Brazilian company is building a Gravity Generator:
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ (http://www.rarenergia.com.br/)
Please have a look at the link above and scroll down up to English written description.
QuoteWe will build in Porto Alegre, at Av. Patria, 195 - a power generator that started by a
mechanic system, and exclusively powered by the gravity force.
It will be the first equipment with this technology in the world.
We have a small machine for experience and testing in our headquarter at Av. Pedro
Ivo,933. The mechanic system was created under a special conception, to pick up and
take the energy contained in the planet gravity, at any moment and place, without
pollution or heat. Technology was completely developed by our Company and consists
in a continuous movement with some extra energy that can be taken, in a continuous
and perpetual mechanic movement. This equipment is similar to a combustion engine,
where a set of weights represent the fuel and pistons that activate assemblies connected
to a crankshaft. Another similar equipment will be built in the U.S.A. at the Incobrasa
Industries Ltd plant, a Company of the group, located in Gilman, IL. Both equipment
are demonstration models with capacity to generate 30 KW, and will be ready in the
middle of the next year. The technique allows the building of great power generators.
@schuler:
This "energy-generator" is being discussed (and possibly debunked) in this thread: [size=78%]http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/ (http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try-at-gravity-wheel/)[/size]
Take a look at the pages and see what you think.
Maybe they are onto something, and maybe not. . . .
truesearch
If what's shown in the pictures is really all there is to it.... then .... not. It's a big, expensive, complicated flywheel, and given an initial spin, it will turn until it stops, and if it's well balanced that could be quite a few full revolutions, since it's clear they spared no expense on bearings, precise machining and expert construction. The thing weighs tons and can store a lot of input energy over a long period of time, then release it at higher peak power levels quickly, like any flywheel. Where is the magic part that makes it a "generator"? It's certainly not shown in any of the pictures or diagrams.
Patience, Al, patience.
Quote from: Grimer on December 28, 2013, 09:29:01 AM
Patience, Al, patience.
Grimer
It is a win win proposition on his machine. If it works? he wins. If it doesn't work, he takes it off his taxes and wins again. Just remember, Big money has all the advantages. Heck our government maybe paying him to build one over here.
Alan
Alan
Very few people here have as much hands on experience as you in these concepts.
whats your Gut feeling here?
Plausible??
Hope your having a good holiday !
Chet
ps
Might be taking a trip to see ths one...
Quote from: ramset on December 29, 2013, 10:34:37 AM
Alan
Very few people here have as much hands on experience as you in these concepts.
whats your Gut feeling here?
Plausible??
Hope your having a good holiday !
Chet
ps
Might be taking a trip to see ths one...
Ramset
I have my doubts for I do not see a prime mover. But I do understand the attempts at rocking the lower weights to relieve some negative weight for I have designed a wheel to that effect, but to every positive action there tends to be a negative one for the rocking has to be pulled back up. The reason I set my design of such to the side for another day. I will be telling more about the prime mover approach at a later date.
Without it, the possibilities have already been seen in our own attempts.
Alan
Quote from: AB Hammer on December 29, 2013, 10:52:03 AM
Ramset
I have my doubts for I do not see a prime mover. But I do understand the attempts at rocking the lower weights to relieve some negative weight for I have designed a wheel to that effect, but to every positive action there tends to be a negative one for the rocking has to be pulled back up. The reason I set my design of such to the side for another day. I will be telling more about the prime mover approach at a later date. Without it, the possibilities have already been seen in our own attempts.
Alan
The prime mover on the Keenie is the weight which is release on the right hand side, impacts the weight below and recoils to reset in its original position.
But the really important action is that of the one way clutch, the mechanical valve, which prevents the rest of the coupled weights rising up to meet that single weight. That valve allows the jerk energy, the angular momentum to be partitioned, one part remaining within the wheel and the other part going to earth.
It's massively ironic that Keenie brought the slingshot, the gravity, assist to earth long before
[/font]
Michael Minovitch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Minovitch)[/color][/font]
in 1961[/font]
[/font]
In the Milkovic pendulum we also have a counter weight sitting on the "earth" apparently doing nothing but in fact being prevented from falling.[/font]
Raymond Head has shown that the Milkovic can deliver over-unity. In the RAR there are plenty of pictures showing weights sitting on the floor doing nothing. It is that action that is the key to the asymmetric action of gravity.[/font]
[/font]
It's a pity that cognitive difference is too strong for people to recognise it.[/font]
test
Your chart just barely has room at the very bottom for the Gravity Wheel, which has produced exactly ZERO output in any of its various guises, no matter how much money is spent on it.
QuoteRaymond Head has shown that the Milkovic can deliver over-unity.
No, he hasn't.
Well, as I said to Dr Blackman at the BRS/Pilkington Brothers crisis meeting on the viability of GRC.
"You are entitled to your opinion, Dr Blackman, and I am entitled to mine." ... at which point Blackman jumped up and screamed,
"I'll hound you Grimer, I'll hound you, I'll hound you", then promptly burst into tears.
My Assistant Director, Dr Cornelius, rose to his feet and exclaimed,
"I can't allow you to speak to my staff like that!"
Dr Evans of PB suggested that it might be a good time to adjourn the meeting - and it was.
I always remember the date because it's palindromic.
American Independence Day, 4.7.74.
Nearly forty years ago that was. At least your memory is still sharp!
Yep. I remember all our fascinating exchanges on the Steorn forum. A bridge too far if ever there was one.
Bump
In view of the fact that there's a rumour that RAR may be having a press conference at the end of June I thought I'd bring this to the top.
Also I intend to get ready a post so I want to be able to find it. ;D
Quote from: Grimer on June 20, 2014, 01:55:03 AM
In view of the fact that there's a rumour that RAR may be having a press conference at the end of June I thought I'd bring this to the top.
What do you think will RAR announce at this alleged press conference? Why should there be a press conference?
https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US20130256066.pdf
In the patent one can read the text depicted in the attached picture.
So, will they show the unlocking of the contraption and will it turn for a long time (at least a day) producing more than 1 KW?
Greetings, Conrad
http://www.google.com/patents/US20130256066 (http://www.google.com/patents/US20130256066)
The above is the link to the text in the previously posted jpg.
Use Ctrl F with "size, one in Porto Alegre" to find the context of conradelektro's image.
No video, that shows how this divice working?
Quote from: MenofFather on June 21, 2014, 12:48:27 PM
No video, that shows how this divice working?
How could there be?
Since it doesn't actually work.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 21, 2014, 01:53:29 PM
How could there be?
Since it doesn't actually work.
So you think that when they demonstrate to the assembled press they will have a Kinetica (is that the correct
spelling?) fiasco eh, Al?
Quote from: Grimer on June 21, 2014, 04:29:07 PM
So you think that when they demonstrate to the assembled press they will have a Kinetica (is that the correct
spelling?) fiasco eh, Al?
The machine will not demonstrate successfully. Sooner or later they end up with egg on their face.
I suppose RAR chose Jun/Jul for their public demonstration because the world press will be in Brazil for the World Cup.
These pictures of RAR persist despite scientific evidence of their falseness.
RAR = 100% Hoax !
You will never see anything
Neither in July 2014
nor in 2015, 2016, 2017, .....
;)
In view of the final paragraph of RAR's patent I'm surprised that people like Al and Mark haven't analysed the details to show where the boys from Brazil went wrong. I'm sure they are more than capable of it.:
QuoteThe industrial application of this equipment is broad and unlimited. The entire world seeks a source of producing energy without pollutants or heat that can destroy the atmosphere. A few days ago, the US president mentioned in his inaugural speech that the US will have the main goal of producing energy with renewable resources. He still has no idea that we will be able to produce energy with resources eternally available at any quantity, at any place or time, without noise, pollution or heat. This invention will certainly promote an industrial and world revolution in the coming decades.
[/color][/font][/size]
Quote from: Grimer on June 23, 2014, 07:27:37 PM
In view of the final paragraph of RAR's patent I'm surprised that people like Al and Mark haven't analysed the details to show where the boys from Brazil went wrong. I'm sure they are more than capable of it.:[/font][/size]
Frank, if I said I could grab you by the scruff of the neck and toss you off a ten-story building, and that you would learn to fly before you hit the ground hence saving yourself from splattering all over the sidewalk, would you need to "analyze the details" to be quite sure I was wrong?
Here is why they are wrong: Energy is conserved, and a closed path in a gravitational field results in no net energy gain. No matter the details of the path! But if the path involves big heavy stuff moving noisily and with difficulty, grunting and gasping along as it does its ponderous movement, there is net energy _lost_ to friction and vibration and noise which ultimately winds up as heat. These facts may be argued with but they cannot be falsified. That is just the way it is!
Quote from: Grimer on June 23, 2014, 06:37:23 AM
I suppose RAR chose Jun/Jul for their public demonstration because the world press will be in Brazil for the World Cup.
Suppose, speculate, do whatever you like, but those machines are giant pieces of art. They will never generate free energy from gravity.
I can not wait to see the culmination of the latest fad in our wonderful world that we live in.
A very successful millionaire businessman goes on a spending rampage and
advertises around the world that he has created a monster machine that
operates on gravity only, and he post pictures of the build in Brazil and
Illinois and this information is sent around the world for everyone to see,
and all the while he knows that the machine does not and will not work.
Meanwhile he tarnishes his reputation forever and is deemed a fool.
If you believe this, then you need to stay away from "Colorado Brownies."
There was a 1952 science fiction movie, "Attack of the Giant Bread Slicers."
Quote from: camelherder49 on June 24, 2014, 11:02:05 AM
I can not wait to see the culmination of the latest fad in our wonderful world that we live in.
A very successful millionaire businessman goes on a spending rampage and
advertises around the world that he has created a monster machine that
operates on gravity only, and he post pictures of the build in Brazil and
Illinois and this information is sent around the world for everyone to see,
and all the while he knows that the machine does not and will not work.
Meanwhile he tarnishes his reputation forever and is deemed a fool.
If you believe this, then you need to stay away from "Colorado Brownies."
Why is it so unbelievable that a "successful business man" can be foolish in ways not related to his original business success?
Successful people can be superstitious or can have extreme religious or political opinions.
Successful people versed in book keeping and sales techniques can be totally ignorant in science.
Successful people can become mentally ill.
Successful people can make any error possible in this world.
And the way the two gigantic machines have been presented up till now is not very encouraging if not to say strange. A sane person would know that the claims made in the patent are pretty extreme and unbelievable. A sane person would know that extraordinary proof was necessary. Therefore one would need a well founded and careful presentation of the underlying concepts checked by experts. As a whole the machine and its presentation look amateurish.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: camelherder49 on June 24, 2014, 11:02:05 AM
I can not wait to see the culmination of the latest fad in our wonderful world that we live in.
A very successful millionaire businessman goes on a spending rampage and
advertises around the world that he has created a monster machine that
operates on gravity only, and he post pictures of the build in Brazil and
Illinois and this information is sent around the world for everyone to see,
and all the while he knows that the machine does not and will not work.
Meanwhile he tarnishes his reputation forever and is deemed a fool.
If you believe this, then you need to stay away from "Colorado Brownies."
All RAR energia is a hoax ( Project, machine, press article, .... )
Example photographs N ° 40 : http://rarenergia.com.br/imagem40a.JPG
Look at the error : http://nsa33.casimages.com/img/2013/11/07/131107125729411914.jpg
Camelherder49, Explain to us ?? ::)
Really...
A big hoax invented by a Brazilian student.
This student (poa_engineer) works in computer graphics and design with a software of image. Very successful software.
The machine does not exist. The workers are false.
Really, the shed is empty.
There is a simple solution. When the "locks" are unlocked
the engine will either run or just sit there.
If the engine begins to operate there will be no need to try
to say that this is impossible. The "brain trust" will have its' answer.
The stammering and stuttering will be deafning!!
Quote from: Enstenow on June 24, 2014, 04:11:36 PM
All RAR energia is a hoax ( Project, machine, press article, .... )
Really...
A big hoax invented by a Brazilian student.
This student (poa_engineer) works in computer graphics and design with a software of image. Very successful software.
The machine does not exist. The workers are false.
Really, the shed is empty.
May be it is a hoax, sounds plausible, but who filed the patent?
It is of course possible for anybody to file any patent, but this costs some money and some work.
It was filed in the US by a Brazilian, so he needs an attorney in the US (this is the highest cost, several thousand Dollars).
The patent was also filed with WIPO see WO2013144757, which also costs money.
The original Brazilian patent UY34709 was also filed by an attorney (again a lot of money).
At least the patenting was an expensive effort, someone spend thousands of Dollars for it. That looks more like delusion than hoax. But who knows, the world is crazy.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: Enstenow on June 24, 2014, 04:11:36 PM
All RAR energia is a hoax ( Project, machine, press article, .... )
Example photographs N ° 40 : http://rarenergia.com.br/imagem40a.JPG (http://rarenergia.com.br/imagem40a.JPG)
Look at the error : http://nsa33.casimages.com/img/2013/11/07/131107125729411914.jpg (http://nsa33.casimages.com/img/2013/11/07/131107125729411914.jpg)
Camelherder49, Explain to us ?? ::)
What, specifically is the error?
I've always had a feeling that it was a generated image and
have looked for faults.
Whoever did this certainly went to a great deal of trouble,
it's been very well done.
John.
You need to go to the website and read what is being described. A Brazalian student
engineer is not behind a millionaire businessman's visit to Gilman, Il.
The building in Illinois is there and it is not empty.
There have been many iterations from the pictures that were taken 1 year ago.
If you inspect all the pictures, the linkage has been moved about for optimum power
and you will be able to invent all types of theories from the picture evolution trail.
Quote from: conradelektro on June 24, 2014, 05:03:17 PM
At least the patenting was an expensive effort, someone spend thousands of Dollars for it. That looks more like delusion than hoax. But who knows, the world is crazy.
Greetings, Conrad
Yes Conrad
But a patent costs cheaper than to buy of the advertising
;)
Quote from: camelherder49 on June 24, 2014, 06:10:10 PM
You need to go to the website and read what is being described. A Brazalian student
engineer is not behind a millionaire businessman's visit to Gilman, Il.
The building in Illinois is there and it is not empty.
There have been many iterations from the pictures that were taken 1 year ago.
If you inspect all the pictures, the linkage has been moved about for optimum power
and you will be able to invent all types of theories from the picture evolution trail.
Camelherder49
You are blinded by the false gigantic size
Official picture N° 04 - Gilman Illinois : http://www.rarenergia.com.br/gilman%20oficial%2004%20eng.JPG
The second computer graphic error :
It will all get back to when the brake is released. If it is computer generated as
you absolutely know, then there will never be a brake release.
I personally, absolutely, know nothing!!
Quote from: Enstenow on June 24, 2014, 04:11:36 PM
All RAR energia is a hoax ( Project, machine, press article, .... )
Example photographs N ° 40 : http://rarenergia.com.br/imagem40a.JPG (http://rarenergia.com.br/imagem40a.JPG)
Look at the error : http://nsa33.casimages.com/img/2013/11/07/131107125729411914.jpg (http://nsa33.casimages.com/img/2013/11/07/131107125729411914.jpg)
Camelherder49, Explain to us ?? ::)
Really...
A big hoax invented by a Brazilian student.
This student (poa_engineer) works in computer graphics and design with a software of image. Very successful software.
The machine does not exist. The workers are false.
Really, the shed is empty.
The reference to the poa_engineer shows that Enstenow has been reading the RAR thread on BesslerWheel.com and has been dishonest in not admitting it.
In fact poa engineer has taken a photo from the street of the RAR Mark 2 in the building at Porto Alegre.
I suppose the student paid thousands of dollars for the patents too, eh!
Pull the other one Enstenow. It's got bells on.
The relevant part of the BesslerWheel.com thread starts here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=122741#122741
I believe the devices are real enough.
But that stocky fellow in the white shirt and hard-hat... I know he's got to be a cardboard cut-out.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 25, 2014, 03:49:15 AM
I believe the devices are real enough.
But that stocky fellow in the white shirt and hard-hat... I know he's got to be a cardboard cut-out.
LOL. I was less polite and called him that fat chap.
Chubby chappy is Renato Robeiro, the billionaire sole owner of both the company and its parent.
link: http://www.rarenergia.com.br/gilman%20oficial%2019%20eng.JPG (http://www.rarenergia.com.br/gilman%20oficial%2019%20eng.JPG)
Above is him with his family. I presume the lady in the duffel coat is his wife.
"When the brake is released", oh yes, reminds me of old Rossi and his
mega-watt.....and don't forget the mega-watt Diesel that was running
It!!
John.
Quote from: minnie on June 25, 2014, 04:14:24 AM
"When the brake is released", oh yes, reminds me of old Rossi and his
mega-watt.....and don't forget the mega-watt Diesel that was running
It!!
John.
Come on! You can't be serious.
Huge difference in scale and Rossi isn't a billionaire, is he.
How big of a motor would be needed to turn that monstrosity? Also if it got
up to a few rpm. it would self destruct-power = rate of doing work.
John.
Unfortunately we do not have any tangible information besides the patenting effort, which costed at least 10.000.-- Dollars (probably more).
See the attached PDF-File depicting the patent family (related patents).
