Roll on the 20th June

[TryToBelieve]

Not a question, because I risk being labeled as follows (from AQ site):
"If you ask me any questions after all this I will assume you are not capable of basic mechanics and would be wasting my time responding."

But rather a comment.  In video 2 of the new ones, the reset.... HMMMM.... it started by sitting on the platform, yet during reset, the drum does drop, and comes pretty darn close, but doesn't actually touch the platform again.  This loss, be it even 1mm multiplied by every reset and re-run will eventually leave the machine in a state of balance (aka: no longer runnning).

Thoughts?

[ramset]

TTB  the Boss has enough going on there to get my attention   a liitle tuning    some bearings ETC ETC 25-1 at 5-1 or better  Using Fluids      He's working on the wheel KNOW   sweet   Chet

[Bubba1]

Correct, Bubba!

If connecting strings are equal in weight and the situation is static, the lever would still be balanced no matter what incline...

Lifting weight with pulley and rope would be a similar situation...
Cheers!

Yeah, after more thought, I think the common center of mass of the two lower equal weights would be midway on the line between them, directly underneath the center of rotation, thus no rotation.

[tekylife]

Hi,

We all want to believe that free energy is on the way.
Now if you claim you have found a way and you're ready to demo it, at least do it in a convincing way.
Obviously we're not to the point of producing energy yet, but we want to show perpetual motion. So the minimum one would do to prove this claim is show ONE (1) complete cycle, without interruption or operator input. Then to be naysayer-proof, one might want to post a 4+ minutes long video of the thing cycling, to rule out the effect of friction. Hell, even PurePower stated he would be happy with just 5 cycles.
So for someone waiting to see it work to believe, the videos released come short. The machine is not even complete/done, so for starters we can forget about seeing a cycle.

But it's OK, we can wait a week or so more to see the real life changing device. However when the time to demo it comes please post something a little more consistent.

• 1) A complete setup
• 2) A long run without load and operator intervention
• 3) If you want people to reproduce it : real plans

That'd be the minimum to be taken seriously. The ultimate accomplishment being 20 people having reproduced the claim based on the plans you gave out and posting their own videos.

It's kinda disappointing : you say it works and you've tested it, but the videos show no such thing.
Maybe we ought to redefine what a working "perpetual motion" device is. Lower the expectations of the crowd to avoid doing worse on 06/20/2008. Exceeding expectations is what will make people donate once it works.

Anyway : thanks for refocusing on the sword, sharing the basic principles, and your efforts.

[sm0ky2]

@ Capt.,   i wasn't paying much attention to Brand Name

My eyes were on the price,. so im sure i was playing with the crappiest of skate bearings, being that they were only $2.50 / each (made for rollerblades i think)

the ones i was comparing them to, were MUCH smaller, high-quality, precision "hobby" bearings. Like you would use on the propeller-shaft of a model helicoptor, or on an RC race car.
Unfortunately, all of these smaller ones were all the same brand in varying sizes, dont know what brand that was,. just whoever the hobby-shop bought them from.. But the friction on the balls was WAY less, and i also assumed the surface-to-surface friction between the outer edge of the bearing and the sliding rod will be somewhat less than the skate bearings as well, because of a decreased surface area.

if i were building a 15-foot wheel, i would go with skate bearings for sure. But mine is a 14-inch wheel , made completely out of surpluss junk i had lying around. Being that i need 24 bearings to do what im trying to do here,
i wasn't quite ready to shell out $50 on bearings for a prototype of someone elses (unverified) design..

i ended up spending $26 (after shipping), for 36  (small) ball-bearings, [unknown make/model/ forgot the size] after scouring my City, the entirety of the internet,was on the last few of hundreds of pages of E-bay auctions when i found ones that would work for my Budget. (i have a $30 limit on this sort of thing)

Im not sure how good they will be, i dont have the $$ to get the hydrostatic bearings i "want", finally found some, they run $25-200 each, depending on how litle friction you actually want to achieve/ max load / physical size/ ect.

anyhow..  I'm pondering the idea of using a Square Rod with this linear bearing, in attempts to prevent Rod-Rotation.  Sacrifice a little bit of friction on 2 of the 4 bearings but compared to a lot of friction grinding something against the surface of the wheel, or using a full tube - i think this may be the way i end up going with it. i'll have to do some stress tests once the bearings get here, see if Square-Rod is even pheasable.

The only OTHER way i can think of to counter this problem is to make the rod-mass symmetrical. This means moving them further away from the face of the wheel for clearance, and possibly two rows of stator-magnets on top and bottom, spaced to allow the extended weights to travel between them...
or other ways of balancing the rods+weights to prevent rotational-movement.

Clanzer's design inherently avoids this problem, by using the linear-sliders. This is sturdy, and consistent, but comes at the expense of increased friction.

Friction in the rods, essentially ADDS to the "sticky spot". ideally if there were no friction and the rods were allowed to slide freely, the only sticky-spot you would feel is effects of gravity of the verticle displacement of the rods. which is LESS than the total movement of the rods both vertically AND horizontally - which is felt as torque on the wheel.