Free energy groups?

[mscoffman]

@mangyhyena;

It's good that you described your idea and hopefully you will have a good
stay on this Web site.

The problem is: "it won't work as you have described it". The fundamental
point is: A machine requires a "cycle" to get itself from the end back
to the beginning. And a perpetual motion machine can not use anything
or permanently change itself in any way while doing so.

Because of the above, each cycle will have to be able to power itself
possibly though some sort of a buffer, but the each net cycle has to
produce energy "gain" to at least overcome friction and possibly more
to have some left for the user to have as output.

Putting multiple cycles in offset will not cause a machine to have net
energy gain, if each cycle does not in itself have gain. The analogy
is the old saw; "That a company is loosing money with each unit they
ship, but is making it up in volume." It just doesn't work that way.
In other words it should be possible to substitute an energy buffer
for the other parallel cycles and have the machine continue to fill
the buffer.

---

Having said that, there is one way that this might make a workable device.
That is; have two or more synchronized reciprocal units.  Where the work
performed on one unit causes reciprocal action to take place on the other
during a time when not much is going on.

For example to have two synchronized Calloway V gate wheels of opposite
magnetic polarity, where lifting the static magnet away from one rotor,
shoves it into the appropriate place on the other. The wheels would rotate
an extra turn for each cycle but the low friction turning is energetically
inexpensive. But what you have done is divided the work of moving a
magnet to miss the sticky spot between the two wheels. Most likely a
wheel can't support 1.0xWork being lost in each cycle but it might be
able to support .5xWork or some other divisor, if you can figure out how
to share the one work unit even more. By the way one can get rid of
the weight of lifting the magnet, but not the inertial momentum
required to lift it.

Unlike doing this on a pulse motor, the V gate motor does this during a
time when the field is R^2 inactive.

:S:MarkSCoffman

[mangyhyena]

mscoffman, thank you for your post.

Each motor that pushes through its gate is now in it's next cycle and assisting other motors that are not yet in their next cycle.  If each rotation consisted of just one cycle for the motors and did not put any of the motors in their next cycle, then all the motors working together would suffer a net loss of energy.  But I'm hoping that because each motor that is reset begins its next cycle before rotation is complete, those motors provide external power for the other motors still in their first cycle to reset.  Sort like borrowing from the future?

But I see your point about each motor producing less than it needs to run.  You may well be dead on with your post.  Hopefully, I provided something different to think over.

And I really liked your take on moving the stator over to a different motor so it never encounters a gate in the first place.  On an axle, this should not be too difficult to do.  Food for thought, at the least.

Thanks.

[mangyhyena]

I stumbled on the idea of running linked motors out of phase to provide external energy needed to reset each motor, one at a time, when I watched a video on YouTube that demonstrated this.

In the video, he was using the V-pattern array laid out in a straight line on a table top.  He then used what looked like a toy car with bar magnets beneath it.  The car traveled all the way down the track, moving right by multiple sticking points until it came to the end of the track, where it stuck on the last sticking point.

Why did his car travel over the sticking points through multiple V-patterns when other motors hung up on one of the sticking points without making it to the end?  I had to watch his video several times before I noticed something he had done differently.

Under the car was not just one bar magnet, but three bar magnets in a row, with an inch or so of space between them.  Had he just used one bar magnet, his car would have stopped at the first or perhaps the second sticking point, like all the other motors using the V-pattern I had seen.  But his car made it through all the sticking points through several V-patterns.

The first bar magnet under the car hit the first sticking point, but the two bar magnets behind it had not hit a sticking point yet and continued to provide external power to not only keep the car moving forward, but to overcome the first sticking point the first bar magnet had just encountered, pushing that first bar magnet past the sticking point and back into play.  When the second bar magnet encountered the sticking point, both the third and now the first bar magnets were in play---not on sticking points and actively producing power.  Those other two bar magnets provided the external energy required to overcome the sticking point the second bar magnet had encountered.  Ditto with the third bar magnet when it encountered the same sticking point.

Because there were three bar magnets and only one sticking point any of them could encounter at any given moment, there were always two out of three bar magnets still in play and providing the external energy required to overcome the sticking point that could only happen on one bar magnet at a time.

Now, more energy was required of each independent bar magnet to overcome the sticking point than was made traveling up the V-pattern.  In other words, it took more energy per bar magnet/motor to run than it, by itself, made.  But because there were two other motors/bar magnets in play at ALL times, the external energy required to overcome the sticking point was provided by the other two.  So, even though each bar magnet produced less energy than it took to reset onto the next V-pattern, the three bar magnets all working together to support one another produced more power than it took to run.

This principal, I believe, can apply to any static force, including gravity.  The trick is to keep all other motors running while only one hits a point where it needs to be reset.  All other motors still in play to support that one motor that needs to be reset is where the external energy comes from.  And the moment a motor is reset it immediately becomes one of the many motors running out of phase to provide the external energy required to reset the next motor that needs to be reset.  In this way only one motor will need external energy for reset at any given moment during rotation while all other motors running out of phase will provide that required external energy.  At no time during rotation will more than one need to be reset.  At no time during rotation will the machine not be getting energy from all but one motor.  With enough motors running more than enough energy should be produced moment to moment to keep the motor running itself with enough left over to do useful work elsewhere.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3r2aZ3llqok&feature=related

This isn't the exact video I first saw, but it shows the same thing.  If you consider each bar magnet to be a motor in and of itself, you're watching three motors working together to overcome the resistance of the sticking points.  Two motors working to put one motor back in play, repeated three times per sticking point.
Also, if the "car" were stationary---fixed to the table---and the V-patterns were attached to a conveyor belt that runs beneath the now-stationary-car, there's a good chance this setup would run in a loop.
An easy say to test this would be to put the V-patterns on a wooden wheel and put not one, but three stators spaced from one another so that only one could ever hit a sticking point at a time above the wheel.  If it keeps turning without stopping then there's something to what I'm proposing.  If not, then I'm wrong.

Looking at each bar magnet as its own motor has wider implications for other types of motors that use a static force to run in a loop.

Looking at a gravity motor, you would want to look at each weight as its own motor.  Lifting just one weight at a time quickly back into position before the next weight needs to be lifted is a way to make all the other motors provide the external energy required to reset just one motor.  Because the weight that was just reset becomes one of the weights that will help perform the next lift, a loop is closed.  At no point during rotation will more than one weight/motor need to be reset.  At no point during rotation will all but one motor be actively producing energy.  The more weights falling at a given moment, the less the percentage of the weight that needs to be lifted becomes in relation to the total energy produced; the less energy for reset is needed from the total of the energy produced by the falling weights.


At this point only a demonstration can explain it better than I've explained it here.  Hopefully, what I've proposed here can help someone in some way to get their motor running.