For me it means, there is money behind. But that does not prove that the machine is more than a heap of steel.
My personal take: the inventor has a life long obsession with "gravity machines" and at the end of his life he wants to give in to this obsession because he can afford it. He was clever enough not to let his obsession interfere with his business life but finally he went over the edge (as some old people do, we see it in this forum quite often).
If he already owned the buildings then the costs of building the two contraptions might not be that high (for a millionaire). My estimate is 100.000.-- to 200.000.-- Dollars. This is not too much for an old person owning millions. Many millionaires spend much more money on other follies (like women, big houses, yachts, gambling).
I just hope that we get useful information eventually. Till then, forget it!
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: minnie on June 25, 2014, 04:29:09 AM
How big of a motor would be needed to turn that monstrosity? Also if it got
up to a few rpm. it would self destruct-power = rate of doing work.
John.
You've got it the wrong way round. You should be asking, how much energy will this gravity engine generate?
Answer: 30 kW - which you'd know if you'd bothered to read the patent.
Bit pathetic compared to Rossi's mega-watt don't you think?
Perhaps a 30kw. motor would turn it albeit very slowly.
John.
I did find one unusual artifact in the picture. I'm not saying that this proves that its CGI trickery, just odd that they're missing.
In the picture, most of the uprights have an angled plate at the back except for the ones shown on the left.
Maybe this is intended?
Quote from: Grimer on June 25, 2014, 05:31:51 AM
You've got it the wrong way round. You should be asking, how much energy will this gravity engine generate?
Answer: 30 kW - which you'd know if you'd bothered to read the patent.
Mr. Grimer I hope you don't suffer from the misconception that just because something appears in a patent application or a granted patent that it is true. This machine of Incobrasa's will not run on its own.
Quote from: minnie on June 25, 2014, 05:38:05 AM
Bit pathetic compared to Rossi's mega-watt don't you think?
Perhaps a 30kw. motor would turn it albeit very slowly.
John.
Pathetic indeed - which makes it more likely to be genuine - and it's turning a generator not being turned by a motor - but then you knew that didn't you - you were just trying to be funny .....ha, ha and ha. Charity laugh for minnie.
Quote from: Grimer on June 25, 2014, 04:01:44 PM
Pathetic indeed - which makes it more likely to be genuine - and it's turning a generator not being turned by a motor - but then you knew that didn't you - you were just trying to be funny .....ha, ha and ha. Charity laugh for minnie.
Playing a bit fast and loose with the Present Tense, there, aren't you Frank?
The devices in those photos are NOT turning a generator, never have and never will. And it will take a pretty powerful motor.... say 30 kW... to get it to turn in the first place. Have you ever tried to align a 16-part shaft running through a bunch of independently mounted bearing blocks?
But then you knew that didn't you. You have not been right about anything since your famous "power law" papers from a generation ago. Pathetic indeed.
To be frank Frank, don't you think a cast iron bed as in marine diesel, and properly
line bored bearings would be required?
I'm an old farmer and that thing they're showing looks agricultural. Farm equipment
isn't actually renowned for efficiency and reliability.
Having said that next door farm had a windmill I used to play on as a kid. All it was
was a skeleton . Anyways it was taken to Avoncroft museum and re-built and I've
actually been in it when it's been running. Now,to me, that is a miracle.
Do a Google for Danzey Green Windmill
John.
RAR Energia = 100% Computer graphics
RAR Energia = 100% Hoax
The third graphic error :
- Official picture N° 22 : http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem22a.JPG
- Official picture N° 40 : http://www.rarenergia.com.br/imagem40a.JPG
Don't be silly. You have not corrected for the perspective of the overhang. The image at lower right is looking nearly directly at the wall so the line you have drawn is legitimately straight down. The image at lower left is shot at an angle _on the other side of perpendicular_ and the upper deck overhang is making your line not actually going down properly. When it leaves the upper window it must go _down and to the right_ even off the edge of the photo, following the overhang, before it then continues straight down the wall between the hard hats or whatever they are on the rack. That part of the line is off the frame of the bottom left photo.
None of the other examples of photo trickery that you have posted actually hold up to close inspection either. Sorry... you are going to have to come up with better evidence than you've shown if you want people to believe that the photos are faked.
Any one know when the official power generation date is for both Alegre and Illinois machines? Too difficult to follow on that comic book style website http://www.rarenergia.com.br I lost count after 90 images. What is the reasoning for clicking the capture button 90+ times and not clicking the record button once? Or is there some video elsewhere you have to find after going through a web maze of inconspicuous links?
I know one thing, most the claimers of ou hire the worst web developers on earth.
Quote from: TinselKoala on June 25, 2014, 04:46:01 PM
Playing a bit fast and loose with the Present Tense, there, aren't you Frank?
...
Well, we shall see, won't we Al. :-)
And well done on squashing that idiot who thinks the photos are faked.
You mean we will continue to see that the machines do not operate on their own.
Quote from: ACG on June 25, 2014, 11:57:32 PM
Any one know when the official power generation date is for both Alegre and Illinois machines? Too difficult to follow on that comic book style website http://www.rarenergia.com.br (http://www.rarenergia.com.br) I lost count after 90 images. What is the reasoning for clicking the capture button 90+ times and not clicking the record button once? Or is there some video elsewhere you have to find after going through a web maze of inconspicuous links?
I know one thing, most the claimers of ou hire the worst web developers on earth.
Never mind the quality - look at the width. ;-)
I have some questions?
Where's the bulding?
Is it still there?
Is this satellite image before the building was built, or after it was destroyed?
600 East Rd, Gilman, IL 60938
Anyone had a progress report ?
Quote from: Grimer on December 28, 2013, 09:29:01 AM
Patience, Al, patience.
OK, we have been patient for more than a year.
Now, what is the excuse?
How hard can it be to build the 2nd Gravity Motor since one should already exist in Brazil?
I'm not an expert but it looks like the generator may have been sabotaged by internet shills. We have seen a lot of negative comments just before rarenergia stopped posting updates.
Some informed insiders speculated that Andrea Rossi may have bought them out and shelved the tech to protect e-cat from competition, but I think that's unlikely because Rossi seems to be more into real estate investments.
Some reputable economists expect that the current low oil prices may slow down the growth of alternative/renewable energy.
There is still hope because their website is up, but so is Steorn's.
Can anyone explain why in this photo on their WEB site is the Sun over the north pole as this photo is looking north :-\
Below is the link to where this building is in my last post
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@40.7633077,-88.0122511,286m/data=!3m1!1e3
Adelaidemark
Your google map link does not match with the picture. The building in the picture is parallel with the road and there is no buildings of that shape that is parallel to a road on the google map link.
Sigh.
1. The google map link does show the correct location of the plant in Gilman.
2. We don't know what stage of construction the google picture represents.
3. The glowing dot in the photo of the building is certainly _NOT_ the Sun. It is a drop of moisture on the camera lens. You can see another one approximately centered in the photo, on the side of the building.
4. The RAR project has gone silent because finally somebody in charge realizes that it does not work and it will never work, because it cannot work, because gravity is a conservative field of force and cannot perform net work on such an object.
Um, did you see my earlier post asking where the building is? http://www.overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/msg423000/#msg423000 (http://www.overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/msg423000/#msg423000)
The yellow circle is where the building should be. But from the interior pictures of the machine, the barn-shaped building in the upper left of the satellite image looks like it may be the actual building housing the unit.
We need someone in the Illinois area to take a drive out to 600 East Rd, Gilman, IL 60938 and see for themselves.
Take pictures and ask around. Be a detective. It's not that hard.
Possible explanation of the modus operandi (http://www.overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/msg449929/#subject_449929). Reply #21835 and Reply #21838.
Take a weight. Say 100 Kg. Suspend it on a spring. Now imagine there were a possibility to switch off Earth's gravitational field periodically with use of very little energy. Then that 100 Kg weight would start to swing up and down and we could use that momentum to do work.
So is there a possibility to switch off Earth's gravitational field periodically with very little energy? Yes there is - if the weight is the bob of a pendulum. When the bob reaches one of its highest points the weight of the bob is completely gone for a moment.
And strangely that gravity machine looks to me much like pendulums lined up in a row.
Regards
Quote from: TinselKoala on April 20, 2015, 09:41:07 AM
Sigh.
1. The google map link does show the correct location of the plant in Gilman.
2. We don't know what stage of construction the google picture represents.
3. The glowing dot in the photo of the building is certainly _NOT_ the Sun. It is a drop of moisture on the camera lens. You can see another one approximately centered in the photo, on the side of the building.
4. The RAR project has gone silent because finally somebody in charge realizes that it does not work and it will never work, because it cannot work, because gravity is a conservative field of force and cannot perform net work on such an object.
A good summary TK,
The Google Earth Satellite pictures can not show the building under discussion (most recent available picture on Google Earth is May2012).
The building and project was started after 2012. A member of this forum has driven by the site and confirmed the buildings being there and posted pictures of it in "Big Gravity wheel".
Interesting how hypothetical negative everybody is about a new introductions, I would guess that human energy is also "conservative".
Some time ago I had a good look, wanting to understand how he inventor was trying to achieve the desired & needed gain in this gravity wheel configuration. It was obvious that his objective was to concentrate more weight/force in the down stroke compared to the upstroke. A small marginal difference could be calculated but not sufficient to be positively in favor of solid rotation.
During the progress of the construction project one can observe modification/changes to the design of the weight bar, ( the left side of the picture with the weights on the ground) It appears that here he was trying to find the advantage required for the upstroke.
A futile attempt in complexity in order to save the project I would guess, an indication possibly that the writing was on the wall.
This concept is an extension of previous patented force enhancements with linkages, work done by Renato. As often said before in this forum, by notable members, "Force isn't Energy".
I think that like so many of us with a good idea, Renato thought he could swing that little remaining obstacle standing in its way in his favor. I think he was sure he could beat it, because he was so close that he could touch it. Like Wayne I would guess.
What puzzles me that logically he builds a copy in the US of a working Brazilian version, but I believe this might not have been the case.
God's magic hand doesn't release the apple of wisdom to access "all power" that easily. ( I am sure Adam was already looking into "overunity" in those days)
Greetings, Red_Sunset
God's magic hand ... bends down periodically this strong beam (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sveTWjb2olo).
Supposed the only energy supply needed to keep that children's swing going is the energy that dissipates due to the friction of the pivot and the air. Then what energy is causing that periodic bending of that beam? Does God know?
So as it seems I was a bit mistaken about the spinning Whip-Top (http://www.overunity.com/13291/das-triumphirende-peretuum-mobile-orffyreanum/msg354239/#subject_354239). That perpetual motion or so-called superior force, that children play in the lane with, is actually a pendulum or children's swing. But I was not really far off in that case.
Happy swinging :)
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 14, 2015, 03:25:35 PM
God's magic hand ... bends down periodically this strong beam (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sveTWjb2olo).
Supposed the only energy supply needed to keep that children's swing going is the energy that dissipates due to the friction of the pivot and the air. Then what energy is causing that periodic bending of that beam? Does God know?
So as it seems I was a bit mistaken about the spinning Whip-Top (http://www.overunity.com/13291/das-triumphirende-peretuum-mobile-orffyreanum/msg354239/#subject_354239). That perpetual motion or so-called superior force, that children play in the lane with, is actually a pendulum or children's swing. But I was not really far off in that case.
Happy swinging :)
Zeit,
It appears that the centrifugal force is moving the pivot because it doesn't have a solid anchor point. Effectively elongating the radius of the swing as it near the vertical as you see the bending.
The same motion like as is caused by the imbalanced weight of a vibrator. It is not a free force !
The more bending, the more effort the kid need to provide.
This can be verified easily with a vibration test on a small electric motor,
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 14, 2015, 05:28:35 PM
It appears that the centrifugal force is moving the pivot because it doesn't have a solid anchor point.
This does not matter. The continuously needed energy to keep a pendulum going is the energy which compensates the pendulum's friction. That friction is independent of the bob's weight. On the other hand, the bending of the beam is a direct result of the bob's weight. The more weight the more bending the more force.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 14, 2015, 05:28:35 PM
Effectively elongating the radius of the swing as it near the vertical as you see the bending.
The effective radius of the swing does also not matter, because it compensates. When the bob swings down, the beam bends down, so the bob can collect more gravitational energy, because it falls a bit deeper. When the bob swings up, it loses that extra energy, because the beam goes up, so the bob has to move a bit higher.
And what if the beam would be stronger and that beam would not bend? Then the oscillating bending force would still be present, wouldn't it?
Furthermore the same basic principle is already proven to work here:
Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator (http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html)
And there is just another free energy machine apparently working on the same pendulum principle:
Finsrud perpetual motion machine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq2BII29oKM)
As it looks, the Kapanadze/Stepanov devices are also based on the same two-stage oscillator principle but in form of electric versions.
So, nice try anyway, but I think the age of oil will come to an end soon.
BTW: I don't think someone is building in Brazil a gravity generator that size without knowing for sure what he is doing.
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 15, 2015, 04:20:05 AM
This does not matter. The continuously needed energy to keep a pendulum going is the energy which compensates the pendulum's friction. That friction is independent of the bob's weight. On the other hand, the bending of the beam is a direct result of the bob's weight. The more weight the more bending the more force.
The effective radius of the swing does also not matter, because it compensates. When the bob swings down, the beam bends down, so the bob can collect more gravitational energy, because it falls a bit deeper. When the bob swings up, it loses that extra energy, because the beam goes up, so the bob has to move a bit higher.
And what if the beam would be stronger and that beam would not bend? Then the oscillating bending force would still be present, wouldn't it?
Furthermore the same basic principle is already proven to work here: Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator (http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html)
And there is just another free energy machine apparently working on the same pendulum principle: Finsrud perpetual motion machine (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq2BII29oKM)
As it looks, the Kapanadze/Stepanov devices are also based on the same two-stage oscillator principle but in form of electric versions.
So, nice try anyway, but I think the age of oil will come to an end soon.
BTW: I don't think someone is building in Brazil a gravity generator that size without knowing for sure what he is doing.
Hi Zeit,
From your writing it appears that you see the bending as a unexplained force, this magical property is usually due to the unknown. Once the setup is understood, the magic unfortunately disappears.
What do we have:
We have a pendulum who's pivot sags as it passes through the vertical, this changes the drop distance but this also means that the rise distance is increased the same. This picture is somewhat analogous to a off-centered & unbalanced flywheel mounted on a shaft that is mounted flexible and allows vibration. the radius the unbalanced weight travels is greater than the radius of the same but balanced wheel. The bending of the beam, can be also seen as the centrifugal force over-powering the centripetal force through the pivot movement (as a weak pivot), this causes effectively for the centripetal force to lessen as the weight induces the highest centrifugal force in the swing (the vertical)
The effective radius matters and is the essence of your story, you have a variable radius pendulum and without looking at formulas, I would guess that your beam is like a spring that is deformed by the additional energy force created by the increased drop distance. And on the rise you return back to the beam what you borrowed initially on the way down. If the beam wouldn't bend, you would have a standard constant radius pendulum with its regular centrifugal and centripetal forces in balance over the full arc swing.
The centrifugal & centripetal forces are always present, a movable pivot will cause an imbalance in these 2 forces.
The Brazil RAR system is not a pendulum, a pendulum swings and returns on the same swing path, the back and forth motion duration is timed by its makeup.
Ribeiro's system is a weight system that operate a wheel that turns consecutive 360dgrs. The system objective relies on increasing downward arc torque vs minimizing upward force requirements by manipulating/modifying the arc forces at play in each quadrant.
I agree with you that one wouldn't think that someone would build a system this big in Brazil and later in USA without knowing for sure what he is doing.
It is claimed that he has a working proof of concept model, the question here would be, "is it a working model" or is it a model that promises a possible working condition if enlarged to the size size seen in the pictures?
Also why would someone build a 2de system before the 1st system is complete or proven to work with all modifications that took place during the building process. This might not be accurate but information shared makes us believe these inconsistencies. Who knows what goes on and for what reasons?
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 15, 2015, 05:45:57 AM
This picture is somewhat analogous to a off-centered & unbalanced flywheel mounted on a shaft that is mounted flexible and allows vibration.
An excentrical flywheel (vibrator driven by a motor) has absolutely nothing to do with the state of weightlessness of a pendulum's bob!
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 15, 2015, 05:45:57 AM
The centrifugal & centripetal forces are always present, a movable pivot will cause an imbalance in these 2 forces.
This is another wrong statement. At the turning point of the bob there is nothing. No weight, no centrifugal force, no centripetal force. The bob (even if a few tons) hovers in zero gravity for a moment in time. And essentially that's the kick when swinging in a children's swing.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 15, 2015, 05:45:57 AM
The Brazil RAR system is not a pendulum, a pendulum swings and returns on the same swing path, the back and forth motion duration is timed by its makeup.
Then how do you explain the principle of work of the Finsrud and the Milkovic devices? They are proven to generate OU.
As we can see, the magic fortunately does not disappear. :)
Brazil started building that MONSTROSITY 2 years ago.
Does anybody have any info or pictures of it running yet?
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ (http://www.rarenergia.com.br/)
Can you imagine how many BEARINGS that Wear Out & NEED REPLACING as time marches on?
