Accelerated flow vs. constant flow...

[FreeEnergy]

@ Mapsrg

Hope you don't mind ?
Maybe this has been tried before
(please ignore the extra paddle below) ...my mistake

Good luck !

interesting drawing. i've seen similar designs except yours has a twist. looks good, you would need to put it to the test in real life to see if it really works.

peace

[iacob alex]

...can be a starting point, to think about the difference ,between what we know and what we are looking for.

If a common "wheel concept" is well adapted for a watermill(continuous constant flow),then for a "gravity mill"(continuous accelerated flow),must we imagine something different,unlike?!

Maybe yes,maybe not...this nonconformity,discrepancy can be that distinguishing a common wheel concept(many spokes) and a "minimal" wheel concept(two spokes only...so a lever).

In a way,we are playing the same touch off...the wheel concept.

Gravity is a high power source...we understand this,if we take into account a big waterfall(cascade).

But gravity fall/flow is in every place ...we need a kind of a mechanical "dam"( we can think up this,as an "inertial dam") and a controlled flow of the power...as a copier,mimic of the well known waterfall design.

Again,a minimal design...

A fall in the gravitational field is equivalent to a high level of a power peak

We can imagine about pulse forming with the help of a pendular arrangement in connection with an flywheel(heavy hub).

.This flywheel is slowly charged from the gravity(power source) and then quickly discharged from short time period to provide a pulsed energy.

This accelerated fall/flow is  ever increasing,if we play the time(size) factor.

It seems that at a certain magnitude, we can get that we need,  from this nonlinear charge:adequate stored power for any pulsed sequence,so to determine a self -running function for the "gravity mill"  and more important...power for our applicability.

   All the Bests!  /  Alex

[Bessler007]

Hello Sevich,

Is the "perpetual motion trophy" still up for grabs?

It has been a couple of weeks and I was wondering about your progress.

. . .
Hope to complete/build my latest design within a week or two  ......hows yours comming along ?


PS.......failure of the "Chas Campbel" motor is viewed as a great relief to me to the point that "perpetual motion trophy" is still up for grabs 

[sevich]

@ bessler007

Firstly, welcome to "overunity.com"

I hope you'll find your stay here considerablly more enjoyable than your previous one.   You'll also notice the tolerance level here is more humane, and unlike "besslerwheel.com" there is no frankenstein "reputation system" attached ..... I personaly view that system as grossly judjmental and a sure loophole for intimidation and corrupt conduct by members in group voting, vote hoarding and the likes.

Oh, I almost forgot. My PM progress results at that time has shown constant dismal failings throughout. Guess I was'nt that keen to anounce my failures on this forum at that time due to stress.

In the last week i've purchased well over $300.00 worth of magnets from http://www.lodestoneindustries.com.au as well as $160.00 worth of other miscellaneous materials for PM building.

I have 3 new designs to test in the next few weeks....(gravity, gravity and magnetic)


Anyway, as they say, the wheels are in motion.........pardon the pun 


BTW how are your hands on experiments coming along ?

[Bessler007]

Sevich,

Thanks for the welcome. 

I don't think they deliberately set out to create a cult, rather it's a reflection of the personalities of the core leadership at besslerwheel.  It is a monster as you say.  It's sad.

My hands on experiments are coming along just fine.  My hands are on a pencil and I put that pencil to paper.  When I'm very curious about some function I'll put it in a spreadsheet and see what kind of curve it produces.  At times I wonder about the intersection of curves and that's best examined with a spreadsheet.  It gets too complicated for my feeble art skills.

For example someone at bessler asked what I think they imagined to be a rhetorical question about when movement should occur to maximize it.  I doubt seriously they had an answer they could defend.  Eventually I came to an answer.  Defensible answers are harder to come to than the simple questions that cause them. 

The answer is the result of the intersection of two 4 dimensional curves as far as I can tell.  I could defend my opinion with the math but I have a hard time doing that with people wanting to laugh at the method and results.  They can let reality do their math for them as far as I'm concerned.  hehehe.

The benefit for me is this.  I can describe that intersection in one sentence to the degree that any mathematician could develop their own proof and check the validity of the conclusion.  It also gives me a concise tool that I suppose describes reality.  It's a foundation for thought.

It sounds like you're gearing up for an all out build or two.    Best of luck to you.  Having built quite extensively I've concluded I want to know a couple of things before I ever build again.

• What principle am I attempting to model?
• Is the principle mathematically sound?
• Can I defend the mathematics either on paper or with a homemade analog computer (a part of the model)?

I have at least one principle that I suppose I can defend mathematically but I'm still looking at it.