Energy in = Energy out

[cameron sydenham]

Ahh, me again. oh well.

I will try to give more details of our motor and how newton's laws as well as Conservation of Energy and Thermodynamics are not Avoided.

Take a mass, in our motor it is 17 pounds. Revolve the mass around a central shaft at a distance of 6 inches. at a rate of 400 rpm.
there are a number of equations to determine Cf. please use your own and correct me if I am wrong.
The effects Cf have on that mass make that mass " feel" like it weighs 463.76 pounds. In other words, if that mass "came off" and struck a scale, it would "weigh" 463.76 pounds.

So, to clear up what a lot of people on here have said, Cf is not usable, I think that is true, but the affect Cf has on an object..... that object can be used.

Now, we have figured out a way to take that outward affect on that mass and turn it in to the direction of the motion of the mass. ( this is the patented part) The mass now is instead of pulling straight out from the center with all that force, but is pushing with some of that force in the direction of the motion. I say some, i am sure there will be loss here, how much is unclear now.

Now, lets say i can capture 10 % of that exerted force acted on the mass and have it push that mass in the same direction that it is revolving, that would yield 46.376 pounds of force and 23.188 pounds of torque at the given rpm of 400. Hp is a calculation that equals 1.765 Hp. The pure electricity used to create the above rotation is 600 watts in the motor we have built. Our motor uses 2 masses so double the output and take into consideration, this is only a 10% recovery and at 400 rpm. the Numbers go up fast due to the calculation of Cf where you must square the velocity.

energy in = energy out , well, the energy in the system in electricity is the watts, but with what I have invented, we have to add in the affect that the Cf plays too. the electricity only produces the rotation, it really has nothing to do with the output power in torque. the Cf that I am manipulating and using as leverage is where the energy in needs to be derived.

It merely is a more efficient motor, that utilizes the Cf that almost every motor on this site and in the world tries to avoid.
What I would like to ask you is, what if he can do what he says?
I understand I am going to be blasted with the kitchen sink here, but this is a leap of faith.
Cameron

[TinselKoala]

Cameron, I am going to ask you to do a simple experiment. You apparently have an apparatus constructed, and some way of MEASURING (not calculating) the output torque. Yes?

OK, here's the experiment. Set up your equipment as it is supposed to operate, and get it running to your favorite RPM. Say 400 RPM. Now measure the output torque. Do this several times so you can get an average. Call this the "experimental" condition.

Now, use some hardware, or tighten up the shafts, or do whatever to FREEZE the positions of the moveable weights that produce, or use, or redirect the centrifugal force. I suggest fixing the moveable weights in their half-way positions, but at either endpoint of their travel would also be OK. So the weights cannot move, the whole "CF" mechanism is disabled and might as well be dead weight on the wheel. OK.
Now run the device back up to 400 RPM and measure the output torque. Several times to get an average. This of course is the "control" condition.

Properly, you should then repeat the experimental condition trials, and then the control trials. So you are doing E-C-E-C. This is so you can tell if anything important besides the CF changes between conditions, like bearings loosening, etc.

Then come back and report your results here. If you clearly have a substantial increase in torque in the experimental condition over the control condition, you could be justified in getting excited.

(Needless to say, the torques measured have to be continuous outputs, not just momentary, and the input electrical power should also be recorded on each trial.)

[utilitarian]

Ahh, me again. oh well.

I will try to give more details of our motor and how newton's laws as well as Conservation of Energy and Thermodynamics are not Avoided.

Take a mass, in our motor it is 17 pounds. Revolve the mass around a central shaft at a distance of 6 inches. at a rate of 400 rpm.
there are a number of equations to determine Cf. please use your own and correct me if I am wrong.
The effects Cf have on that mass make that mass " feel" like it weighs 463.76 pounds. In other words, if that mass "came off" and struck a scale, it would "weigh" 463.76 pounds.

So, to clear up what a lot of people on here have said, Cf is not usable, I think that is true, but the affect Cf has on an object..... that object can be used.