They could have bought one of Don Smith's units with No Moving Parts.
.
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 15, 2015, 07:10:26 AM
An excentrical flywheel (vibrator driven by a motor) has absolutely nothing to do with the state of weightlessness of a pendulum's bob!
This is another wrong statement. At the turning point of the bob there is nothing. No weight, no centrifugal force, no centripetal force. The bob (even if a few tons) hovers in zero gravity for a moment in time. And essentially that's the kick when swinging in a children's swing.
Then how do you explain the principle of work of the Finsrud and the Milkovic devices? They are proven to generate OU.
As we can see, the magic fortunately does not disappear. :)
Zeit,
It looks we have some crossed wires,
I agree, the vibrator has nothing to do with the pendulum, but the moving pivot has.
What was the issue ? the topic was a bending bar !. The weightlessness of the bob is not the focus, because that is not moment when the bar was bending. The bar was bending when the bob is at maximum velocity as it passes the vertical. Only at that point do you have a bend bar and displaced pivot, only that displaced pivot point (bending bar) was of interest and in focus.
The Finsrud and Milkovic are an other chapters for discussion, I didn't go there.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 15, 2015, 09:16:25 AM
The bar was bending when the bob is at maximum velocity as it passes the vertical. Only at that point do you have a bend bar and displaced pivot, only that displaced pivot point (bending bar) was of interest and in focus.
So then what's the problem? Bending that bar and releasing it needs energy. Where is that energy coming from?
Assuming there is no friction, then if we release the bob of a pendulum at height X, it will swing exactly to the same height X on the opposite side, regardless whether the beam with the pivot bends or not, because it does not matter whether the path of the bob is exactly circular or not.
Physics (http://unegetset.com/taxonomy/term/16?page=1)
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 15, 2015, 12:20:05 PM
So then what's the problem? Bending that bar and releasing it needs energy. Where is that energy coming from?
Assuming there is no friction, then if we release the bob of a pendulum at height X, it will swing exactly to the same height X on the opposite side, regardless whether the beam with the pivot bends or not, because it does not matter whether the path of the bob is exactly circular or not.
Physics (http://unegetset.com/taxonomy/term/16?page=1)
The ball never becomes weightless. At its apogee the ball's velocity reaches zero. At the bottom of its travel the acceleration is zero.
Quote from: MarkE on May 15, 2015, 02:16:24 PM
The ball never becomes weightless. At its apogee the ball's velocity reaches zero. At the bottom of its travel the acceleration is zero.
Strange. The ball goes into freefall (accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s) after reaching its apex (although a minimum of deflection occurs already at the beginning) and to the best of my knowledge a body in freefall is weightless.
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 15, 2015, 03:05:25 PM
Strange. The ball goes into freefall (accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s) after reaching its apex (although a minimum of deflection occurs already at the beginning) and to the best of my knowledge a body in freefall is weightless.
Zeit,
I am getting somewhat confused by diverging pointers
Lets recalibrate, I understood that the topic was
"what energy is causing that periodic bending of that beam? Does God know?" Expand on your reasoning why we land up with "a bowl and one olive" and the weight thereof.
How can we translate this to the bending beam & possibly free unaccounted energy?
Can you expand your logic somewhat to make better sense of where you are intending to go.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 15, 2015, 03:22:45 PM
Expand on your reasoning why we land up with "a bowl and one olive" and the weight thereof.
This is because the ball in the bowl behaves like a pendulum. It is a pendulum without a string.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 15, 2015, 09:16:25 AM
The Finsrud and Milkovic are an other chapters for discussion, I didn't go there.
Milkovic is a short trip to go. Explanation:
2 is a lever rotating around the pivot 3 and normally it rests on the left side on the anvil 1 due to the overbalance on that side.
Supposed a weight of 10 Kg is needed on the right side to move the left side up. Then each time we want to do a hit with that lever against the anvil we have to push down the right side with a force of 10 Kg and then release it.
Now we attach a 10 Kg weight 4 to that right side. Then the left side of the lever comes up and stays there. But we are to lazy to remove that weight each time we want back the overbalance on the left side in order to hit against the anvil.
Hence we swing that 10 Kg weight like a pendulum. Each time the pendulum reaches one of its upper positions, the 10 Kg weight becomes weightless and therefore the lever hits the anvil due to the momentarily regained overbalance on the left side.
All energy we need to do this is the energy needed to overcome the friction of the pendulum (instead of removing that 10 kg weight).
Any further questions? :)
What you need is a brachistochrone!!
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 15, 2015, 03:50:46 PM
This is because the ball in the bowl behaves like a pendulum. It is a pendulum without a string.
Milkovic is a short trip to go. Explanation:
....................................................
................................................
Any further questions? :)
The pendulum topic has been investigated quite thoroughly over the past years.
My further question: and now, what do we do ?
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 15, 2015, 07:10:26 AM
An eccentrically flywheel (vibrator driven by a motor) has absolutely nothing to do with the state of weightlessness of a pendulum's bob!
This is another wrong statement. At the turning point of the bob there is nothing. No weight, no centrifugal force, no centripetal force. The bob (even if a few tons) hovers in zero gravity for a moment in time. And essentially that's the kick when swinging in a children's swing.
Then how do you explain the principle of work of the Finsrud and the Milkovic devices? They are proven to generate OU.
As we can see, the magic fortunately does not disappear. :)
Zeit,
What energy is causing that periodic bending of that beam?
Let me get back to my reply #72, where the main point of the post was to link the moving pivot pendulum to the eccentric motor which I gather was not wholly understood. No complicated math, just plain logic
Let me expand in layman's terms,
The pendulum can be seen as sling (weapon) when used in rotary fashion. It sure is now no pendulum any longer but the centrifugal and centripetal physical properties are the same as the pendulum when the weight is at a certain velocity. At that point the rotating sling shot finds equivalency to a motor with an eccentric weight (your standard vibrator).
When loosely mounted vibrator axle makes a circular path during the eccentric weight rotation, the radius of this circle is equivalent to "bending top bar".
What effectively happens is the the rotational radius path of the eccentric weight is no longer the radius as with a fixed axis position, it is now "weight radius + axle radius". The effect rotating weight radius has now expanded and therewith stores more energy. That energy comes from the shaft.
This is easy to proof by measuring the current consumption of a small vibrator motor, holding the motor fixed, versus allowing it to vibrate.
No complicated math, just plain logic, "Vibration consumes more input power" = "Bending of the beam consumes more input power "
Greetings, Red_Sunset
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 15, 2015, 03:05:25 PM
Strange. The ball goes into freefall (accelerating at a rate of 9.8 m/s/s) after reaching its apex (although a minimum of deflection occurs already at the beginning) and to the best of my knowledge a body in freefall is weightless.
Yes, I agree for the one instant at the start of the fall, it accelerates at 1G and there is no apparent reaction force, IE it is weightless at that one instant.
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 15, 2015, 03:50:46 PM
This is because the ball in the bowl behaves like a pendulum. It is a pendulum without a string.
Milkovic is a short trip to go. Explanation:
2 is a lever rotating around the pivot 3 and normally it rests on the left side on the anvil 1 due to the overbalance on that side.
Supposed a weight of 10 Kg is needed on the right side to move the left side up. Then each time we want to do a hit with that lever against the anvil we have to push down the right side with a force of 10 Kg and then release it.
Now we attach a 10 Kg weight 4 to that right side. Then the left side of the lever comes up and stays there. But we are to lazy to remove that weight each time we want back the overbalance on the left side in order to hit against the anvil.
Hence we swing that 10 Kg weight like a pendulum. Each time the pendulum reaches one of its upper positions, the 10 Kg weight becomes weightless and therefore the lever hits the anvil due to the momentarily regained overbalance on the left side.
All energy we need to do this is the energy needed to overcome the friction of the pendulum (instead of removing that 10 kg weight).
Any further questions? :)
The two-stage oscillators have been analyzed to death. Reactive energy transfers back and forth through between different parts of the device. However, those transfers do not perform external work. As soon as any external load is applied to one of these contraptions, they load down just like any other machine.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 16, 2015, 01:48:37 AM
The pendulum can be seen as sling (weapon) when used in rotary fashion. It sure is now no pendulum any longer but the centrifugal and centripetal physical properties are the same as the pendulum when the weight is at a certain velocity. At that point the rotating sling shot finds equivalency to a motor with an eccentric weight (your standard vibrator).
[...]
No complicated math, just plain logic, "Vibration consumes more input power" = "Bending of the beam consumes more input power "
As I said before: A standard vibrator has not the slightest thing to do with a bob's weight hovering in zero gravity. Hence that discussion is useless.
Quote from: MarkE on May 16, 2015, 03:50:40 AM
The two-stage oscillators have been analyzed to death. Reactive energy transfers back and forth through between different parts of the device. However, those transfers do not perform external work.
Then by analyzing to death the two-stage oscillators, what was the result why this
Finsrud »perpetuum mobile« (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq2BII29oKM) (in brackets!) is obviously working? It performs external work by means of pendulums!
And what was the result why this
Milkovic mechanical amplifier (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ho0_obiakM) is obviously also working? Especially that with the 9 generator flashlights (around 18:00). Do you know how tiring it is to continuously press and release one such a generator flashlight for just a minute or two by hand? Here Milkovic presses 9 flashlight at once without effort!
If there is no result of that analysis, then I have to assume that »analyzed to death« means »convincing people that something can't work, even if they see it working right in front of their own eyes.«
As it seems ... :P
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 16, 2015, 05:50:04 AM
As I said before: A standard vibrator has not the slightest thing to do with a bob's weight hovering in zero gravity. Hence that discussion is useless.
Then by analyzing to death the two-stage oscillators, what was the result why this Finsrud »perpetuum mobile« (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq2BII29oKM) (in brackets!) is obviously working? It performs external work by means of pendulums!
And what was the result why this Milkovic mechanical amplifier (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ho0_obiakM) is obviously also working? Especially that with the 9 generator flashlights (around 18:00). Do you know how tiring it is to continuously press and release one such a generator flashlight for just a minute or two by hand? Here Milkovic presses 9 flashlight at once without effort!
If there is no result of that analysis, then I have to assume that »analyzed to death« means »convincing people that something can't work, even if they see it working right in front of their own eyes.«
As it seems ... :P
Zeit,
The Milkovic pendulum setup is brilliant as a idea and system. I can not say anything about the principle and machine demonstrated than I have already said. I am not for or against. The logical conclusion I shared might be correct or maybe not, in the meantime there is nothing more persuasive out there to convince me otherwise.
We have here a similar situation as we have with the RARenergia gravity generator. The inventor does not provide a positive conclusion for outputting power in a standalone configuration.
The Milkovic youtube link you posted is from 2011 where he confirms positive energy gain. None of the subsequent video's show anything that confirms a standalone system cranking power. In a video of 3 months ago, I still see him pushing a pendulum with his finger.
All the information relating to the invention was publicly shared and there must have been many replications. I have not seen a pendulum that is maintained by its own output. Are they all still pushing with their finger the pendulum?
What do you want me to believe at this point ? My "self proposed logic" is starting to convince myself of its accuracy.
I have not written off the invention, i still think it is brilliant but I need a more convincing logic or demonstration to say, "yes that is it".
So until then, we keep it pending.
If you have something more, I definitely would like to hear more.
Regards, Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 16, 2015, 07:36:35 AM
I have not written off the invention, i still think it is brilliant but I need a more convincing logic or demonstration to say, "yes that is it".
What convinces me is, that there is proof that science is not interested in any free accessible energy source. That proof is the Finsrud »perpetuum mobile« standing around in a museum in a glass cabinet instead in a scientific laboratory in order to find out its operating principle. Or I'm wrong? Did someone hear anything in the mass media about the Finsrud »perpetuum mobile«? Actually that thing should be on all headlines. Instead it is »hidden« in a museum like some age-old machinery e.g. the first telegraph.
Strange isn't it?
Apropos:
Quote from: MarkE on May 16, 2015, 03:50:40 AM
The two-stage oscillators have been analyzed to death.
Isn't that odd: The
Stepanov setup (http://overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/dlattach/attach/148948/) (claiming OU) consists of two transformers and two capacitors, meaning two oscillation frequencies - like a (mechanical) two-stage oscillator.
Now should I believe here in an odd coincidence? ::)
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 16, 2015, 01:45:44 PM
Apropos:
Isn't that odd: The Stepanov setup (http://overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/dlattach/attach/148948/) (claiming OU) consists of two transformers and two capacitors, meaning two oscillation frequencies - like a two-stage oscillator.
Now should I believe here in an odd coincidence? ::)
There is a constant parade of people who make false overunity claims. All real capacitors are lossy. All real inductors are lossy. Loss * loss = more loss.
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 16, 2015, 08:44:05 AM
What convinces me is, that there is proof that science is not interested in any free accessible energy source. That proof is the Finsrud »perpetuum mobile« standing around in a museum in a glass cabinet instead in a scientific laboratory in order to find out its operating principle. Or I'm wrong? Did someone hear anything in the mass media about the Finsrud »perpetuum mobile«? Actually that thing should be on all headlines. Instead it is »hidden« in a museum like some age-old machinery e.g. the first telegraph.
Strange isn't it?
Finsrud has built what amounts to a big clock. Do you think that wristwatches or grandfather clocks are free energy machines?
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 16, 2015, 08:44:05 AM
What convinces me is, that there is proof that science is not interested in any free accessible energy source. That proof is the Finsrud »perpetuum mobile« standing around in a museum in a glass cabinet instead in a scientific laboratory in order to find out its operating principle. Or I'm wrong? Did someone hear anything in the mass media about the Finsrud »perpetuum mobile«? Actually that thing should be on all headlines. Instead it is »hidden« in a museum like some age-old machinery e.g. the first telegraph.
Strange isn't it?
Zeit,
Not really, not strange at all,
Finsrud is an amazing gismo, you have to make a differentiation between something that is able to maintain a fine line energy balance .. versus .. something that is able to deliver energy out.
Finsrud is able to balance the "in & out" energies very well due to a well crafted and loss free mechanics.
If you could put together a motor or device (like Finsrud) that is only able to rotate unassisted, it is still no proof of OU. It only proofs the perfect balance between energy in & energy out, achievable if you can minimize losses to near zero.
If you put a motor together that can drive a load, let it be small load but decisively takes it OUT of the realm of perfect balance, you would have the winner. Even if the device would require an input, it should tilt towards "energy out" in a direction that is decisively more than "energy in".
Most OU projects have problems in this latter instance where measurements can be very deceiving. This problem could be overcome by looping output to input so that no external energy input source is needed. You can question why Milkovic never demonstrated this loopback, it should have been possible to loopback mechanically, directly or indirectly.
Believe me if you can indisputable demonstrate a device that clearly outputs 1 watt only, with no input and you are able to put some working theory validation behind it. You bet, the whole world will be walking your door flat for better & worse !
I don't believe that science or the world is not interested. (sure not interested in fakes which are available in abundance)
Red_Sunset
Quote from: MarkE on May 16, 2015, 01:48:47 PM
There is a constant parade of people who make false overunity claims. All real capacitors are lossy. All real inductors are lossy. Loss * loss = more loss.
Mark,
I would add to this my money purse, this thing is getting more lossy as time goes on
Who cares about overunity energy, an overunity purse would be a better invention
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 16, 2015, 01:57:43 PM
Finsrud is able to balance the "in & out" energies very well due to a well crafted and loss free mechanics.
I don't think so. Just the rail with the ball running in circles would be the most loss free mechanics. Each additional piece of mechanic creates additional losses. When the ball circles the track 14 days on the complete machine, then just the ball and the rail should make the ball circle the track even longer. There is no part visible on that machine which could store energy for two weeks (like the spring of a clock).
Quote from: MarkE on May 16, 2015, 01:48:47 PM
There is a constant parade of people who make false overunity claims. All real capacitors are lossy. All real inductors are lossy. Loss * loss = more loss.
And there is a constant parade of people who make false claims about physics (like comparing pendulums with motor driven vibrators), in order to explain away things, which cannot be explained away.
Quote from: MarkE on May 16, 2015, 01:50:02 PM
Finsrud has built what amounts to a big clock. Do you think that wristwatches or grandfather clocks are free energy machines?
I'm still waiting for an explanation how Milkovic can power nine generator flashlights at once with the power of his little finger. Those statements above do not contribute much to that.
And why do I have the peculiar feeling, that some people here want for all one is worth distract or derail the forums? Are someone here too close to the truth already? 8)
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 16, 2015, 02:08:21 PM
Mark,
I would add to this my money purse, this thing is getting more lossy as time goes on
Who cares about overunity energy, an overunity purse would be a better invention
Red_Sunset
People keep offering claims of those as well. Sadly, I am too lazy to make the necessary trip to Amsterdam to collect mine from my good friend the corrupt Nigerian bank official.
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 16, 2015, 02:40:09 PM
I don't think so. Just the rail with the ball running in circles would be the most loss free mechanics. Each additional piece of mechanic creates additional losses. When the ball circles the track 14 days on the complete machine, then just the ball and the rail should make the ball circle the track even longer. There is no part visible on that machine which could store energy for two weeks (like the spring of a clock).
