis design which also
does not work. i think that this double rotation that results in irregular path
confuses the inertial frames.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN4Vj3RCtjo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcT863rxo-o

in this spring design pull to the side is not because there needs to be pull to the side
but that is simply a way of imparting torque.

all inertial devices rely on centrifugal pull, that is all they necessarily have in common
there is infinity of ways this pull can be made asymmetrical, many of which
reduce the radius in a way that completely or almost completely cancels
out the desired forward pull. some don't and those work powerfully.

this however, is the most simplistic of all, just an almost bare basic principal

only thing that differs it from completely bare principle is the springs.

for that there would have to be some kind of prime mover at the axis
to accelerate/decelerate the two arms in counterrotation.

maybe i'm wrong about this spring scheme, but i doubt i am
i'm quite sure once countertorque is canceled, powerful linear
acceleration will result. we'll see if someone makes it

there have to be two arms in counterrotation for valid experiment


kolbacict


nix85

interesting but not exactly, i doubt if there is any centrifugal
force on the pivot due to the free end bending

nix85

where did tesla say orbit, not rotation? i don't think he said that.
and no, weights are not same distance from center of rotation
as clearly shown in the video and screenshot below.

nix85

you are misinterpreting the patent. if he said orbit he meant arms
"orbiting" the center of rotation as clearly implied in the drawing.

again, masses are not same distance from the center of rotation
as evident in the screenshot. while one arm is exactly in the center
and therefore has 0 centrifugal force opposite one is max out and
has max force.

just like tsirigakis it appears it should work
direction of centrifugal force in both designs is
really all to one side, but it doesn't work

why, it's not clear. only thing that comes to mind
that this kind of irregular path somehow confuses
the inertial frames