Now, we have figured out a way to take that outward affect on that mass and turn it in to the direction of the motion of the mass. ( this is the patented part) The mass now is instead of pulling straight out from the center with all that force, but is pushing with some of that force in the direction of the motion. I say some, i am sure there will be loss here, how much is unclear now.

Now, lets say i can capture 10 % of that exerted force acted on the mass and have it push that mass in the same direction that it is revolving, that would yield 46.376 pounds of force and 23.188 pounds of torque at the given rpm of 400. Hp is a calculation that equals 1.765 Hp. The pure electricity used to create the above rotation is 600 watts in the motor we have built. Our motor uses 2 masses so double the output and take into consideration, this is only a 10% recovery and at 400 rpm. the Numbers go up fast due to the calculation of Cf where you must square the velocity.

energy in = energy out , well, the energy in the system in electricity is the watts, but with what I have invented, we have to add in the affect that the Cf plays too. the electricity only produces the rotation, it really has nothing to do with the output power in torque. the Cf that I am manipulating and using as leverage is where the energy in needs to be derived.

It merely is a more efficient motor, that utilizes the Cf that almost every motor on this site and in the world tries to avoid.
What I would like to ask you is, what if he can do what he says?
I understand I am going to be blasted with the kitchen sink here, but this is a leap of faith.
Cameron

First, as to the concept, it sounds just like a complicated flywheel to me.  A flywheel on bearings is pretty efficient.  Friction is the only inefficiency.  However, you cannot get more out than in.  The point of a flywheel is to store kinetic energy - it is not a motor.

So, what is the point of your motor?  You have electricity going in, which is converted into kinetic energy, which is then converted back into electrical?  Assuming losses at each stage, no matter how much "more efficient" your design is than a normal flywheel, what is the point?  You start with electrical, and end with less electrical.

Lastly, why do you even need to ask these questions?  You have a device.  What it does, it speaks for itself.  Does it produce excess power over input?  If so, that is the holy grail, and you should just be able to plug the output into the input, and the world shall rejoice and you will be rich and famous.  If it does not produce excess power (and by your subject line, you imply that it does not), but merely consumes some electrical while making fancy motions, then it is a fine and interesting apparatus that consumes power and looks pretty and hums, but qualifies more as art.

So what is the point of your device if "energy in = energy out"?

[cameron sydenham]

@ tinsel, i have done a test like the one you ask. we are using a generator as the load. as far as measuring the rotational torque, we need a dyno or a transducer, we have neither, well, we have a dyno, but the inputs to start are too high.

when i "lock" the motor's ability to use cf, and make it run like a fly wheel, i take the rpm measurements at 50 watt input intervals.
when i utilize the Cf in our motor , i do the same. the rpm readings when the cf is utilized, we get a  larger and higher rpm at the same watt inputs, up to a certain point.
Tinsel, you are 2 for 2 as far as having an open mind at least and I appreciate that.

@ the other post, I am only presenting this post as a follow up from past ones to find a company or agency or person that i can divulge our invention to so we can be paired up with the people that can help us finish our concept.  tinsel made a very valid point in a past post. I only posted this in the hopes that some , a tiny bit of details will help me find the right people. 

as far as a fly wheel, the fly wheel is an inertia only system as far as i can tell, no utilization of Cf or Cp at all.
Cameron

[TinselKoala]

Cameron, you can get a pretty good idea of torque if you can use the method that the guys use in this video (the torque measurement, I mean...don't be fooled by their improper power measurements).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuM5TNi2lbU

On second thought, if your motor violates normal Newtonian dynamics anyway...maybe this standard method of torque measurement wouldn't work. But if I were you, I'd try it.

Your description of your tests sounds tantalizing. I'd like to know some details about how you are measuring the input power.

"Tinsel, you are 2 for 2 as far as having an open mind at least and I appreciate that."
  Some people here wouldn't agree with you on that one...but I thank you. I know I've been tough on you in the past, and I intend to keep being tough, until you can solidly prove your claims. I hope you see that as being helpful...