And there is a constant parade of people who make false claims about physics (like comparing pendulums with motor driven vibrators), in order to explain away things, which cannot be explained away.
I'm still waiting for an explanation how Milkovic can power nine generator flashlights at once with the power of his little finger. Those statements above do not contribute much to that.
And why do I have the peculiar feeling, that some people here want for all one is worth distract or derail the forums? Are someone here too close to the truth already? 8)
The proof for any alleged over unity device is pretty simple: Make reliable measurements of input and output power, and let the thing run long enough that for its size and weight any energy stored within the device by known means would be exhausted. When you can show such a thing many will be interested.
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 16, 2015, 02:40:09 PM
I don't think so. Just the rail with the ball running in circles would be the most loss free mechanics. Each additional piece of mechanic creates additional losses. When the ball circles the track 14 days on the complete machine, then just the ball and the rail should make the ball circle the track even longer. There is no part visible on that machine which could store energy for two weeks (like the spring of a clock).
And there is a constant parade of people who make false claims about physics (like comparing pendulums with motor driven vibrators), in order to explain away things, which cannot be explained away.
I'm still waiting for an explanation how Milkovic can power nine generator flashlights at once with the power of his little finger. Those statements above do not contribute much to that.
And why do I have the peculiar feeling, that some people here want for all one is worth distract or derail the forums? Are someone here too close to the truth already? 8)
Hey mein jungen, that is all I can offer you.
My musings are apparently not getting through to satisfy your gray matter, that is OK ! No hard feelings.
You will figure it out in due time.
Regards, Red_Sunset
Take a 30 Kg weight (or heavier) and then throw it over two meters into the air. Do this all two seconds. Can you?
Yes, you can! Without much effort! However you have to use the energy amplifying effect of a pendulum! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9qsm_5PRPY)
One more physics lesson. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX_INbcRMVY) :)
Quote from: MarkE on May 16, 2015, 02:45:55 PM
The proof for any alleged over unity device is pretty simple: Make reliable measurements of input and output power, and let the thing run long enough that for its size and weight any energy stored within the device by known means would be exhausted. When you can show such a thing many will be interested.
Kapanadze has done this with his electric two-stage oscillator multiple times. Scientific conclusion: It has to be all a fake. :(
No, a pendulum (child on swing) is NOT an "energy amplifier". It stores the energy you put into it by pushing, small increments at the resonant frequency, and can build up large amplitudes representing large amounts of _stored energy_. And it can release that stored energy at a greater rate than it was put in, briefly ... hence it is a _power amplifier_. But it can only release the same amount of energy that was put into it in the first place (minus losses). If you try to take energy out faster than it is being replaced, the amplitude of the swing goes down.
Same with the Milkovic pendulums, which are essentially heavy pendulum energy storage devices. Like flywheels, except oscillating instead of rotating, and hence able to make use of resonant pumping to build up a high degree of energy _storage_. But what comes out is only what was put in, in the first place. It can come out faster than it was put in (power amplification) but there is nothing created, no free lunch, and the pendulum's motion will stop if it is not constantly replenished by those little pushes at its resonant frequency.
No, Kapanadze has never allowed real comprehensive testing of any of his apparatuses. Like some other claimants, he suffers from violation of "conservation of miracles", in that he has too many miraculous devices to be believed. There is only one thing preventing proper evaluation, and full scientific credibility, of his creations, and that is his own attitude. Besides... if he really had anything of significance that actually _worked as claimed_... wouldn't the CIA/KGB/Mossad agents of Big Oil have suppressed him by now?
And the Finsrud machine is a clever work of art, not any kind of self running perpetual motion machine. The longest it has ever run without being "reset" is 14 days. it contains large springs and heavy weights (Look at the center of the mechanism) and runs by an escapement mechanism that extracts a tiny bit of stored energy every time the ball runs around the tilting track, to keep the ball going and the track tilting. It is essentially a clockwork. That's why it's in an _art museum_ instead of being examined by every engineering graduate student in Europe to find out its "operating principle"... because that principle has been known for hundreds of years: the escapement mechanism slowly metering out stored energy from springs and/or weights.
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 17, 2015, 03:15:06 AM
Take a 30 Kg weight (or heavier) and then throw it over two meters into the air. Do this all two seconds. Can you?
Yes, you can! Without much effort! However you have to use the energy amplifying effect of a pendulum! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9qsm_5PRPY)
One more physics lesson. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX_INbcRMVY) :)
Quote
Kapanadze has done this with his electric two-stage oscillator multiple times. Scientific conclusion: It has to be all a fake. :(
Zeit,
You are jumping around like a Bee looking for the sticky stuff. You can not look at inventions in an perceptive or emotional charged way, and consider that the proof. Consider the middle age war machine "Trebuchet", an astonishing slingshot, it must be overunity is a leap of faith even for a believer in the faith.
You need to approach the topic in a more pragmatic and methodical.
Take Kapanadze, don't know too much about it, so I am not the person to make technical comments, but one thing is for sure, if it can do what he says, and with replications abound, devices like this would be spreading like wildfire. No big oil would be able to stop it. The same for Milkovic.
Consider also the OU business aspect, that you do not need the real thing ! Money can ALSO be made having a NEAR OVERUNITY project or device, money can be made on promise & hope, like venture capitalism or in a religious context where the church promises you heaven so long you contribute to the cause. Everybody is happy because everybody is getting their perceived dues and so does the preacher.
Also consider the following underlying essence of OU in the conventional context would be, the question of " are we able to deceive nature ?" if yes !, THAT WOULD IMPLY " that nature can be tricked ??". Stand still and think about that implication for a moment.
If we can trick nature to believe something that isn't exactly reality, then we are entering the area of the magic and magicians. Chris Angel's territory (not to be confused with his name associate Chris (EMJunkie in "partnered output coils") who is doing also an illusionist performance in that tread.)
The magic act of circumventing nature is the first step required to enter the OU domain..... Possible ?? who knows, we do search.
Is this forum the area where sane & intelligent people hang out ??? Questionable !
Do your homework, and you might find what you searching for.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 17, 2015, 03:15:06 AM
Take a 30 Kg weight (or heavier) and then throw it over two meters into the air. Do this all two seconds. Can you?
Yes, you can! Without much effort! However you have to use the energy amplifying effect of a pendulum! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9qsm_5PRPY)
One more physics lesson. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX_INbcRMVY) :)
Pendula store energy. They do not amplify it.
Quote from: MarkE on May 17, 2015, 04:49:04 AM
Pendula store energy. They do not amplify it.
Exactly!
There you have it! The swing is only one oscillator stage. The second one is there but not visible. It is the oscillating force that puts strain on the rack and could even destroy it, if the rack is structurally too weak. Hence, since the pendulum stores the input energy (except losses due to friction) then which energy could eventually cause the destruction of the rack? Hmmm ... ???
And since I'm very patient, I'm still waiting for a scientific explanation of this:
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 17, 2015, 04:41:16 AM
the question of " are we able to deceive nature ?" if yes !, THAT WOULD IMPLY " that nature can be tricked ??".
Yes, nature can be tricked! See the use of nuclear power. There is no natural process on Earth that produces energy by merging atomic nuclei. :)
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 17, 2015, 07:00:46 AM
........................................
..................................................... Hmmm ... ???
And since I'm very patient, I'm still waiting for a scientific explanation of this:
Zeit,
As Mark said, this pendulum has been explored in depth on this website in an other tread and on other websites.
I am sure you are going to find there all the explanations you need.
Saying Hmmmm, while sitting & waiting on the wire is not going to get you there, no matter how patient you are !!
Look and you will find !! Would like to know about your findings after the research.
Red_Sunset
Brazil started building that MONSTROSITY 2 years ago.
Does anybody have any info or pictures of it running yet?
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ (http://www.rarenergia.com.br/)
Can you imagine how many BEARINGS that Wear Out & NEED REPLACING as time marches on?
They Should Have Bought one of Don Smith's units with No Moving Parts.
.
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 17, 2015, 07:12:25 AM
Yes, nature can be tricked! See the use of nuclear power. There is no natural process on Earth that produces energy by merging atomic nuclei. :)
All nuclear power plants today operate on fission, and fission does occur naturally on earth. Fusion does not to the best of our knowledge happen naturally on earth.
Usually when a person pushes a child on a swing there is two inputs.
1. The person pushing the child.
2. The child.
Not sure if anyone remembers but a person can swing themselves on a swing, no need for a "pusher". Try using a 30 to 40 Kg weight on a swing and find out if it can
keep swinging or not. Or if the weight will swing itself. hahahahaha
Then get on a swing and see how long you can swing the swing yourself as high as you can. The effects of the energy you expend will eventually manifest itself if you.
Try to get the swing to swing an entire half circle and see how long you can keep that up.
Get real folks this is a joke.
If you swing a weight on a swing that is a pendulum.
If you get a pendulum swinging then leave it then with no wind or other forces on it, it will stop eventually. Gravity and air resistance will cause it to stop.
This is a self evident truth. Try it.
.
Quote from: MarkE on May 17, 2015, 03:02:12 PM
All nuclear power plants today operate on fission, and fission does occur naturally on earth. Fusion does not to the best of our knowledge happen naturally on earth.
Because they try fusion since decades but can't get it useful to work (same as with free energy devices). ;D
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 17, 2015, 07:32:02 AM
As Mark said, this pendulum has been explored in depth on this website in an other tread and on other websites.
I am sure you are going to find there all the explanations you need.
Saying Hmmmm, while sitting & waiting on the wire is not going to get you there, no matter how patient you are !!
Look and you will find !! Would like to know about your findings after the research.
Here we go!These are my findings, but I'm afraid they will not please you:
Physics of the Pendulum-Lever Energy System: A Summary of Knowledge (http://www.pendulum-lever.com/docs/Jovan_Marjanovic_Recommendations_for_Construction_and_Efficiency_Measuring.pdf)
The Secret of Free Energy from the Pendulum (http://www.pendulum-lever.com/docs/Jovan_Marjanovic_Secret_of_Free_Energy_from_Pendulum.pdf)
Theory of Gravity Machines (http://www.pendulum-lever.com/docs/Jovan_Marjanovic_Theory_of_Gravity_Machines.pdf)
Keys of Understanding Gravity Machines of Veljko Milkovic (http://www.pendulum-lever.com/docs/Jovan_Marjanovic_Key_of_Gravity_Machines.pdf)
Mechanical Feedback Loop Problems and Possible Solutions for the Two-Stage Oscillator (http://www.pendulum-lever.com/docs/Jovan_Marjanovic_Mechanical_Feedback_Loop.pdf)
Milkovic's Two Stage Oscillator As a Parametric Oscillator (http://www.pendulum-lever.com/docs/Aleksandar_Slavkovic_Milkovic%27s_Two_Stage_Oscillator_As_a_Parametric_Oscillator.pdf)
Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum) »The simple gravity pendulum[4] is an idealized mathematical model of a pendulum.[5][6][7] This is a weight (or bob) on the end of a massless cord suspended from a pivot, without friction. When given an initial push, it will swing back and forth at a constant amplitude. Real pendulums are subject to friction and air drag, so the amplitude of their swings declines.«
That means the force that acts on the pendulum's suspension (due to switching on and off the bob's weight) does not decline the amplitude of the pendulum. Then the conclusion must be, that this force is created by the Earth's gravitational field for free. Maybe Galileo Galilei has overlooked something.
Actually I'm rather interested in an electrical parametric oscillation. Thus, could someone tell me, what is the equivalent of centrifugal force in a LC circuit?
No a pendulum does not shield anthing from gravity.
Quote from: MarkE on May 18, 2015, 03:29:24 AM
No a pendulum does not shield anthing from gravity.
Mark,
You are correct from the standard earthly reference frame. But I guess, Zeit is looking at it from a different angle.
Zeit's reference I would guess is the blob itself, not the pivot attachment.
Like creating weightless condition in a gravity field, the free fall of an airplane to train astronauts.
The weightless condition of the passengers is in reference to the plane, not to the earth
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 18, 2015, 02:15:25 AM
......................................................................
........................................
These are my findings, but I'm afraid they will not please you:
..............................................................
...........................................
Mon Ami,
Everything pleases me, especially good reading material. I see you are doing your reading too, good news !
I couldn't disagree with the reference material because my relationship with science is only casual. That doesn't mean I still make up my own mind when something doesn't sound right.
So soon you will confirm that "the bend child swing pivot is equivalent (=) to the vibrator axle deviation for a limited rotation quadrant"
I am happy you are in good hands now.
PS1: Centrifugal force equals tension, this would mean "Voltage" in an electrical equivalent
PS2: I find that the wikipedia reference is somewhat ill defined, I would even venture to say "that it sucks"
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 18, 2015, 05:46:45 AM
So soon you will confirm that "the bend child swing pivot is equivalent (=) to the vibrator axle deviation for a limited rotation quadrant"
At which state loses a vibrator (or part of it) its weight?
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 18, 2015, 05:46:45 AM
I am happy you are in good hands now.
So the readings above are good readings? :D
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 18, 2015, 05:46:45 AM
PS1: Centrifugal force equals tension, this would mean "Voltage" in an electrical equivalent
Interesting, but also confusing. The centrifugal force of a pendulum is strongest when the bob swings through the vertical position (highest velocity). In a LC circuit the »vertical position« is reached when all energy is stored as magnetic field in the coil, capacitor completely discharged, voltage crosses zero. Then how could centrifugal force mean »voltage« in a LC circuit??
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 18, 2015, 05:46:45 AM
PS2: I find that the wikipedia reference is somewhat ill defined, I would even venture to say "that it sucks"
Even more interesting! 8)
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 18, 2015, 07:20:31 AM
At which state loses a vibrator (or part of it) its weight?
So the readings above are good readings? :D
Interesting, but also confusing. The centrifugal force of a pendulum is strongest when the bob swings through the vertical position (highest velocity). In a LC circuit the »vertical position« is reached when all energy is stored as magnetic field in the coil, capacitor completely discharged, voltage crosses zero. Then how could centrifugal force mean »voltage« in a LC circuit??
Even more interesting! 8)
Zeit, what is the point?
Your initial question was the "bending swing bar", now you seem to have changed that to "loosing weight on the blob". ....Puzzled
Initially you said, what is the equivalent of "centrifugal force", now you have seem to have changed hat to "velocity".... more puzzled.
Spend some time on this logic flow, see if they make sense, if not let me know.
1** The highest velocity produces the highest centrifugal force
Centrifugal force is a reaction to the circular velocity
2** The highest velocity (change) produces the highest induction voltage
Induced voltage is a reaction to the velocity change (voltage is also named TENSION in certain contexts for good reason)
Red_Sunset
A few things should be self evident..
Machines that attempt to use only gravity as a source of energy dont work.
Milkovic's explanations of what is happening in a 'two stage oscillator' is completely flawed.
The energy to bend the beam in the children's swing comes from absorbing some of the energy of the fall of the pedulumn. The beam stores this energy as strain and return most of the energy to the pendulm as it flexes back.
Any attempt at extracting energy from such devices is pointless.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on May 19, 2015, 01:20:07 AM
A few things should be self evident..
Machines that attempt to use only gravity as a source of energy dont work.
.................................................................
...............................................
Any attempt at extracting energy from such devices is pointless.
LibreEnergia,
A few things should be self evident.
Your make a clear representative statement of the status as relating to conservative systems as we know it today.
It is somewhat absolute, over-assumptive, excluding and negative. On the same level as the ongoing ranting of the 3 musketeers (MarkE, TK, MileHigh), let their explanation be correct, but most of the time, phrased in a un-constructively and terminal way.
I can not believe that you would think there is no backdoor that possibly could be unlocked by a new material discovery, technology invention, a new knowledge, a new science field that would provide a key to unlock that door.
PS: Their is no other disagreement.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 19, 2015, 02:27:05 AM
LibreEnergia,
A few things should be self evident.
Your make a clear representative statement of the status as relating to conservative systems as we know it today.
It is somewhat absolute, over-assumptive, excluding and negative. On the same level as the ongoing ranting of the 3 musketeers (MarkE, TK, MileHigh), let their explanation be correct, but most of the time, phrased in a un-constructively and terminal way.
I can not believe that you would think there is no backdoor that possibly could be unlocked by a new material discovery, technology invention, a new knowledge, a new science field that would provide a key to unlock that door.
PS: Their is no other disagreement.
Red_Sunset
So where is the evidence of the elusive back door? If one wishes to convince others that there is a pony in that closet, some evidence would be nice.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 18, 2015, 07:43:57 AM
Zeit, what is the point?
Strange things are going on! That's my point and that puzzles me! Because ...
Quote from: LibreEnergia on May 19, 2015, 01:20:07 AM
Machines that attempt to use only gravity as a source of energy dont work.
Milkovic's explanations of what is happening in a 'two stage oscillator' is completely flawed.
... when textbooks do not comply with reality, then the usual way of science is to adjust reality to the textbooks (so there is no need to print new ones) instead of doing it vice versa. Such as saying it won't work, when the entire world can clearly see, that it does work indeed.
