Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08

[xee]

@ TinselKoala
Great video. Thanks.

[CLaNZeR]

For what it's worth,  I videoed the test procedure I spoke of earlier, and had some interesting results. Perhaps it is moot now: after all we are seeing an event that is extremely rare in these parts: a free energy invention repudiated by the inventor.
And so soon, too. I expected it to go for at least a couple more weeks.

JK's idea of using a ferromagnetic wire in place of latches, or pins as in the first embodiment, looks like it will work. Not as free energy, just in place of latches. I'll try to illustrate tomorrow.)
(if anybody is still interested...)

Excellent video TinselKoala.

I am still interested in alternative latches. I was thinking of turning the Rod neos sliding up and down the tubes into hedgehogs as such so they had little spikes strong enough to hold the magnet when at TOP position, yet loose enough for the force of the stator magnet to still move them.

Sorry to hear mondrasek that you suddenly discovered that Physics say it will not work. I think most people are aware of this when they first see a design, but the whole idea on the search for FE/OU is to try the design anyway, just incase they hit a quirk that bends those laws!!

No going back for me, Plastic tubing arrived, 10 big bad boy rod magnets on the way and a big wooden wheel too cut out when I get home this weekend.

Cheers

Sean.

[gwhy!]

Back again.  How about a combination trigate/Mondrasek wheel

Hi ThothTheSecond,
   Good thinking, may need some playing with the placement,lengths and angles of the gates but well worth a try,.Cant see any obvious why this would not help rotation. 

[mondrasek]

Sorry if any of you are disapointed that I now believe it won't work.  But the idea was based on a false premise that was not apparent in the patent app.  I understand completely why anyone with experience with the gravity wheels or just a good understanding of the laws could look at the patent app and know it would not work.  I also understand why those who learned about it directly from me would miss the now obvious flaw that I missed.  I'll try to explain.

What is not in the patent app is this:  The major force needed to to be overcome is the repulsive force of the stator magnets.  This force does not change as we scale the wheel.  The imbalance and resulting torque due to gravity scales larger as the wheel is made larger and more mass switches are added.  Both these statements are true.  So it appeared to me, and to those hearing my explaination, that I could scale the wheel and resultant torque infinitely larger and it therfore must be able to exceed the non changing repulsive force of the stator magnets.  But the flaw is that while the repulsive force does not scale, the resultant resistant torque (force x diameter of the wheel) does scale.  It scales linearly.  The torque due to gravity as we add mass switches and increase the wheel diameter does not scale any faster, and actually less than linear.

Once that was realized I understood that I had invented nothing new.  This gravity wheel uses a unique mechanism to push the weights "up the hill" (the mass switch firing).  But it takes an equal amount of force to push through the wall and make them fire.  Plus we have all the losses due to friction and heating etc.  No energy is being added to the wheel to make it spin.  Gravity provides a positive torque and the stator magnets provide an equal negative torque.  Firing the switch at 6 moves a magnet mass inward and will accelerate the wheel while the firing the switch at 12 moves that magnet mass outward and decelerates the wheel an equal amount.  The same is true for the magnets sliding inward and outward in quadrants 3~6 and 9~12.  Every interaction is neatly balanced.  So friction wins again, as always.

I understand now why TK et al. thought I was so dense.  They did not hear my explanation where I missed the flaw.  Also, when I drew how the wheel could scale, I did not diagram a bigger wheel around the existing axel (this would have caused me to move the stator magnets and I would have seen the flaw.  Instead I drew a huge arc representing a massive wheel tangent to the smaller wheel at the 6 o-clock position.  The stator that I had already drawn did not move in the drawing, but it would have moved relative to the new axel position of the huge wheel.

I still like my improved mass switch.  It uses a simple mechanical latch to effectively allow the enclosed magnet to travel almost two times the distance that the stator magnet can fire it.  But you need to invert the switch to realize that extra travel.  Maybe this can be usefull in some device.

I am happy to continue participating in this forum and offering mechanical ideas.  But I do not believe we are working on an energy producing device.  But who knows, maybe it has some other uses in its entirety or pieces.

M.

[mondrasek]

And if anyone can host TK's videos (Clanzer?) where I can look at them at work, that would be great.