I took at shot at a device that popped in my head. I googled and found that it was near to the concept of the abeling gravity wheel, but does not use a "wheel" concept, instead pistons.
I am a novice at all things construction oriented so here is the device and maybe some one can get it to work. The idea is to have a ramp lined with magnets and magnets on the end of each piston . The idea is that it would force the rod to the other side of the axis , overbalancing the object causing it to rotate.
This is as far as some one built it for me....
Anyone think this has a chance of working???
So I see there has been some views on my topic. Can some one perhaps explain to me if the device was finished why it may or may not work? Thanks!
one side has "x" amount of force pulling in one direction, when the magnet is attracted to the metal
other side has the exact same force going the other way, which balances the system out
the magnets can never escape the system because both sides are balanced
This is a Bhaskara Wheel, known for centuries, with a ramp. One good contemporary variant of this wheel is Sjack Abeling's, discussed at length in this forum. The foum doesn't need to be cluttered further with any more threads with trivial ideas. What the forum needs is to see practical engineering solutions of working devices.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2011, 07:06:54 PM
The foum doesn't need to be cluttered further with any more threads with trivial ideas. What the forum needs is to see practical engineering solutions of working devices.
Who are you to say what can and cannot be discussed. This is an open forum where people are free to discuss anything and everything. If you don't like it, don't read it.
Also, I think it would be a pretty boring site if we could only discuss "working devices". Do you actually know of any?
Thank you Omnibus for your smart ass reply which did nothing more than reiterated what I had in my original post and stroke your own ego. Networking is what I do for a living, so I'm fully capable of using Google and browsing through forums. However The question I had asked is if some one could explain the science behind why it may not work. Excuse me for using this site for what its designed for and that you took your precious time away from reading about all the "functional" pm devices. Perhaps if you are so concerned about "clutter", you should consider reading the OP before replying.
And a sincere Thanks to mr_bojangles for your opinion.
Quote from: MrMag on January 06, 2011, 08:09:44 PM
Who are you to say what can and cannot be discussed. This is an open forum where people are free to discuss anything and everything. If you don't like it, don't read it.
Also, I think it would be a pretty boring site if we could only discuss "working devices". Do you actually know of any?
spam
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2011, 07:06:54 PM
The foum doesn't need to be cluttered further with any more threads with trivial ideas (OR COMMENTS)
Over 4700 posts? Who is cluttering the forum with trivialities.
And your calling me spam?
Though I appreciate that the thread has invoked some manor of attention. My question still revolves around if anyone thinks that there may be a way to make this device turn 1/4 a rotation using magnets on the ramp (from the bottom to the top of the ramp). The original intent was to propel the end of the rod up the ramp as well as pushing it through the axis causing it to be unbalanced. 1/4 turn is all that is needed... at least is as perceived in a peon's brain like mine of course......
Quote from: MrMag on January 06, 2011, 08:17:01 PM
Over 4700 posts? Who is cluttering the forum with trivialities.
And your calling me spam?
spam
Quote from: br0k2e on January 06, 2011, 08:24:22 PM
Though I appreciate that the thread has invoked some manor of attention. My question still revolves around if anyone thinks that there may be a way to make this device turn 1/4 a rotation using magnets on the ramp (from the bottom to the top of the ramp). The original intent was to propel the end of the rod up the ramp as well as pushing it through the axis causing it to be unbalanced. 1/4 turn is all that is needed... at least is as perceived in a peon's brain like mine of course......
Major attention? You're deceiving yourself. This thread should never have been opened. Either you, I say, you, show a working device or don't bother cluttering the forum with opening threads discussing well-known ideas.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2011, 08:46:06 PM
Major attention? You're deceiving yourself. This thread should never have been opened. Either you, I say, you, show a working device or don't bother cluttering the forum with opening threads discussing well-known ideas.
Nobody needs to show you anything. Who are you to demand anything from these people? You make me laugh. Don't you realize that most of these threads are discussing well-known ideas. Go away troll.
Couldnt have said it better myself MrMag.
Quote from: MrMag on January 06, 2011, 08:52:26 PM
Nobody needs to show you anything. Who are you to demand anything from these people? You make me laugh. Don't you realize that most of these threads are discussing well-known ideas. Go away troll.
spam
Quote from: br0k2e on January 06, 2011, 09:00:59 PM
Couldnt have said it better myself MrMag.
You're praising him because you don't know that for him you're a clown too. Anybody who thinks there can be an OU machine is a clown for him. The clown @MrMag calling others clowns. What a parody.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2011, 09:17:58 PM
You're praising him because you don't know that for him you're a clown too. Anybody who thinks there can be an OU machine is a clown for him. The clown @MrMag calling others clowns. What a parody.