Another example (slightly off-topic): A crystal-radio can't work without free energy. The amount of energy that it receives by a small antenna (coming from the transmitter miles away) can never create any noticeable sound in an earpiece. This can be calculated clearly (the transmitter would need to have some megawatts of power otherwise).
Hence, how does a LC circuit actually work?
Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LC_circuit) »The parallel LC circuit connected in series with a load will act as band-stop filter having
infinite impedance at the resonant frequency of the LC circuit. The parallel LC circuit connected in parallel with a load [crystal-radio] will act as band-pass filter.«
That means, when we tune the crystal-radio's LC circuit to the transmitter's frequency, the LC circuit is in resonance and the LC circuit's impedance is infinite for that frequency, whereas all lower frequencies (received by the antenna) are shorted to ground through the coil and all higher frequencies are shorted to ground through the capacitor (illustration a).
But this implies (illustration b) that removing the LC circuit completely should result in having infinite impedance for ALL received frequencies, thus we should hear all nearby transmitting radio stations at once, but we don't. Why?
Because now we don't have the energy amplifying feature of the LC circuit anymore!?
So, who is willing to adjust this reality in order to comply with the textbooks? :D
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 19, 2015, 04:20:05 AM
Strange things are going on! That's my point and that puzzles me! Because ...
... when textbooks do not comply with reality, then the usual way of science is to adjust reality to the textbooks (so there is no need to print new ones) instead of doing it vice versa. Such as saying it won't work, when the entire world can clearly see, that it does work indeed.
Another example (slightly off-topic): A crystal-radio can't work without free energy. The amount of energy that it receives by a small antenna (coming from the transmitter miles away) can never create any noticeable sound in an earpiece. This can be calculated clearly (the transmitter would need to have some megawatts of power otherwise).
Hence, how does a LC circuit actually work? Wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LC_circuit) »The parallel LC circuit connected in series with a load will act as band-stop filter having infinite impedance at the resonant frequency of the LC circuit. The parallel LC circuit connected in parallel with a load [crystal-radio] will act as band-pass filter.«
That means, when we tune the crystal-radio's LC circuit to the transmitter's frequency, the LC circuit is in resonance and the LC circuit's impedance is infinite for that frequency, whereas all lower frequencies (received by the antenna) are shorted to ground through the coil and all higher frequencies are shorted to ground through the capacitor (illustration a).
But this implies (illustration b) that removing the LC circuit completely should result in having infinite impedance for ALL received frequencies, thus we should hear all nearby transmitting radio stations at once, but we don't. Why?
Because now we don't have the energy amplifying feature of the LC circuit anymore!?
So, who is willing to adjust this reality in order to comply with the textbooks? :D
This is a fail on so many levels it is difficult to choose where to start.
Broadband energy summed together appears to an indiscriminate receiver as noise. The tuned filter discriminates energy within a narrow band. Impinging energy within that band passes on to the output at a small loss. Crystal radios work because the human ear can detect pressure variations of 1E-9 BAR. It does not take a lot of power to make sound that is audible in headphones.
Quote from: MarkE on May 19, 2015, 03:33:08 AM
So where is the evidence of the elusive back door? If one wishes to convince others that there is a pony in that closet, some evidence would be nice.
MarkE,
You do not need to have the proof of the back door, in order to search for it.
The path of Discovery is to allow your mind to roam the expanse of the unknown and IF there is a door, sooner or later it will be found. Discovery throughout history is based on need, intuition and drive (and enduring the opposition of impossibility)
As an example,
Think about Magellan's voyage into the red sunset, on a passage around the bottom of South America. Totally unknown, with only intuition and determination with great risk. (back in 1519)
Columbus knew India & China was somewhere across the ocean, the question to find out was where, how, what.
He did not discover India or China. It was no problem that he discovered something totally different. It was the start of the process that achieved the set objective, through this drive, China & India and the rest of the world was discovered.
At the time Columbus most likely heard the same slogans, "impossible", "can not be done", the physics of the world don't allow it, WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE...ect
I am sure you get the gist, and I am sure you knew the same before this post
Sure lets be realistic and scientifically precise but at the same time, BE OPEN, aware of the limited knowledge we have and the expanse of knowledge waiting out there to be discovered.
Don't kill the spirit of discovery & determination, allow some leeway within context.
Red Sunset
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 19, 2015, 04:20:05 AM
Strange things are going on! That's my point and that puzzles me! Because ...
But this implies (illustration b) that removing the LC circuit completely should result in having infinite impedance for ALL received frequencies, thus we should hear all nearby transmitting radio stations at once, but we don't. Why?
Because now we don't have the energy amplifying feature of the LC circuit anymore!?
So, who is willing to adjust this reality in order to comply with the textbooks? :D
Zeit,
In general textbooks are there to teach, and it is for the reader to learn from a written explanation.
Not understanding the text or explanation, does not directly imply that the text or explanation is wrong.
An LC circuit is also called a tuned circuit because it has a specific time constant which equals a specific frequency. Therefore it acts as a frequency filter. It might appear that it amplifies, but in reality it doesn't add anything to the signal, no FE input. Your earpiece will load the LC circuit and lowers its selectivity effectiveness and de-tune it, the reason your picture uses a crystal earpiece because it has high impedance. A standard dynamic earpiece as you use for your cell phone wouldn't work here because of its low impedance and it contains a coil which would change the freq of the LC circuit in a big way.
When it comes to hearing all stations without filter seems to be well explained by MarkE above. I would guess you would still hear a strong/near station above all else. It is all a matter of composite signal strength
Red_Sunset
Quote from: MarkE on May 19, 2015, 05:03:45 AM
This is a fail on so many levels it is difficult to choose where to start.
Broadband energy summed together appears to an indiscriminate receiver as noise. The tuned filter discriminates energy within a narrow band. Impinging energy within that band passes on to the output at a small loss. Crystal radios work because the human ear can detect pressure variations of 1E-9 BAR. It does not take a lot of power to make sound that is audible in headphones.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 19, 2015, 05:26:36 AM
An LC circuit is also called a tuned circuit because it has a specific time constant which equals a specific frequency. Therefore it acts as a frequency filter. It might appear that it amplifies, but in reality it doesn't add anything to the signal, no FE input. Your earpiece will load the LC circuit and lowers its selectivity effectiveness and de-tune it, the reason your picture uses a crystal earpiece because it has high impedance. A standard dynamic earpiece as you use for your cell phone wouldn't work here because of its low impedance and it contains a coil which would change the freq of the LC circuit in a big way.
I see! MarkE and Red_Sunset have decided to adjust reality to the textbooks. I never thought something different could ever happen! 8)
So then explain this:
Free energy from air TEST (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia69Ow9DYLI)
First explain where this energy (charging a capacitor for free) is coming from and why it should perhaps(?) be considered as NOT free. Second explain, why a crystal-radio (also working with an antenna and ground) should not make use of that energy?
Actually this arrangement consists of two Avramenko Plugs connected together, principle explained here:
The Work that is Created by Means of Potential Field - Alexander V. Frolov (http://overunity.com/15374/the-free-energy-spark/dlattach/attach/147257/)
Quote from: LibreEnergia on May 19, 2015, 01:20:07 AM
The energy to bend the beam in the children's swing comes from absorbing some of the energy of the fall of the pedulumn. The beam stores this energy as strain and return most of the energy to the pendulm as it flexes back.
Any attempt at extracting energy from such devices is pointless.
As I said earlier: Reality is adjusted to fit the textbooks. How can extracting energy be pointless, when it is obviously done and shown in the
Milkovic video (http://overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/dlattach/attach/149500/)?
As one can see, it is not so easy to deceive Zeitmaschine, especially if one evidently can't even debunk a simple free energy lever device scientifically. :)
Now - just for fun - let me debunk the power of the wind (scientifically).
A windmill or wind wheel can't work, despite we can see it working every day!! The wind commonly blows in one direction (like gravitation). So if we take a sheet of paper, then this paper is blown by the wind in one direction a few meters. Hence we can get some useful energy out of it. But after that few meters we have to put that sheet of paper back to its start position and that means pushing it against the force of the steady blowing wind, so all energy gained in the first step is lost in that second step and thus the overall energy gain is zero. Quod erat demonstrandum!
Now show me a working windmill and I'm sure it's fake, maybe it works with a hidden motor. ;D :P
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 19, 2015, 08:10:05 AM
I see! MarkE and Red_Sunset have decided to adjust reality to the textbooks. I never thought something different could ever happen! 8)
So then explain this: Free energy from air TEST (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia69Ow9DYLI)
First explain where this energy (charging a capacitor for free) is coming from and why it should perhaps(?) be considered as NOT free. Second explain, why a crystal-radio (also working with an antenna and ground) should not make use of that energy?
Actually this arrangement consists of two Avramenko Plugs connected together, principle explained here: The Work that is Created by Means of Potential Field - Alexander V. Frolov (http://overunity.com/15374/the-free-energy-spark/dlattach/attach/147257/)
As I said earlier: Reality is adjusted to fit the textbooks. How can extracting energy be pointless, when it is obviously done and shown in the Milkovic video (http://overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/dlattach/attach/149500/)?
As one can see, it is not so easy to deceive Zeitmaschine, especially if one evidently can't even debunk a simple free energy lever device scientifically. :)
Now - just for fun - let me debunk the power of the wind (scientifically).
A windmill or wind wheel can't work, despite we can see it working every day!! The wind commonly blows in one direction (like gravitation). So if we take a sheet of paper, then this paper is blown by the wind in one direction a few meters. Hence we can get some useful energy out of it. But after that few meters we have to put that sheet of paper back to its start position and that means pushing it against the force of the steady blowing wind, so all energy gained in the first step is lost in that second step and thus the overall energy gain is zero. Quod erat demonstrandum!
Now show me a working windmill and I'm sure it's fake, maybe it works with a hidden motor. ;D :P
Zeit,
I know you are taking me around in circles and I will play your game a bit longer
1.. Energy out of the air, sure that is very possible. But that is not likely the same energy than your radio signal (energy), the one you are receiving from the sender antenna. I have no reason to believe different to my knowledge.
Re energy out of the air, Tesla proposal for wireless power transmission relied on input energy from solar winds into the ionosphere, as far as I gathered, that looked very possible as a tapping method in a theoretical sense. Several practical aspects are intimidating to my view.
2.. Your fun for wind energy, energy extraction out of anything requires movement. Wind is a circular circuit between hi & lo pressure, there is actual air movement between these pressure points. The heat from the sun is the pump that is driving it.
You do not need to move the paper, tape it to a rotor and it will spin
In comparison to any other field you are referring to, magnetic or gravity, the apparent consistency of the field is static.
This difference can be demonstrated, just for comparison by trying to get lift in a FIELD vs. wind,
example, try to install a magnetic Narca foil in the magnetic field, and see what happens? Doesn't work as intended.
The same problem in a gravity field ? Now try the same in the wind, that works fine?
You will notice that the apparent difference is that a field has no physical property compared to a wind flow.
There is a good reason these fields are called "Conservative", and the wind is not conservative
Regards, Red_Sunset
Actually this is all about shielding. If the gravitational field or a magnetic field could be shielded (or switched off temporarily) with less energy necessary than the energy that could be gained because of that shielding, then we would have a surplus of energy.
Hence show me a law of physics that states, that shielding must always consume more energy than the energy that could be gained because of the shielding. The law of conservation of energy does not count towards this, because we do not want energy from nothing, but from an already present energy field.
Now analysis of a video:
When the lever moves and hammers against its counterpart then the energy for this is taken from the pendulum's movement? That would mean, a moving lever should slow down the pendulum and reduce its amplidude fast. But it does not. Taken from this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nik7JyNRbE) I have superimposed two clips (one clip has been move 9 pixels downwards). One shows the pendulum with a freely moving lever, the other with a locked lever. Both videos (http://overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/dlattach/attach/149576/) are 56 frames in lenght and they are covering two oscillating periods of the pendulum. The pendulum's amplidude and frequency are exactly the same in both cases, whether the lever is locked or not. Amazingly the two superimposed pendula are just looking like one single pendulum.
So, what's next? Rewriting some textbooks perhaps? :)
"The law of conservation of energy does not count towards this, because we do not want energy from nothing, but from an already present energy field." these fields are FORCE fields, not ENERGY fields.
A force can be applied indefinitely without expending energy.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 18, 2015, 03:52:37 AM
Mark,
You are correct from the standard earthly reference frame. But I guess, Zeit is looking at it from a different angle.
Zeit's reference I would guess is the blob itself, not the pivot attachment.
Like creating weightless condition in a gravity field, the free fall of an airplane to train astronauts.
The weightless condition of the passengers is in reference to the plane, not to the earth
Red_Sunset
The "weightless condition" in no way means that the acceleration due to gravity has stopped. It means that it is unopposed. That is a huge difference.
Cart and horse: When evidence is found that challenges established understanding, then that evidence should be evaluated.
People can imagine all sorts of things that have no bearing on reality. Simply imagining something does not create evidence for that thing.
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 17, 2015, 03:15:06 AM
Take a 30 Kg weight (or heavier) and then throw it over two meters into the air. Do this all two seconds. Can you?
Yes, you can! Without much effort! However you have to use the energy amplifying effect of a pendulum! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9qsm_5PRPY)
One more physics ANTI-lesson. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX_INbcRMVY) :)
Storage and amplification are very different things. Please learn the difference.
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 19, 2015, 08:10:05 AM
I see! MarkE and Red_Sunset have decided to adjust reality to the textbooks. I never thought something different could ever happen! 8)
So then explain this: Free energy from air TEST (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia69Ow9DYLI)
First explain where this energy (charging a capacitor for free) is coming from and why it should perhaps(?) be considered as NOT free. Second explain, why a crystal-radio (also working with an antenna and ground) should not make use of that energy?
Actually this arrangement consists of two Avramenko Plugs connected together, principle explained here: The Work that is Created by Means of Potential Field - Alexander V. Frolov (http://overunity.com/15374/the-free-energy-spark/dlattach/attach/147257/)
As I said earlier: Reality is adjusted to fit the textbooks. How can extracting energy be pointless, when it is obviously done and shown in the Milkovic video (http://overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/dlattach/attach/149500/)?
As one can see, it is not so easy to deceive Zeitmaschine, especially if one evidently can't even debunk a simple free energy lever device scientifically. :)
Now - just for fun - let me debunk the power of the wind (scientifically).
A windmill or wind wheel can't work, despite we can see it working every day!! The wind commonly blows in one direction (like gravitation). So if we take a sheet of paper, then this paper is blown by the wind in one direction a few meters. Hence we can get some useful energy out of it. But after that few meters we have to put that sheet of paper back to its start position and that means pushing it against the force of the steady blowing wind, so all energy gained in the first step is lost in that second step and thus the overall energy gain is zero. Quod erat demonstrandum!
Now show me a working windmill and I'm sure it's fake, maybe it works with a hidden motor. ;D :P
It's always fun to see someone take the ordinary and try and represent it as extraordinary. Bravo.
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 19, 2015, 02:25:08 PM
............................................
Now analysis of a video:
...................................................
. The pendulum's amplidude and frequency are exactly the same in both cases, whether the lever is locked or not. Amazingly the two superimposed pendula are just looking like one single pendulum.
So, what's next? Rewriting some textbooks perhaps? :)
Zeit,
To break this circular path, if the documentation you presented confirms your perceptive feeling that this is the magic OU solution, than I wouldn't rely on no other casual opinions that say it isn't (then don't be distracted by the reasons that have been posted). To expect a new full blown analysis on the fly in this forum is unrealistic.
I think the your time has come to construct a setup in order to run a test protocol to confirm your conviction. That is the most convincing approach you can take.
Quote
.....................................................................
............................................." these fields are FORCE fields, not ENERGY fields.
A force can be applied indefinitely without expending energy.
Memoryman,
Thanks for your precise definition, I didn't want to pre-empt the discussion, but rather allow the possible existence of a backdoor.
The reason for this forum existence
Quote
......................no way means that......gravity has stopped. It means that it is unopposed. That is a huge difference..
MarkE
Exacting syntax can go beyond common intent of understanding, I do not think anybody tried to imply that "gravity had stopped".
Red_Sunset
Quote from: memoryman on May 19, 2015, 04:17:17 PM
"The law of conservation of energy does not count towards this, because we do not want energy from nothing, but from an already present energy field." these fields are FORCE fields, not ENERGY fields.
Says who? If so, then what is causing the electrons to orbit the nucleus of an atom (visualized)? There must be an energy source for that to do. Can a static force field cause continuous quantum fluctuations in space? Or do we rather need an energy field for that? When I put something on my table then the gravitational field creates a force pushing that thing against the table. But what is causing the counter force in the table? When I press my fist against the table periodically with the expense of energy, then what energy is causing the also periodically acting counter force? Just asking ...
Quote from: MarkE on May 19, 2015, 09:32:29 PM
People can imagine all sorts of things that have no bearing on reality. Simply imagining something does not create evidence for that thing.
Denying the existence of evidence is not much of a help either. Why does the Serbian Ministry of Science (see screenshot below) financially support the production of pendulum pumps, when those pumps do not work as claimed?
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 20, 2015, 02:32:01 AM
I think the your time has come to construct a setup in order to run a test protocol to confirm your conviction. That is the most convincing approach you can take.
