Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic

[pequaide]

one more 1M picture with cylinder and spheres loaded

[Kator01]

 Hello P-Motion, Hello pequaide,

I have to say beforehand that in case you do not get immediate response by me the reason is that this forum has becom so slow in reaction especially during the last few days that some posts I did in another thread simply got lost.

@P-Motion : I fully agree with what you say concerning the practical experience and your statement "hands on work". I grew up as a son of a gold- and silversmith after Wordwar II and since I was 5 years old I would stand on the tip of my toes to get my nose above the level of my father`s working-place to watch him working. I was educated naturally with all this practical workmanship-techniques and still today I do this kind of work in order to relax after my consultant-job. So you are talking to an engineer for applied car-construction who now gets interested to dive again into an new the field of kinematics.
Anyway, at the present I do not have the room and equipment to do this and I am patient till you will have the time to build this, it is your idea and there is no one who can better do this design.

What pequaide has brought up here fascinates me because I have a special way of thinking or should I better express this a "imagine something an whatch it run" like Tesla did it. I have also have learned to have a close look at formulas when there is a possibility to estimate results. but I do not mainly rely on this.

@pequaide : this last picture really shows a big device or am I wrong here. At the present I work out a technical solution in my imagination ( the way I explained it to P-motion before) for another test-rig-design of the ball-and cylinder-system. It will take some time and will post a sketch here for you to comment on.

Is gravitation around the sun the carrier to transfer momentum of the sun to the planets to keep them circling around ? Just a thought.


Kator

[pequaide]

Kator01 The cylinder is a 5 inch O.D. PVC pipe coupler, it is a coupler for a four inch I.D. PVC pipe (both coupler and pipe have ? inch side walls). The mouse trap gives you a good idea of the scale. The hand held models take up very little room, and also show the cylinder stopping. 

I could not send two 1M pictures at the same time, so I posted twice. Yes the site does seem to be slow this weekend.

Here is how the arms work.   The center rod of the arms is in a drill press chuck that has a belt and pulley reduction to a second drill press motor.  It rotates at 3.25 RPS. The arms are held closed with a thin brass rod. The rod latch is opened with the impact from the spring of a mouse trap; a pad trips the trap at a certain portion of the rotation. Upon release the arms are pulled away from the spheres with the top mounted springs. The spheres were holding the cylinder in position so both the cylinder and spheres are released at the same time.

Within about a quarter rotation the cylinder is stopped; according to Newton?s Three Laws of Motion the spheres must have all the momentum. The energy increases I have measured range around 300%, depending on the model.

[Kator01]

Hello pequaide,

thank you for the explanation. I think you have made is clear. What puzzles me most it the fact that the steel-rope under tension by the centrifugal force of the spheres can take all the impact from the cylinder-momentum. Is this steel-rope made from piano-strings ? Can you please give some numbers on the cylinder-/ and sphere-weights and the distance the sphere can move away from the center-axis, so I can do a calculation on this ?

Thank you. Very good work.

As I said I am working on another setup-design which involves a flexible lever with the spheres attached to it instead of steel-strings and a second one using a moving water-column beeing partly stopped. This last design would involve losses, but these losses are tolerable since it is very simple to build.

Regards

Kator

[The Eskimo Quinn]

By request from P Motion.

having glanced (note glanced) at this thread and the apparent 2 designs in question, I noted the last answer at post 117 was incorrect, in fact the reverse is true, spinning momentum of any horizontal motion is more limited than vertical motion, as it must contend with the loss at the outer extremities of the wheel/cylinder that is the outer weight of the centrifugal force, then must contend with its own friction on the center bearing, and on that note can we please have no more posts containing the words "frictionless gears or bearings" We are after all creating perpetual motion for the sake of energy in machinery that will need to be quite large and have gravitation weight of friction on all parts.

Then the horizontal mech must contend with the forces of gravity pulling downward creating a greater friction on the base of the vertical bearings or bearings placed beneath in support.

Vertical wheels have all of those except the horizontal problem. This is not to say a horizontal centrifuge design will not work, merely that the last answer in post 117 saying it did not have limitations of speed such as the gravitational speed, it has many more limitations.

On both projects and for all projects for that matter, most posts here miss some very basic physics aspects to their designs and most certainly in their criticism of others when citing gravitational speed velocity.