Sorry Omni. I don't think I've called you a clown. Now I may have thought that you were an ignorant dick, Stupid ass, whiny little girl, ego maniac... But I never called you any of that. I think the only thing I ever mentioned was that your posts were spam. I may have called you a troll too but I'm not totally sure about that.
Why do you think that I think that Broke is a clown. He is not. Well, I'm not sure, he could be on weekends. :) At least he is doing something and asking for ideas. That is EXACTLY what this forum is for. If you want to start a new thread to discuss your idea. Go for it. All you do is stick your nose in and demand scientific tests be done. Maybe you should start your own forum.
Quote from: MrMag on January 06, 2011, 09:42:11 PM
Sorry Omni. I don't think I've called you a clown. Now I may have thought that you were an ignorant dick, Stupid ass, whiny little girl, ego maniac... But I never called you any of that. I think the only thing I ever mentioned was that your posts were spam. I may have called you a troll too but I'm not totally sure about that.
Why do you think that I think that Broke is a clown. He is not. Well, I'm not sure, he could be on weekends. :) At least he is doing something and asking for ideas. That is EXACTLY what this forum is for. If you want to start a new thread to discuss your idea. Go for it. All you do is stick your nose in and demand scientific tests be done. Maybe you should start your own forum.
This forum is not to be clogged with trivial ideas that have been discussed many many times because it sinks the useful discussions and ideas. No one needs to be entangled in useless exhanges thus losing the progressive trend. This is what all the enemies of OU want -- to get the discussions away from the issues and get them into the dead-end of fruitless pursuits, either by trolls like you or the likes of @TinselKoala(@alsetalokin) with his well-known whipmag hoax. Recently, he's acting more subltle but his destructive activity is still evident. So if you find this unacceptable to cut short destructive activities such as yours it is you who should stop spamming here and set your own forum, useless as it may be, where you can spew you gibberish all you wish.
It is obvious at this point that Lawrence's claims are unfounded. Why? Because his methodology is wrong. However, it by no means follows that the device he's presenting isn't necessarily OU. It very well may be. If you denounce Lawrence's approach, I agree. However, you have no right to claim the device he's presenting isn't OU because you have shown no studies of your own on it. So, calm down. Either get productive and show experimental results or limit the criticism of Lawrence only regarding his current method of study.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2011, 10:02:30 PM
This forum is not to be clogged with trivial ideas that have been discussed many many times because it sinks the useful discussions and ideas. No one needs to be entangled in useless exhanges thus losing the progressive trend. This is what all the enemies of OU want -- to get the discussions away from the issues and get the into the dead-end of fruitless pursuits, either by trolls like you or the likes of @TinselKoala(@alsetalokin) with his well-known whipmag hoax. Recently, he's acting more subltle but his destructive activity is still evident. So if you find this unacceptable to cut short destructive activities such as yours it is you should stop spamming here and set his own forum, useless as it may be, where you can spew you gibberish all you wish.
This forum is not to be clogged? Do you run/own this forum. You have no authority or right to demand anything from anyone. You have over 4700 posts in this forum. Who is spewing gibberish? Whipmag? We're not discussing it here, why bring up useless discussion on something that has been discussed in another thread?
How do you know that this thread will lead to dead-end of fruitless pursuits. Where is your proof of this to make such a claim?
You are worried that someone might think of something that works before you? It's negative people like you that make me want to help out others as much as possible to achieve their goals. You are such a negative pessimistic person. You should really go away.
Quote from: MrMag on January 06, 2011, 10:16:03 PM
This forum is not to be clogged? Do you run/own this forum. You have no authority or right to demand anything from anyone. You have over 4700 posts in this forum. Who is spewing gibberish? Whipmag? We're not discussing it here, why bring up useless discussion on something that has been discussed in another thread?
How do you know that this thread will lead to dead-end of fruitless pursuits. Where is your proof of this to make such a claim?
You are worried that someone might think of something that works before you? It's negative people like you that make me want to help out others as much as possible to achieve their goals. You are such a negative pessimistic person. You should really go away.
You are the one who has no authority to call people clowns. You have no contribution whatsoever in the field of OU so you have no authority to even judge what is and what isn't regarding OU. On the other hand, I do have contributions in the field of OU and therefore I'm telling you, stop spamming the forum with your gibberish. Anyone who has contributions in the field of OU can tell you that blabbering and insults such as yours are the least needed in the difficult pursuit of OU. So, if don't have anything productive to say just stay away from the discussions. Don't impose your impudence on everybody.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2011, 10:24:32 PM
You are the one who has no authority to call people clowns. You have no contribution whatsoever in the field of OU so you have no authority to even judge what is and what isn't regarding OU. On the other hand, I do have contributions in the field of OU and therefore I'm telling you, stop spamming the forum with your gibberish. Anyone who has contributions in the field of OU can tell you that blabbering and insults such as yours are the least needed in the difficult pursuit of OU. So, if don't have anything productive to say just stay away from the discussions. Don't impose your impudence on everybody.