I would prefer to construct a setup in an electrical way (like Moray in 1936). Handling of heavy steel beams is not my thing. So I have to gather information how to do it without much abortive attempts. That pendulum stuff is a very good source of such information.
By the way: The best evidence for the existence of free accessible energy are the amounts of distractors in the relevant forums. If one would claim in the forums he can make himself invisible, no one would really care, I guess. But as soon as the phrase »free energy« appears in the forums, hell breaks loose. ::) 8)
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 20, 2015, 04:15:17 AM
......................Says who?
....................? Just asking ...
......................., hell breaks loose. ::) 8)
You posted " Why does the Serbian Ministry of Science (see screenshot below) financially support the production of pendulum pumps, when those pumps do not work as claimed?"
** What was claimed? You are not saying.....possibly, Pumps running themselves or having a mechanical advantage to operate ?
" So I have to gather information how to do it without much abortive attempts. That pendulum stuff is a very good source of such information "
** Your mind is purposeful, and that is good!, but you have also to recognize that it is too preconceived, preventing you to deal objectively with each detail that requires real answers (not assumptions and leap frogs).
To manage your risk exposure, make a list of all important and critical pieces of the puzzle, evaluate them as, 1- Proven by theory, 2- Proven by test, 3- assumed, 4-unknown
Keep us updated for a sanity check.
Good luck, Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 20, 2015, 05:24:35 AM
To manage your risk exposure, make a list of all important and critical pieces of the puzzle, evaluate them as, 1- Proven by theory, 2- Proven by test, 3- assumed, 4-unknown
Actually my list of pieces becomes shorter and shorter over time. At the beginning the list contained thyristors and transistors and diodes and custom wound coils and electronic oscillators and exotic materials. Now I'm down to two capacitors and two transformers off the shelf.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 20, 2015, 05:24:35 AM
Keep us updated for a sanity check.
Unfortunately the functionality of the Universe is rather insane than sane. :(
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 20, 2015, 04:15:17 AM
Says who? If so, then what is causing the electrons to orbit the nucleus of an atom (visualized)? There must be an energy source for that to do..
This is where you are completely wrong.
Much like a spaceship moving in space it requires no input energy to maintain the same speed and direction as it encounters no resistance. Only changing its' velocity requires energy.
The same is true for electron orbitals. No energy is liberated or required unless the orbital state changes. That process only proceeds with a net increase in entropy. You cannot tap some 'mysterious energy that causes the electrons to move' as you presume.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on May 20, 2015, 10:23:15 PM
This is where you are completely wrong.
Much like a spaceship moving in space it requires no input energy to maintain the same speed and direction as it encounters no resistance. Only changing its' velocity requires energy.
Also wrong. A pendulum constantly changes its velocity (from zero to max) and it requires no additional input energy for that to do (friction losses disregarded).
By the way: Tesla's
Magnifying Transmitter (http://www.hazardousphysics.com/main/zeus/images/magn.png) (that one with the extra coil) is basically also a two-stage oscillator (like the lever with the pendulum). Isn't that a very very odd coincidence, is it? :)
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 21, 2015, 02:21:00 AM
Also wrong. A pendulum constantly changes its velocity (from zero to max) and it requires no additional input energy for that to do (friction losses disregarded).
By the way: Tesla's Magnifying Transmitter (http://www.hazardousphysics.com/main/zeus/images/magn.png) (that one with the extra coil) is basically also a two-stage oscillator (like the lever with the pendulum). Isn't that a very very odd coincidence, is it? :)
Zeit,
i am getting somewhat confused by you rapid change of objects and their relationship, akin to comparing apples with oranges with celery without explaining what is the exact connection of sameness.
The common denominator leans towards "Oscillator/Oscillation"
Why do you think that Oscillation produces excess energy and how would this excess energy materialize?
Can you demonstrate in more detail, the connection of sameness that supports your quest towards OU. Where does each produce the excess energy ? You may be theoretical, even assumptive, proof is not a requirement at this point
1.. The bending swing bar
2.. The pendulum
3.. Milkoviz , 2 stage Osc
4.. Kapanadze Osc
5.. The Magnifying transmitter
6.. The electron oscillation in the atom
Red_Sunset
I just have pointed out a very odd coincidence. But there are some more odds and those odds are all pointing to a two-stage parametric oscillator.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 21, 2015, 02:43:41 AM
1.. The bending swing bar
Swinging is one stage, bending the second stage. Hence we have a two-stage oscillator.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 21, 2015, 02:43:41 AM
2.. The pendulum
The first stage of a two-stage oscillator. The second stage is not always obvious to recognize.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 21, 2015, 02:43:41 AM
3.. Milkoviz , 2 stage Osc
He claims that more mechanic energy goes out than in.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 21, 2015, 02:43:41 AM
4.. Kapanadze Osc
Statement of Kapanadze: »I have found a simple way to keep resonance between two coils.« An electric two-stage oscillator would fit that statement.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 21, 2015, 02:43:41 AM
5.. The Magnifying transmitter
Tesla claims a magnifying effect due to the use of two coils. I would guess that his claim is the magnification of energy.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 21, 2015, 02:43:41 AM
6.. The electron oscillation in the atom
Matter can be converted to energy and energy can be converted to matter (Einstein), hence matter is energy. This strongly suggests that there was once an energy field creating that matter. So what if that energy field does still exsist today and we could tap into it in some way or the other? Perhaps by means of a two-stage oscillator that creates parametric resonance?
And you forgot 7.. - The Stepanov overunity transformer. We can see nothing more than two capacitors and two transformers, but that would nevertheless be a sufficient equipment for the construction of an electric two-stage oscillator.
Bluntly speaking, I can't see any reason why someone should falsely claim overunity out of two transformers and two capacitors, all hidden in plain view. Fake? Mistake? I don't think so.
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 17, 2015, 04:15:12 AM
No, a pendulum (child on swing) is NOT an "energy amplifier". It stores the energy you put into it by pushing, small increments at the resonant frequency, and can build up large amplitudes representing large amounts of _stored energy_.
Exactly that's the point! When a pendulum goes into parametric oscillation (resonance) due to a second oscillator stage, then it will store all energy that it can get from whatever place. But since we have seen the electric experiment with the two Avramenko plugs, we can confirm that there is indeed a kind of an electric energy field around us. The existence of gravitation does not need confirmation, I think.
The pendulum swings like an ordinary pendulum, the lever (the second stage) is connected to gravity. Now an electric oscillator also oscillates just like an ordinary oscillator, but the second coil (the second stage) is connected to ... what? Some sort of an electric field that surrounds us?
Here just another two-stage oscillator - or rather a self-exciting radio receiver? I don't know where user
elementSix (http://overunity.com/profile/elementsix.30346/) got this
illustration (http://overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/dlattach/attach/123438/) from, but if it works then the phrase
»like you have opened the gates of hell« says it all. Think, I would also like to open those gates. :P
Tesla: Could we produce artificially a »sink« for the energy of the ambient medium to flow in?
Let's see: If the ambient medium in question is gravitation, then the artificial sink would be a sudden reduction (by means of a pendulum) of the weight on one side of the lever (Milkovic), so gravitation can flow in and pull down the other side of the lever. Genius, isn't it?
If done the right way, this should also work with an electric field representing Tesla's ambient medium.
BTW:
Quote from: TinselKoala on May 17, 2015, 04:15:12 AM
And the Finsrud machine is a clever work of art, not any kind of self running perpetual motion machine. The longest it has ever run without being "reset" is 14 days. it contains large springs and heavy weights (Look at the center of the mechanism) and runs by an escapement mechanism that extracts a tiny bit of stored energy every time the ball runs around the tilting track
Any confirmation of this, or pure guesswork? 12 years to build a simple clock mechanism would be the next odd thing, wouldn't it?
And hopefully my thoughts are not too confusing for anyone to follow. ;D
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 21, 2015, 02:21:00 AM
Also wrong. A pendulum constantly changes its velocity (from zero to max) and it requires no additional input energy for that to do (friction losses disregarded).
You are correct it requires no extra input or energy. However your assumption that a mass rotating about a fixed point has more energy than if the mass were travelling in a straight line is false. Linear and angular momentum is conserved.
Consider a spaceship travelling in a straight line capturing a 'massless rigid rope' attached to a 'massless pivot' and begins to orbit. It simply converts its linear momentum to angular momentum. No energy is gained or lost. The rope experiences a tension but no work is done by the rope as the length does not change.
Replace the 'rope' with the tensor force of gravity and you'll see you are mistaken in your assumptions.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on May 21, 2015, 06:20:52 PM
You are correct it requires no extra input or energy. However your assumption that a mass rotating about a fixed point has more energy than if the mass were travelling in a straight line is false. Linear and angular momentum is conserved.
you are right ...
but , with equivalent energy , a rotating one is more efficient than a penduleum
because the momentum is not reverse
so the double penduleum is a very bad solution !
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 21, 2015, 12:40:39 PM
.............................................................
Tesla claims a magnifying effect due to the use of two coils. I would guess that his claim is the magnification of energy.
..............................................................
Bluntly speaking, I can't see any reason why someone should falsely claim overunity ............................ Fake? Mistake? I don't think so.
..................................................................
The pendulum swings like an ordinary pendulum, the lever (the second stage) is connected to gravity. Now an electric oscillator also oscillates just like an ordinary oscillator, but the second coil (the second stage) is connected to ... what? Some sort of an electric field that surrounds us?
.........................................................
Tesla: Could we produce artificially a »sink« for the energy of the ambient medium to flow in?
.................................................................
If done the right way, this should also work with an electric field representing Tesla's ambient medium.
BTW:
Any confirmation of this, or pure guesswork? .........................................
Zeit,
Thx for clarifying your angle. I am not in any position to tell you right or wrong, you can read and must have seen the many attempts throughout history to achieve this illusive objective. The corridor gets longer and more doors to open come into view..
Your focus is on oscillation and in particular the 2 stages osc. As I gather the understanding of this logic is that stage1 is the initiator and stage2 is the deliverer.
Storyline: Stage1 requires input to initiate a change, resulting in a impulse of change for stage2. The reaction by stage2 is not fueled by energy extraction from stage1, this energy is supposed to come from an other source. The constraint is that the resulting energy out should be bigger than the input delivered to stage1 if you desire OU..
Perceptions can be deceiving, therefore they don't count. Identification of stage2 energy source is important, even if it is described by resulting observations. This provides a better understanding of what is important.
Example (my view and debatable), the Tesla magnifying transmitter.
I do not believe there is any free energy in this tesla oscillator device itself. It only magnifies tension within standard known boundaries.
I think that the objective was to harvest atmospheric energy that could be derived from the transmission medium of a long distance implementation. The tesla coil setup functions as a tickler to the static atmospheric energy medium to initiate vibration motion ,. Once in motion, energy can be extracted.(Energy (force (charge) x distance (motion)). The Tesla primary energy source would be the ionosphere charged by the sun in solar winds hitting the earth. So to see the excess energy, we need to see the whole full dimension.
That dual oscillators could possible tap other energy sources, quite possible but to say that with assuredness, more observed evidential information would be needed.
That the Dual Osc is within itself OU capable, always possible although that would require more convincing evidence from my viewpoint.
This is not a "No", it should be an encouragement that there should be a separation between guesswork, wishful thinking, assumptions and hard evidence. Don't mix.
Regards, Red-Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 22, 2015, 04:46:09 AM
Your focus is on oscillation and in particular the 2 stages osc. As I gather the understanding of this logic is that stage1 is the initiator and stage2 is the deliverer.
It seems so indeed. Thus, what do you think why are all hints (electric and mechanic) pointing to a two-stage oscillator? Isn't that curious?
Here it comes one more curious coincidence.
Why is this arrangement not working:
Milkovic Pendulum and Rotation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAUkEHPjuZA)? It does not work because the lever of that replication is linked to a flywheel, hence the lever moves along a smooth sinusoidal path. However, the lever of the original Milkovic two-stage oscillator makes jerky (sharp) movements.
Quote:
»Most important thing is to generate sharp pulses (triggered)« That's a hint from
cosmoLV (http://overunity.com/7679/selfrunning-free-energy-devices-up-to-5-kw-from-tariel-kapanadze/msg314848/#subject_314848), one who allegedly knows (but is unwilling to reveal) the principle of work of the Kapanadze device.
Considering the lever and the pendulum: A pendulum converts energy constantly back and forth between kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy. Now, how should the mechanic two-stage oscillator work in the IDEAL case?
1) When the pendulum is in the horizontal position all energy is converted to potential energy, then the gravitation suddenly moves up the pivot. That means, since all energy is stored in the pendulum's bob in form of potential energy, the pendulum can't lose any energy at that point due to the pivot's up movement.
2) When the pendulum is in the vertical position all energy is converted to kinetic energy, then the gravitation suddenly moves down the pivot. That means, since all energy is stored in the pendulum's bob in form of kinetic energy, the pendulum can't lose any energy at that point due to the pivot's down movement.
So then, where is the energy coming from that moves the lever up and down? Gravity? Seems there is nothing else left.
On the other hand, if the pivot moves during the energy conversion, then that movement will interfere with it, resulting in a energy loss of the pendulum.
Therefore my (electric) problem is, how to generate sharp pulses by means of two connected LC circuits (without semiconductor or spark gap)? Driving the iron core of the second stage into saturation perhaps?
And I'm still convinced when I'm looking at the Milkovic two-state oscillator, then I'm looking at the mechanic version of the electric Tesla/Kapanadze/Stepanov two-stage oscillators.
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 23, 2015, 07:00:10 AM
It seems so indeed. Thus, what do you think why are all hints (electric and mechanic) pointing to a two-stage oscillator? Isn't that curious?
Here it comes one more curious coincidence.
.......................................................
..........................................
Zeit,
I had my reservations on the accuracy of certain statements, and it became clear I overlooked something that gives your view more support. I needed to find some time to get it down on paper
So allow my mind to some logical and illogical musings, I am open to different views
The bending of the bar is due to a greater force than just blob weight as thought initially . The bending force is the result of the centrifugal force, in direct relationship to the blobs weight and its cord length .
So exactly where does the excess energy enter the picture and what energy is it
.
*Zeit* 1) When the pendulum is in the horizontal position all energy is converted to potential energy, then the gravitation suddenly moves up the pivot. That means, since all energy is stored in the pendulum's bob in form of potential energy, the pendulum can't lose any energy at that point due to the pivot's up movement.
Comment; The pivot movement influence on the blob and its new position when in the horizontal position with pivot
When the pivot moves upward when the swing reaches its maximum apex, the result must be a composite repositioning of the blob in 2 dimensions towards the pivot location. We can assume a cord angle away from the horizontal and a inward but slightly higher positioned blob.
- Potential energy adjustment impact on the blob is factional small.
- When the blob reaches its apex, the acceleration and gravity forces balance out and result in an apparent weightless condition.
- Centrifugal / centripetal forces become zero.
- Energy to move pivot upward is ~ zero (relatively speaking)
*Zeit* 2) When the pendulum is in the vertical position all energy is converted to kinetic energy, then the gravitation suddenly moves down the pivot. That means, since all energy is stored in the pendulum's bob in form of kinetic energy, the pendulum can't lose any energy at that point due to the pivot's down movement.
Comment: As the blob descend towards the lowest potential energy level, the centrifugal force increases due to acceleration. At a determined vertical point, the centrifugal force exceeds the centripetal holding force of the pivot. The pivot drops a preset distance.
As the centripetal force is interrupted, we have a vertical centrifugal force, combined with the horizontal acceleration force, results in a angled force trajectory for the blob which is arrested when the down pivot point is reached and centripetal is reinstated.
- The blob trajectory change means that the path followed by the blob is longer than its regular swing trajectory?.
- The blob would experience a temporary acceleration during the pivot drop that possibly could compensate for the longer path ?
- A pivot drop at the vertical will not add to energies that aid blob acceleration motion
- Energy exerted on the moving pivot (centrifugal force x pivot drop distance)
* Total potential energy as seen by the pendulum, total height travel – pivot drop distance = pendulum cord length (height).
* Pivot up restore energy : ~ zero (relative zero)
* Pivot down drop energy : Centrifugal/ Centripetal force (not gravity directly, a derivative thereof)
Where did this excess energy come from: centrifugal is a fictitious force but centripetal isn't
Centripetal force = mass x velocity2 / radius : The velocity of the blob has the most impact on the pivot force. (so critical to observe is possible reduction to velocity)
The centrifugal force had to overcome the centripetal threshold of the pivot, energy is deposited into the pivot attachment as force x distance. To simplify your argument, we could assume that all energy due to pivot drop is invested therein from the centrifugal/centripetal force.
Any comments......
Red_Sunset
Addon,
The question on and how the feedback (the one we can not ignore) is regulated in the pendulum where the pivot drops.
This feedback is not so obvious and can better be described by looking at an analogous device with similar properties.
It is most unlikely that the process of transferring energy to the pivot is for free,
As the pendulum blob moves through its vertical at highest velocity and displaces its pivot, it is momentary alike to a motor with a eccentric weight. The vibration motor.
