Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08

[futuristic]

@TinselKoala:
Great experiment I like the scientific approach.

You should get the best results from stators at 3 and 9.
That is because in that position you don't have to work against gravity of rotor magnets. There are only friction loses of magnets sliding.

So if you can, please  try setups with stators at 3-9 and 2-8.

Have fun.
Frenky

[ThothTheSecond]

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. 

I thought a lot of tweaking would be necessary, perhaps even some curve to the ramps.  I believe this concept could also be accomplished with the Mayernik effect (ala Archer Quinn) as the gravity pull on the unbalanced wheel would help break the wall.

I'm still learning this stuff (only started reading this site a few months ago) so please forgive my newbieness.  If my young kids give me a turn with the magnetix one day I might be able to try some of this cool stuff.

[gwhy!]

I believe this concept could also be accomplished with the Mayernik effect (ala Archer Quinn) as the gravity pull on the unbalanced wheel would help break the wall.

It may well do but very unlikely , there are pro's and con's of both arrays IMO the tri-gate would be much better in this application. But not to difficult to try the both arrays.

[OU-812]

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.

Although we appreciate your honesty and ability to admit you don't think your wheel is 'the one' you are approaching it all the wrong way.

At this point you need to begin to benign skeptics, rant, swear, go off on tangents, and tell people they are idiots if they don't understand the genious of your device.  THEN and only then will get true believers to send you money.  You can then continue to string them along and get them to send more money if you continue to belittle them and talk on tangents.   

[mondrasek]

If my young kids give me a turn with the magnetix one day I might be able to try some of this cool stuff.

LOL  It was Magnetix (slightly reduced in diameter using a drill for a lathe and a file and sandpaper) inside a MacDonalds drink straw and straight pins that I used to make my first simple mass switch on July 4!  I spent all day in the lab (garage) learning with two switches attached to a piece of wood on the roller blade wheel trying to made the first gravity wheel.  It is also these that showed me the problems I outlined with using ferous targets at the tube ends as latches.  From there I started working out the mechanical latch idea.