Well first off, show me who I called a clown. How do you know that I am no authority to judge when it comes to OU? Do you know me or my qualifications? What contributions have you had in the field of OU? Put up or shut up.
Quote from: MrMag on January 06, 2011, 10:38:24 PM
Well first off, show me who I called a clown. How do you know that I am no authority to judge when it comes to OU? Do you know me or my qualifications? What contributions have you had in the field of OU? Put up or shut up.
Of course, I know that you have no qualifications. It's obvious. like I said, you have no contributions in the field of OU and I have seen no sensible arguments, other than insults and gibberish, from you. I don't give you the benefit of the doubt. You are the one to prove you have qualifications. So far you have proved you have none.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 06, 2011, 10:46:41 PM
Of course, I know that you have no qualifications. It's obvious. like I said, you have no contributions in the field of OU and I have seen no sensible arguments, other than insults and gibberish, from you. I don't give you the benefit of the doubt. You are the one to prove you have qualifications. So far you have proved you have none.
Sorry Broke for hijacking your thread. If it wasn't for the negative person here I wouldn't bother you.
Again, Nobody needs to prove anything to you. You know that I don't have qualifications. How do you "Know". Do you have proof or is it just a hunch? Why do you think you are an authority on anything? What have you proved? All you have is a big ego, no qualifications. You also didn't mention your OU contributions so I guess you don't have any of those either. Your all talk and hoping that people believe the crap you spew.
Quote from: MrMag on January 06, 2011, 11:11:08 PM
Sorry Broke for hijacking your thread. If it wasn't for the negative person here I wouldn't bother you.
There really hasn't been much for productive response anyways... so have at that CLOWN :) No matter what you say I doubt he'll ever realize how hypocritical his posts are.
Quote from: MrMag on January 06, 2011, 11:11:08 PM
Sorry Broke for hijacking your thread. If it wasn't for the negative person here I wouldn't bother you.
Again, Nobody needs to prove anything to you. You know that I don't have qualifications. How do you "Know". Do you have proof or is it just a hunch? Why do you think you are an authority on anything? What have you proved? All you have is a big ego, no qualifications. You also didn't mention your OU contributions so I guess you don't have any of those either. Your all talk and hoping that people believe the crap you spew.
Don't hijack the thread, no matter how useless it is, with your spam. Don't hijack any thread with you spam, for that matter.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2011, 12:16:38 AM
Don't hijack the thread, no matter how useless it is, with your spam. Don't hijack any thread with you spam, for that matter.
You are hijacking the thread you fucking moron. Shut the fuck up and move the fuck on. God your a whiny bitch.
Quote from: br0k2e on January 07, 2011, 12:27:53 AM
You are hijacking the thread you fucking moron. Shut the fuck up and move the fuck on. God your a whiny bitch.
spam
Wait a second. That was not your original post: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10035.msg264491#msg264491 or I must be seeing things. This is something else and maybe worth discussing because we see here an actual device made. That was exactly my point, to see a device, not just ideas. So, I'll have to reword what I said. Sorry for the confusion.
I've got it mixed up with this, somehow: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10200.msg269931#new . That is the Bhaskara Wheel with Sjack Abeling's as it's one of the modern renditions. Yours also looks like a device I've seen before by an Italian inventor which I've been trying to unearth recently to no avail.
This always happens when trolls such as @MrMag jump all over the place and you try to nip their spamming in the bud. You may notice he hasn't contributed anything of substance regarding your proposal.
As for the proposal, I think any overbalanced wheel is potentially viable. Like I said the ideas of all of them are trivial but nonetheless they have to be explored until a working device is made.
First off, indeed, you're right about that, it has to have a ramp or some way of forcing the weights to always go along such a path that the center of mass stays always sideways with regard to the axis of rotation at any angle of rotation of the wheel. This ensures persistent violation of the lever rule at every angle of rotation. Lack of such ramp is a major defficiency in most of the proposals. Once the construction ensures this conditin (and, like I said, there are numerous such constructions) the major enemy to a working device is the friction. In other words, the OU property of the device is set in stone, it is permanent, while the friction is the variable and it has to be decreased below the levels of the inherent OU property of the device. So, yes, your design is viable and it will work, as far as I can tell now. How to decrease friction is what we should discuss now, I think.
Think about it, an internal combustion engine can work in principle but if you place sand in it and increase friction it will stall. Having stalled due to friction, however, doesn't in any way mean that ICE's are impossible.
wow lol
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2011, 12:44:27 AM
This always happens when trolls such as @MrMag jump all over the place and you try to nip their spamming in the bud. You may notice he hasn't contributed anything of substance regarding your proposal.