Some useful data can be found here: http://www.precisionmicrodrives.com/application-notes-technical-guides/application-bulletins/ab-004-understanding-erm-characteristics-for-vibration-applications
Some text from the linked document describing the vibration loading (the Eccentric Rotating Mass vibration motor, or ERM)
// As the applied voltage is increased, the vibration frequency increases proportionally, and vibration amplitude will all increase as with a square; remember that "F0", the amplitude of the centrifugal force, equals equation mrw(sq2). The ERM current is proportional to the torque 'load' seen by the motor. As vibration energy is taken out of the ERM system, the torque required to continue spinning the eccentric mass will increase, and so too will the current.
This explains why the current draw of a loosely held vibration motor is greater than the current draw when the same motor is clamped tightly. In the latter case, less vibration energy is being removed from the ERM system. //
Vibration load is nothing more than the pivot (shaft) taking an off center path, similar than the bending pivot. Only imagine the pendulum to rotate 360 dgr, the offset pivot will do the same.
It is not clear how exactly the loading takes place (how it transferred), it can only by impacting the rotation speed of the motor and result in increased current, this would equal the pendulum blob velocity. The blob would more rapidly come to a stop !.
So the pivot dropping must impact the velocity, contrary to earlier reasoning
Something to focus on.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 24, 2015, 09:02:27 AM
The centrifugal force had to overcome the centripetal threshold of the pivot, energy is deposited into the pivot attachment as force x distance. To simplify your argument, we could assume that all energy due to pivot drop is invested therein from the centrifugal/centripetal force.
In my understanding the weight of the pendulum should be enough to move the pivot downwards. I'm not sure if centrifugal force is necessary. The weight of the pendulum is zero on its horizontal position and back to normal (plus centrifugal force) on its vertical position. Zero weight moves the pivot up because of the lever's overbalance on its opposite side. The pendulum's normal weight moves the lever down because the lever's overbalance is now on the pendulum's side. So it is beneficial to have a centrifugal force in addition to the pendulum's weight, but it is not required in order to get the movement of the lever.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 24, 2015, 12:04:07 PM
Vibration load is nothing more than the pivot (shaft) taking an off center path, similar than the bending pivot. Only imagine the pendulum to rotate 360 dgr, the offset pivot will do the same.
It is not clear how exactly the loading takes place (how it transferred), it can only by impacting the rotation speed of the motor and result in increased current, this would equal the pendulum blob velocity. The blob would more rapidly come to a stop !.
So the pivot dropping must impact the velocity, contrary to earlier reasoning
Something to focus on.
I think the overlooked point here is the abruptness of the pivot's movement. A motor with an eccentric weight performs a linear function (like the wooden flywheel in the image above). The Milkovic two-state oscillator does not. The pendulum and the lever are nonlinear in their interaction. The pendulum's sinusoidal movement results in a binary on-off state, the lever goes abruptly up or down. Practically that should make a huge difference. The pendulum converts energy loss-less between potential and kinetic energy (disregarding friction). When that conversion is completed during each cycle (in horizontal and vertical position) then a movement of the pivot at that time should not take any energy out of the pendulum.
Of course, when we want to excite a pendulum parametrically then the usual way to do this is to move the bob (not the pivot!) up a bit (not down) when it swings through its vertical position. We shorten the string at vertical and we extend the string at horizontal in order to excite the pendulum. That would suggest at first glance that moving down the pivot at vertical would dampen the pendulum (contrary to exciting it). But moving the pivot is completely different from moving just the bob up and down, because shorten the string in vertical position and extending it in horizontal position (for parametric excitation) means the bob moves along a smaller radius the complete way till it reaches its horizontal position and it moves along a larger radius the complete way till it swings back to its vertical position. Whereas a movement of the pivot (during bob's vertical or horizontal position only) does not change the radius of the bob's path when the conversion of energy takes place.
Conclusion: Changing the length of the string does change the radius of the bob's path, hence changing the bob's velocity, hence exciting or damping the pendulum respectively. Changing the vertical position of the pivot does not change the radius of the bob's path, hence not changing the bob's velocity, hence not exciting or damping the pendulum respectively.
Seems that matter becomes more and more complicated as we look deeper and deeper into it. :)
Addon:
Why is abruptness important?
When we want to get energy from the environment (what ever that may be), we need to create an energy sink (Tesla) on an oscillating basis. Oscillating means, that the energy in the system is constantly converted back and forth between two forms of energy. In doing so, we should strictly avoid that the energy from the environment (e.g. gravitation) is permanently working against that ongoing conversion process. The energy of the environment is allowed only to get into the system when the process of conversation has finished and the energy sink has been created. As soon as that environmental energy is in our system (flowed towards our sink) we have to convert it into a different form of energy (thus the oscillation), because we have to renew the sink in order to get more energy flowing in from the environment.
That's why we need a) something oscillating and b) something switching abruptly.
Just my two cents. :D
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 25, 2015, 11:05:20 AM
Addon:
Why is abruptness important?
...........................................................
....................................
That's why we need a) something oscillating and b) something switching abruptly.
Just my two cents. :D
Zeit,
I had some time to think about the problem. I think you are somewhat too optimistic in getting to your desired result by taking giant steps. Wanting to see a specific result can cloud your good judgment when the devil is in the details. It it wasn't , Milkovic would have already a standalone energy generator running and cranking out clean power.
He obviously hasn't and there must be a reason why !! So there is still hope
In the pendulum movement, gravity is dominant at 3 & 9 o'clock and centrifugal is dominant at 6 o'clock. My analogy was not to be understood in a 360dgrs rotation, rather in a limited quadrant only. What happens in the pendulum quadrant around 6 o'clock with a moving pivot is the same as what happens in a rotary quadrant of an eccentric vibration setup. Sure in the pendulum we have to consider acceleration and de-acceleration rather than constant velocity. This analogy was only a quick way to demonstrate that deviating an eccentric weight of an initial path entails into some penalty. ( you could compare the penalty to Lenz for argument purpose).
Lets assume a rotating mass, rotating without path deviation, making nice circles 'vs ' a rotating mass that at some point momentary deviates from the nice circular path and returns to continue on the circular path. Would the rotation be impacted by the deviation ? Would the rotation time be the same for both ?.
This deviation forces can be represented in a vector drawing, showing the forces the blob experiences in it travel and so clarify the impact of the pivot change. For the pendulum, the impact will be different relative to the gravity direction and acceleration / de-acceleration / constant motion . This analysis will also pinpoint the best position to allow abrupt movement for best impact.
I don't have all the time yet to put it all together.
Red
Referring to your addon,
Abrupt....The ideal time window to drop the pivot is exactly at vertical when gravity lost all influence over acceleration. Ideal time to supplement the gravity force with the centrifugal force (by untie-ing the centripetal force) for maximum force impact on the pivot without influencing the motion of pendulum mass.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 25, 2015, 12:15:58 PM
I don't have all the time yet to put it all together.
So essentially you saying, that you have no final idea how the forces here are interacting with each other, but you are quite sure that the outcome can't be any surplus energy!?
Interesting!!
Milkovic himself maybe does not know how this works and why. Therefore he couldn't yet make a self-runner (Bessler could).
Apropos Bessler: What if we connect two pendulums together, so when one is in weightless state (horizontal) the other is in full weight state (vertical)? Could the resulting imbalance be used to drive a wheel continuously?
Just an odd idea ... ::)
Quote from: webby1 on May 25, 2015, 05:15:31 PM
The moving pivot creates a negative phase shift in the direction of forces.
.............................................
..............................................................
When going down the moving pivot slows down the conversion value of gravity into rotation.
These are not so easy to see unless you know to look for them.
Hi webby,
Thanks for for sharing your observation, you are right that it is so easily to overlook an aspect that only becomes obvious once you know it.
Quote
When we want to get energy from the environment (what ever that may be), we need to create an energy sink (Tesla) on an oscillating basis. Oscillating means, that the energy in the system is constantly converted back and forth between two forms of energy. In doing so, we should strictly avoid that the energy from the environment (e.g. gravitation) is permanently working against that ongoing conversion process. The energy of the environment is allowed only to get into the system when the process of conversation has finished and the energy sink has been created. As soon as that environmental energy is in our system (flowed towards our sink) we have to convert it into a different form of energy (thus the oscillation), because we have to renew the sink in order to get more energy flowing in from the environment.
That's why we need a) something oscillating and b) something switching abruptly.
.................................
................................
So essentially you saying, that you have no final idea how the forces here are interacting with each other, but you are quite sure that the outcome can't be any surplus energy!?
Interesting!!
Milkovic himself maybe does not know how this works and why. Therefore he couldn't yet make a self-runner (Bessler could).
Zeit,
I am not disagreeing with you, on the contrary, I am in full agreement.
You are right that "I have no final idea how ALL the forces here are interacting with each other" because there is the big question of
"something", that is unresolved !
This "something" is also stopping Milkovic, I bet he knows exactly how this works and why, and all pointers let us believe that he just hasn't been able to overcome this "something". He developed this configuration purposely so he would be quite familiar with it.
Can this "something" be overcome ? and allow the sequence of energy flows as you have logically laid out in your hypothesis be implemented is the BIG question. Never say no, this is the main reason why we are discussion this on this forum, I guess.
A general hypothesis is good for guidance into a specific direction, it is then up to a detailed investigative process (since the devil is in the details) that will after the usual refining procedures will bring it closer to possible solution. The solution might not always be the solution we are looking for.
For me to say "I am sure that the outcome can't be any surplus energy!" is preempting the investigation. I am not sure about anything until I can positively identify a factual process with a result that theoretically point to a high probability. The practical test will then confirm if the derived theory is correct or not.
At this point, there are still too many blocking issues that need to be resolved before the fat lady sings.
Red_Sunset
Quote from: webby1 on May 25, 2015, 05:15:31 PM
When going down the moving pivot slows down the conversion value of gravity into rotation.
Exactly! And that is why - as I mentioned earlier - the pivot should only move when the conversion process of gravity into rotation has finished (in the vertical position).
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 26, 2015, 12:53:11 AM
A general hypothesis is good for guidance into a specific direction, it is then up to a detailed investigative process (since the devil is in the details) that will after the usual refining procedures will bring it closer to possible solution. The solution might not always be the solution we are looking for.
More investigation: A spark is something that occurs abruptly. Now we connect high voltage AC (the secondary of a transformer) on one side to an antenna and on the other side to a piece of metal. What happens? Nothing, because the electric circuit is not closed, hence no current is flowing in the secondary coil. Then we put a spark gap between the coil and the piece of metal (see illustration). Suddenly sparking occurs, hence a current flows through the wire although the circuit is still open. Because of that always open circuit, the transformer's primary draws constantly the same idle current, regardless whether sparking occurs or not (shorted spark gap). So, where is the energy coming from, that creates that sparking?
The spark fires when the voltage (measured against the metal) is highest. That is on the sine wave's positive or negative peak. That peak correlates with the horizontal (weightless) position of a pendulum (at which the lever »fires«).
Thus, a lot more (odd coincidences) to investigate, I think. :P
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 26, 2015, 04:50:07 AM
Exactly! And that is why - as I mentioned earlier - the pivot should only move when the conversion process of gravity into rotation has finished (in the vertical position).
...........................................
.......................................
That peak correlates with the horizontal (weightless) position of a pendulum (at which the lever »fires«).
Thus, a lot more (odd coincidences) to investigate, I think. :P
Zeit,
I am not sure that I am understanding you correctly:
What do you mean with " the pivot should only move ....................in the vertical position"
* Move into which direction?, logically I would assume that with the pendulum in the vertical position, the pivot could move better 'down' than 'up'.
What do you mean with " at which the lever fires"
* Do you mean this " as opposition to 'down' on the vertical", this being 'up' ?
Red
Quote
What do you mean with " the pivot should only move ....................in the vertical position"
When the pendulum is in its vertical position (swings through its vertical position) then the conversion of energy from potential to kinetic has ended while the conversion from kinetic to potential is just about to start. All energy is stored in the horizontal velocity of the mass of the pendulum (mass × velocity = stored kinetic energy). So I can't see how the down movement of the pivot at that vertical position could ever draw energy out of the pendulum.
Quote
What do you mean with " at which the lever fires"
When the pendulum rests at its vertical position (not swinging) then the lever has an overbalance on the pendulum's side because of the weight of the resting pendulum (normal state). When the pendulum swings then it is weightless at both of its horizontal positions. At that moment the lever »fires«, it goes down on its opposite side because without the counter weight of the pendulum that side is now overbalanced.
The same applies to the spark: The spark fires because of an imbalance (of electrons) between the transformer coil and the piece of metal, which occurs most intensely on each peak of the sine wave. The magnetic field of the transformer moves the electrons back and forth in the secondary coil (like a pendulum) without doing any real work (also like the pendulum) but creating thereby a spark, like the swinging pendulum creates a moving lever, without doing any real work (friction disregarded).
This is stuff for brilliant minds. :D
Another add-on (for even more brilliant minds): ;D
As a matter of fact, when the pendulum is in its weightless position (horizontal) then we can move its pivot around as we wish and we can even stop it completely in that position (although losing its weightlessness), because at that point all energy is stored as gravity potential indefinitely (like a capacitor stores an electric field indefinitely). After releasing it, it will keep on swinging, like nothing has happened.
So the only thing in question can be: Can we move down the pivot, when the pendulum swings through its vertical position, without taking energy out of it? When we move down the pivot at vertical (6 o'clock), then we move the pivot in direction of the acting centrifugal force. Therefore, does a pendulum convert part of its energy into centrifugal force? Or does it just convert between potential and kinetic energy? Even if so, then force is not energy. What would happen, if we would move the pivot of a pendulum - heavy weight, slowly swinging, suspended on a one meter string - down two meters, exactly when it swings through its 6 o'clock position? Would it keep on swinging without energy loss?
What would happen if we drop the pendulum at 6 o'clock? At that point all energy is stored in its horizontal velocity. Then will the pendulum's bob keep on moving in horizontal direction (no air drag) while it accelerates downwards? If we stop the pendulum's freefall after awhile, will it continue to swing?
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 26, 2015, 02:10:40 PM
Another add-on (for even more brilliant minds): ;D
As a matter of fact, when the pendulum is in its weightless position (horizontal) then we can move its pivot around as we wish and we can even stop it completely in that position (although losing its weightlessness), because at that point all energy is stored as gravity potential indefinitely (like a capacitor stores an electric field indefinitely). After releasing it, it will keep on swinging, like nothing has happened.
So the only thing in question can be: Can we move down the pivot, when the pendulum swings through its vertical position, without taking energy out of it? When we move down the pivot at vertical (6 o'clock), then we move the pivot in direction of the acting centrifugal force. Therefore, does a pendulum convert part of its energy into centrifugal force? Or does it just convert between potential and kinetic energy? Even if so, then force is not energy. What would happen, if we would move the pivot of a pendulum - heavy weight, slowly swinging, suspended on a one meter string - down two meters, exactly when it swings through its 6 o'clock position? Would it keep on swinging without energy loss?
What would happen if we drop the pendulum at 6 o'clock? At that point all energy is stored in its horizontal velocity. Then will the pendulum's bob keep on moving in horizontal direction (no air drag) while it accelerates downwards? If we stop the pendulum's freefall after awhile, will it continue to swing?
For a brilliant mind, there is nothing like a practical test to confirm a proposition.
The pendulum definitely recovers the energy it dropped at vertical, when the swing is at or near horizontal and the pivot moves up.
Moving the pivot up will directly impact/reduce the angular swing at this point. Effective reducing the potential energy invested in he swing. At this point, the pendulum angular momentum has the most torque ( & most potential energy / dgr), so it has the most too loose per degree at this position.
At vertical , extracting the centrifugal force comes directly out of the increased available energy as provided by the drop & cord length. The energy zero reference position is the starting position (horizontal, pivot up).
In practice, it is impossible to instantaneously drop the weight at vertical, therefore it is impossible to have that movement not impacting the swing. The same applies to the horizontal for pivot up. (although it could be curtailed within agreeable boundaries).
A practical execution does tend to put limitations on theoretical proposals.
Red_Sunset
Quote
For a brilliant mind, there is nothing like a practical test to confirm a proposition.
This is the crucial point! I'm afraid I can't practically construct a pendulum-lever setup that works with mathematical precision. But if it don't, then the erratic moving lever will slow down the pendulum and this will prove nothing.
Because of that, I would rather like to construct the electric version of that mechanic pendulum-lever setup. Instead of using gravity as energy source, the electric version should use the electric field that surrounds us like gravity does. So when gravity pulls down the lever on one side and hence moves up the pivot on the other side, because of the temporary weightlessness of the pendulum's bob, then what would be the equivalent of this in an electric LC circuit? And indeed there should be an electric equivalent, regardless for now whether there is overunity involved or not.
Ideas?
In continuation to my previous post, the attached drawing gives a graphical view on an ideal configuration and operation, no practical negative aspects have been taken into account.
1.. The pendulum starts from the right, pivot is at A.
2.. The blob swing clockwise and drops the pivot to B at the vertical. The drop is an ideal instantaneous event.