1) gravitational velocity (whilst i disagree with Newton on this point also) I will use your hero's base to illustrate a primary conversation flaw on this site.
an SLR 7.62 rifle fires a bullet at 2700 feet per second, now point the rifle at the ground from the top 100 foot  of a building, it is still pretty close to 2700 feet per second not the very slow gravitational velocity speed. Many of the devices here use momentum or projectile firing mechanisms to move objects to fall points within the wheel or armature, this instantly removes the use of gravitational fall as a measurement in every science lab in the world, with only one exception, and that is during the velocity calculation the questions is often asked at what speed does friction (usually from air pressure as with a bullet) slow the speed to max velocity (Newton?s max equation for gravitational fall)
and is the applied pressure a secondary variant in reaching this slower speed (the kite effect same weight as the small apple but fall slow due to aerodynamics).

So many of the calculations on this board keep quoting gravitational fall which is incorrect physics the instant momentum (a simple baseball in a stocking can beat gravitational fall math for weight by momentum) is applied or a projectile system (even a spring) is used in the design.

As for the secondary device this comes under number two.

2)the pendulum in conjunction with the wheel was always a difficult task, 2 sets of friction for a start, primarily the weight of gravity at the top of the bearing that holds the pendulum, but secondary and most importantly , and have not seen it mentioned on any thread, is "racking" one of the greatest shock absorbers of energy. Pendulums create racking force, in fact the energy ratio can be as much as 75percent to racking, sad but true, take a piece of A4 paper hold one hand on each side and rotate you hands in opposite directions, this twist is racking, for the everyday version of a racking pendulum, that is where a set of children?s swings is not fixed to the ground and overbalances when someone is pushed too hard, now image the pressure required to pin downs those legs at that racking point, that?s a lot of energy, now imagine you are not building your machine buy digging holes for wooden posts to go into the ground (i hope your not) and that the 4 legs are joined and a rectangular frame at the base, this energy now travels right through the frame to disperse, this is racking and where most energy from pendulums goes.

But I'm am open minded enough to assume your individual genius has already considered this and your pendulum create huge energy and you only need a small portion of it to help in over balancing your wheel

No pendulum keeps going so it can not help indefinitely, secondly any pendulum that does run for long periods will be slow by the transfer of energy to help the wheel, the wheel will suffer some effect of the racking through stress and vibration. regardless of wheel design. pendulums will only have a negative effect on the wheel, and are probably the poorest of energy transfer devices for an impact design, although may provide some benefit as a wind up and release device that releases a weight to assist in an overbalance application, but most preferable would like be the reverse where a falling weight swings the pendulum. Unfortunately the only design that worked absolutely that i ever came up with was to combine the silly ocean wave energy system with this practice (bloody surprised no one else ever though of it or did it) simply use the ocean for a float that rises and falls with the machine on land, that?s my freebie for those who want free energy fast if you live on a cliff near the ocean, or have a non stupid local government who would build it for you.

But for what it's worth gravity is certainly key as it is the only free "constant" source of energy and my own device was design to manipulate it.

The perfect example of continuous work is simple, two ring magnets north facing north on a stick, the energy from the two magnets constantly repelling whilst the gravity constantly fights to bring the top ring down, in both cases the expenditure of energy is perpetual until the magnet or planet dies. So this is where i first saw perpetual motion and realized it only hade to be manipulated.

There are many ways to get free energy that are not used, not perpetual motion, but perpetual in nature if manipulated correctly. The problem is not discovery, it has usually been cost.

If you want my first free energy device it was simple, the greatest power on earth is not gravity but heat, solar radiation lifts billions of tons of water against gravity every second of the day and at night, my design was simple and works well, based on 8 liters per hour during the day and 3 liters per hour at night average per square meter, this is free lift of tons of weight, simply use 3 square miles of plastic covered ground (a decent commercial nursery size at the bas of a mesa ( a protruding plateau in the desert) and simply have the base a foot deep and cheap roofing and supports like a nursery the slowly inclines up the base of the mesa to a domed condenser probably about half a mile of the mesa top surface area, (a large tent basically with a white roof and giant heat fins aluminum sunk into the ground) simply run back over a single waterfall to the pond below.

Don?t laugh that is 4 liters per day per square meter solar pond basic evaporation, that equates to ?1.3 million liters per hour?, now get that again per bloody ?hour?, that?s one hell of a self cycling hydroelectric plant. Free energy was never tough to discover or design, I just wanted one everyone could build and afford, so the poor could say up yours to the oil gas and coal companies and government taxes on energy.

Whilst having already built the sword and knowing I am the first to genuinely succeed, I do not believe I will be the only one to have a working design in the future, so I guess the best to say for both of these devices, is stay with what you Know Works !!!! Not what science or naysayers tell you won?t work (and that does include myself, always take on board what I have said, but do not set it in stone. You may know or find something that contradicts my opinion, just don?t quote me Newton?s laws that I have already beaten)