As for the proposal, I think any overbalanced wheel is potentially viable. Like I said the ideas of all of them are trivial but nonetheless they have to be explored until a working device is made.
First off,indeed, you're right about that, it has to have a ramp or some way of forcing the weights to always go along such a path that the center of mass stays always sideways with regard to the axis of rotation at any angle of rotation of the wheel. This ensures persistent violation of the lever rule at every angle of rotation. Lack of such ramp is a major defficiency in most of the proposals. Once the construction ensures this conditin (and, like I said, there are numerous such constructions) the major enemy to a working device is the friction. In other words, the OU property of the device is set in stone, it is permanent, while the friction is the variable and it has to be decreased below the levels of the inherent OU property of the device. So, yes, your design is viable and it will work, as far as I can tell now. How to decrease friction is what we should discuss now, I think.
Think about it, an internal compustion engine can work in principle but if you place sand in it and increase friction it will stall. Having stalled due to friction, however, doesn't in any way mean that ICE's are impossible.
Indeed friction itself is the enemy for this setup. The only thing it is lacking is a formation of magnets aligning the ramp to bring the pistons from the bottom to the top of the ramp in a manor that would repel them from touching the ramp itself. In this scale it needs less than 1/4 rotation in order to be out of balance.
Friction of the axis itself would be of my least concern. Do to lack of response I have yet to take this any further than depicted in the OP.
I wish you could change it and avoid magnets. Make it purely gravitational. That Italian one I menioned was purely gravity driven but I can't remember where I saw it.
My understanding is that when you have magnets you will always have to have a negative feedback via a ramp. One of the best proposals in this respect is that by @Roobert33 we're discussing in the other thread. Walter Torbay's motor too but it is too complicated to make.
On the other hand, for a purely gravity driven wheel the only thing necessary is to ensure the mentioned persistent violation of the lever rule and then, of course, to take care of the friction.
There may be a hybrid, a magneto-gravity device, whereby the magnetic field is assisted by gravity as in the magnetic propulsor and that is probably another viable way to explore in search for a working OU machine.
Now, where did you find this one? Who made it? It would be very useful to bring him to this forum to discuss the device with him.
Quote from: Omnibus on January 07, 2011, 01:12:24 AM
I wish you could change it and avoid magnets. Make it purely gravitational. That Italian one I menioned was purely gravity driven but I can't remember where I saw it.
My understanding is that when you have magnets you will always have to have a negative feedback via a ramp. One of the best proposals in this respect is that by @Roobert33 we're discussing in the other thread. Walter Torbay's motor too but it is too complicated to make.
On the other hand, for a purely gravity driven wheel the only thing necessary is to ensure the mentioned persistent violation of the lever rule and then, of course, to take care of the friction.
There may be a hybrid, a magneto-gravity device, whereby the magnetic field is assisted by gravity as in the magnetic propulsor and that is probably another viable way to explore in search for a working OU machine.
Now, where did you find this one? Who made it? It would be very useful to bring him to this forum to discuss the device with him.
I have considered ways to change it perhaps wheels or something on the ends of each piston. And as to where I found it, in my brain, amongst all the other clutter (its mine). Who actually constructed it was my father. He has much more free time than I. I am simply a person of many thoughts with no firm understanding of the laws or rules of which you speak. Thus why I posted the device on here in the first place. Perhaps you can post a link to the thread "@Roobert33 we're discussing in the other thread. Walter Torbay's motor." in which you spoke of so I may reference. Off to bed for now.
Now, here's a link to @Roobert33's device: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10034.0 . So far, @CLaNZeR has done the most towards replicating it. He has already posted three vids on it and everybody is waiting to see his next step and probably to congratulate him on his successful replication. @CLaNZeR is one of the best researchers in this forum and has his own forum too. I said there that I will also do some work on this device, starting probably next week.
As for Walter Torbay, I can't find the likns discussing his device but those were some of the longest and the device was one of the most discussed in the entire history of this forum.
Amother interesting device is that of @xpenzif and, of course, that of Sjack Abeling which whas also heavily discussed and the discussion is still going. You can find it somewhere in the Gravity Powered Devices section.
After so many discussions of various devices we're now at a point where we have to come up with at least one of these actually working so that third parties can replicate it. Now that you're so lucky to have your dad's device at your disposal, all that remains is to tweak it and find the conditions, the sweet spot, which will allow it to make full turns. That's tedious, I know, but at least you have the initial steps of the setting up the device already done. Good luck.
When I was talking above about magnet motors, stating the necessity for a negative feedback ensured by a cam, I forgot to mention another possibility, namely the one I discussed also recently here: http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=10034.msg269592#msg269592 . To achieve these balances of forces which will be favorable for a machine to turn continuously is a very subtle job and one has to have really elaborate skills in fine mechanics to achieve success.