3.. The centrifugal down force is determined by the weight and its velocity. The problem in the ideal event is that the drop is instantaneous, at that moment there is no longer any velocity to provide centrifugal force. With other words, extra centrifugal down force is negated by the inverse of the drop window angle. So we can only count on gravity weight over the drop distance as energy out (the sting in the carpet)
4.. When the blob reaches the position "Pivot up START", the pivot and weight move up synchronously in order to utilize the inertia of the blob.
5.. When the pivot is restored to point A, the blob is now at a position that is 1 potential energy unit lower than when it started its swing at the right.
Conclusion: We harvested 1 energy unit at vertical, unfortunately this unit had to be paid for a "Pivot up END"
Any comments or errors? Please feel free to comment.
Red_Sunset
My free comment: :D
That illustration looks enlightening - at first sight. Congratulations! But, for some reason which I do not fully understand yet, that theory does not match reality. At least not the reality that I can see in this video (http://overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/dlattach/attach/149727/) below.
As you said earlier »I bet he knows exactly how this works and why«. So, then he should also know that this is NOT working (according to the theory in the illustration), but then, why is his website still online? What's the point?
Can you see in the video any difference in the movement of the pendulum, especially regarding the height of its return points, whether the lever moves or the lever is locked? I cannot. Why? One could argue, that the movement of the pivot is too small to see a difference in the pendulum's return height. But on the other hand, that small pivot/lever movement creates a strong force nevertheless. Hence, do we have a wrong reality or rather a wrong theory? I have to think about that.
Furthermore, what happens to the centrifugal and centripetal forces when the pivot moves down? Are they of interest or not?
Still puzzled what centrifugal and centripetal force means in a LC circuit. ???
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 27, 2015, 09:50:50 AM
My free comment: :D
That illustration looks enlightening - at first sight. Congratulations! But, for some reason which I do not fully understand yet, that theory does not match reality. At least not the reality that I can see in this video (http://overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/dlattach/attach/149727/) below.
As you said earlier »I bet he knows exactly how this works and why«. So, then he should also know that this is NOT working (according to the theory in the illustration), but then, why is his website still online? What's the point?
Can you see in the video any difference in the movement of the pendulum, especially regarding the height of its return points, whether the lever moves or the lever is locked? I cannot. Why? One could argue, that the movement of the pivot is too small to see a difference in the pendulum's return height. But on the other hand, that small pivot/lever movement creates a strong force nevertheless. Hence, do we have a wrong reality or rather a wrong theory? I have to think about that.
Furthermore, what happens to the centrifugal and centripetal forces when the pivot moves down? Are they of interest or not?
Still puzzled what centrifugal and centripetal force means in a LC circuit. ???
Zeit,
Do not take any statement as ABSOLUTE. That sure would be confusing.
I proposed a logical step by step flow of operation of an IDEAL (not a practical) model.
The question to ask is, does every step make sense? Even if it make sense that would mean it is probably true, but not necessary absolutely true. Only practical dependable validation can confirm the accuracy of the statement.
What do we have as counter argument.
1.. Milkovic has a website showing his device
2.. The video is taken from a complete wrong angle to show impact of pivot movement on the swing (why didn't he take that shot perpendicular, I would guess as a technical person he would be attentive to that ), so I do not give it much accuracy value ( I would NOT use it as evidence)
3.. Do we have any dependable validation to suggest OU (ease of use, yes)
To come back to the impact of dropping the pivot.
We have 2 extremes and 1 in between,
1.. No drop, only velocity (inertia)
2.. Drop instantaneous (no velocity only weight)
3.. Drop over a specific swing angle (velocity & centrifugal)
In the ideal model, the drop happens in a finit time frame, this effectively obliterates the velocity vector ( confirmation would be welcome). In a practical model, the drop happens over a defined time period, then there is velocity and the centrifugal will manifest itself. I am not completely done to the exact results that would come out of that.
When it comes to electronic equivalence, there is a lot of similarity but there isn't necessary an exact 1 to1 equivalence for everything. You rather should see the comparison in a general sense of symmetry in nature, in the mechanics of conversion and feedback mechanisms.
Red
I am not sure why we are trying to re-invent the wheel, Some existing reading material attached
See attached pdf : Jovan_Marjanovic_Secret_of_Free_Energy_from_Pendulum
I found this on Milkovic website : http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html
Red
Some references that address the movable pivot impact on pendulum motion.
Extracts from Jovan Marjanovic
///
PENDULUM WITH MOVABLE PIVOT POINT
Author has seen some pendulums which were able to swing over two
hours when their pivot point was fixed and they were initially raised to position 1
and left to swing by their own. Unfortunately they lost most of its energy after a
half minute when they were used in two-stage mechanical oscillator. This
behavior caused great debate about energy balance of the machine and
possibility of using gravity energy as a fuel. Author also has seen several
scientific works with a claim that machine can not create energy surplus.
However, all of them had serious error concerning description of total energy of
the system
It already has been said that pendulum with fixed point can swing over two
hours and that the same pendulum in two-stage oscillator was able to move lever
with mass m only for half a minute. To extend pendulum swinging for only couple
of minutes would create significant over unity behavior of the oscillator.
/// Red
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 27, 2015, 02:02:56 PM
It already has been said that pendulum with fixed point can swing over two hours and that the same pendulum in two-stage oscillator was able to move lever with mass m only for half a minute.
But why? Because a wrong moving lever slowed down the pendulum unnecessarily, or because of a fundamental error in the theory?
Excerpt from the same reading:
»Energy can flow only between two poles with different potential. In order to have different potential the poles can not be in constant field of tension like conservative field. Because gravity field on surface of the planet has constant magnitude the difference must be artificially created. Because nobody yet found any physical material to serve as gravity shield, like iron plate against magnetic field, the only way left is to create similar effect. Alternative pull and relaxation of Centrifugal force in pivot point of the pendulum is one way to create similar effect as gravity shield.«
So, does this gravity shield effect work or does it not (when applied correctly)?
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 27, 2015, 11:41:22 AM
2.. The video is taken from a complete wrong angle to show impact of pivot movement on the swing (why didn't he take that shot perpendicular, I would guess as a technical person he would be attentive to that ), so I do not give it much accuracy value ( I would NOT use it as evidence)
I would estimate the movement of the pivot in that video roughly 10 mm. Since the pendulum pulls down the pivot twice during each cycle (from max. right to max. left back to max. right), that should move down the return point roughly 20 mm. But I can't see this happen. According to your theory, the return point of the bob should be lower each time by the distance the pivot moves, and this in addition to the already present friction losses. Sorry, can't see it in the
video (http://overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/dlattach/attach/149727/).
BTW: I linked that PDF (and many more) already
here (http://overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/msg450571/#subject_450571). Maybe reading it would be a nice idea. :)
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 27, 2015, 12:23:34 PM
I am not sure why we are trying to re-invent the wheel, Some existing reading material attached
See attached pdf : Jovan_Marjanovic_Secret_of_Free_Energy_from_Pendulum
I found this on Milkovic website : http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html
And that does now mean what? The centrifugal force is the source of overunity? Then this is why I keep asking about the equivalent of centrifugal force in an electric circuit.
Anyway, we are trying to re-invent the (Bessler) wheel, that's for sure. 8)
Supplement:
What about the inertia? When the lever moves there is a delay due to its inertial mass. This is also true when the bob of the pendulum moves. But the inertia of the lever's mass effects the up and the down movement equally, whereas the inertia of the bob's mass is greater when it swings through the vertical position and it is smaller (or not existent at all?) when the bob is in its weightless state. On the other hand, the centrifugal force compensates the greater inertia of the bob in vertical position. That could mean, moving up the pivot (because gravity pulls down its opposite side) is related with less inertia (lever mass only), moving down the pivot (because gravity pulls down the bob and the lever) is related with more inertia (lever and bob mass), but the latter is assisted by the centrifugal force. How do we calculate that?
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 28, 2015, 01:20:05 AM
Supplement:
What about the inertia? When the lever moves there is a delay due to its inertial mass. This is also true when the bob of the pendulum moves. But the inertia of the lever's mass effects the up and the down movement equally, whereas the inertia of the bob's mass is greater when it swings through the vertical position and it is smaller (or not existent at all?) when the bob is in its weightless state. On the other hand, the centrifugal force compensates the greater inertia of the bob in vertical position. That could mean, moving up the pivot (because gravity pulls down its opposite side) is related with less inertia (lever mass only), moving down the pivot (because gravity pulls down the bob and the lever) is related with more inertia (lever and bob mass), but the latter is assisted by the centrifugal force. How do we calculate that?
Zeit,
I am not able to clearly understand your discussion posted (aim, purpose, benefit).
"the centrifugal force compensates the greater inertia of the bob in vertical position"
" moving down the pivot (because gravity pulls down the bob and the lever) is related with more inertia (lever and bob mass)"
Inertia is similar to Lenz, it is the resistance to change
Centrifugal force is also a resistance force that resists a mass to follow a circular path
Centripetal force is the counterpart of centrifugal that makes the mass follow a circular path
For calculation formulas & explanations, hyperphysics is well laid out and easy to find things to refesh the forgotten details
Red
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 28, 2015, 02:41:27 AM
I am not able to clearly understand your discussion posted (aim, purpose, benefit).
The inertia will delay the movement of the lever. So the lever can't move instantaneously when the pendulum is on its exact vertical position. What could that imply?
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 28, 2015, 02:41:27 AM
Inertia is similar to Lenz, it is the resistance to change
Inertia (or the lack of it) is very interesting - not to say odd - in an electric circuit. When the secondary coil of a transformer (as mentioned earlier) is not closed, then there is only voltage but no current. But nevertheless to get that voltage, the electrons have to move in the wire - driven by the magnetic field - from one side to the other (at 50Hz), a) without resistance (the wire does not heat up) and b) without creating any Lenz effect. When we want alternating voltage there must be a current (movement) of electrons to get the alternating potential difference, and at the same time there can't be a current, because of the open circuit.
Strange, isn't it? :o
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 28, 2015, 02:41:27 AM
For calculation formulas & explanations, hyperphysics is well laid out and easy to find things to refesh the forgotten details
There are valid scientific calculation formulas for that pendulum-lever device?
Anyway, this just crossed my mind (to give some variety here):
Quote from: MarkE on May 19, 2015, 05:03:45 AM
Crystal radios work because the human ear can detect pressure variations of 1E-9 BAR. It does not take a lot of power to make sound that is audible in headphones.
Then why is it, that wireless headphones always work on battery power? When the tiniest amount of power is required to make sound that is audible in headphones, then it should be possible to get this power easily from the transmitting device (no more than some meters away instead of miles), regardless whether it works by radio waves or infrared.
Just wondering ... ???
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 28, 2015, 03:30:05 AM
The inertia will delay the movement of the lever. So the lever can't move instantaneously when the pendulum is on its exact vertical position. What could that imply?
Inertia (or the lack of it) is very interesting - not to say odd - in an electric circuit. When the secondary coil of a transformer (as mentioned earlier) is not closed, then there is only voltage but no current. But nevertheless to get that voltage, the electrons have to move in the wire - driven by the magnetic field - from one side to the other (at 50Hz), a) without resistance (the wire does not heat up) and b) without creating any Lenz effect. When we want alternating voltage there must be a current (movement) of electrons to get the alternating potential difference, and at the same time there can't be a current, because of the open circuit.
Strange, isn't it? :o
There are valid scientific calculation formulas for that pendulum-lever device?
Anyway, this just crossed my mind (to give some variety here):
Then why is it, that wireless headphones always work on battery power? When the tiniest amount of power is required to make sound that is audible in headphones, then it should be possible to get this power easily from the transmitting device (no more than some meters away instead of miles), regardless whether it works by radio waves or infrared.
Just wondering ... ???
Zeit,
So said that the lever can't move instantaneously when the pendulum is on its exact vertical position. If it can not move instantaneous, it would then take a defined time period to move.
Inertia in an electric circuit is prevalent, Inductance is your prime example of inertia, odd..?? no, not in a symmetrical universe
Your statement // "To get that voltage, the electrons have to move in the wire - driven by the magnetic field - from one side to the other. When we want alternating voltage there must be a current (movement) of electrons to get the alternating potential difference, and at the same time there can't be a current, because of the open circuit." //
This no longer the correct understanding om how to see current (e.g. electron flow).
To help your understanding, think about the Tsunami that occurred near Indonesia some years ago. The tsunami wave impacted India, Sri Lanka and Africa many hours later. It traveled at over 100km/hour
No water was transferred or moved between Indonesia and India . It was a pressure wave that traveled the distance, electricity behavior has a similar property.
A few 1000Amps in the overhead power line, only results in a lot of agitated electrons under duress from the tension pumped from the generator. The generator is not a pump the fullest term (as compared to a waterpump), it is more like a pressure pump.
There is a pressure flow being transferred between generator and load. Actual movement of electrons is very limited in a conductor.
If you want to work out a specific problem, there are many valid scientific calculation formulas for that pendulum-lever device.
Wireless headphones always work on battery power, Especially if you want to turn up the volume. The radio configuration you are referring to is only suitable for a low freq receiver (AM ~ 1Mhz) with very limited selectivity. The earpiece loads the tuning coil and therefore reduces the selectivity, increasing the bandwidth, it needs a long wire antenna to get some reasonable signal for a low level audio signal from a nearby transmitter using KW's of power
To make that configuration work on higher frequency as used today would be close to impossible.
Red
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 28, 2015, 04:36:02 AM
So said that the lever can't move instantaneously when the pendulum is on its exact vertical position. If it can not move instantaneous, it would then take a defined time period to move.
So, then the theory of your illustration (movement in an instant) is not valid, because of the time period in order to move the mass of the lever and of the bob. And this opens all doors to a completely different outcome, meaning the theory obviously does not match the reality.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 28, 2015, 04:36:02 AM
Inertia in an electric circuit is prevalent, Inductance is your prime example of inertia, odd..?? no, not in a symmetrical universe
Is the universe symmetrical? As far as I know, time is not symmetrical. A action in a forward played video makes sense, but when the video is played in reverse it make no sense at all.
Actually, Kapanaze claims he gets surplus energy from the course of time itself. :)
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 28, 2015, 04:36:02 AM
This no longer the correct understanding om how to see current (e.g. electron flow).
Then magnetic fields do no longer influence electrons and how they move or not move? Completely new physics! This is strange indeed.
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 28, 2015, 04:36:02 AM
If you want to work out a specific problem, there are many valid scientific calculation formulas for that pendulum-lever device.
The formulas on the Milkovic website say that it works in theory, but the tricky point is to do it practically. At least when it comes to a self-runner. So the Milkovic formula (see below) is valid or not? What is velocity 1 and velocity 2?
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 28, 2015, 04:36:02 AM
The radio configuration you are referring to is only suitable for a low freq receiver (AM ~ 1Mhz) with very limited selectivity.
To make that configuration work on higher frequency as used today would be close to impossible.
I always thought higher frequency is more suitable for transmitting energy. An inverter power supply is smaller than a power supply working with a 50Hz transformer at the same rating.
Each answer creates two new question, I guess. :D
Zeit,
I thought it was as clear as it could be, in post : Reply #158 on: May 27, 2015, 05:41:22 PM »
Quote
Zeit,
Do not take any statement as ABSOLUTE. That sure would be confusing.
I proposed a logical step by step flow of operation of an IDEAL (not a practical) model.
The question to ask is, does every step make sense? Even if it make sense that would mean it is probably true, but not necessary absolutely true. Only practical dependable validation can confirm the accuracy of the statement.
What do we have as counter argument.
1.. Milkovic has a website showing his device
2.. The video is taken from a complete wrong angle to show impact of pivot movement on the swing (why didn't he take that shot perpendicular, I would guess as a technical person he would be attentive to that ), so I do not give it much accuracy value ( I would NOT use it as evidence)
3.. Do we have any dependable validation to suggest OU (ease of use, yes)
To come back to the impact of dropping the pivot.
We have 2 extremes and 1 in between,
1.. No drop, only velocity (inertia)
2.. Drop instantaneous (no velocity only weight)
3.. Drop over a specific swing angle (velocity & centrifugal)
In the ideal model, the drop happens in a finit time frame, this effectively obliterates the velocity vector ( confirmation would be welcome). In a practical model, the drop happens over a defined time period, then there is velocity and the centrifugal will manifest itself. I am not completely done to the exact results that would come out of that.
When it comes to electronic equivalence, there is a lot of similarity but there isn't necessary an exact 1 to1 equivalence for everything. You rather should see the comparison in a general sense of symmetry in nature, in the mechanics of conversion and feedback mechanisms.
Red
« Last Edit: May 27, 2015, 08:07:11 PM by Red_Sunset »
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 28, 2015, 07:10:06 AM
...........................
.................................
Each answer creates two new question, I guess. :D
It sure does !, Red
Quote from: Red_Sunset on May 28, 2015, 11:08:07 AM
I thought it was as clear as it could be, in post : Reply #158 on: May 27, 2015, 05:41:22 PM »
The only thing here in the forums that is clear is that nothing is ever clear.
Is it clear, that the lever-pendulum device works as claimed (more energy out than in), or is it clear that this can't work?
Is it clear, that a free energy device is generally possible, or is it clear that such a thing never can be constructed?
Is it clear, that v1 and v2 in the formula refers to the velocity of the pendulum when it swings up and down, or is this the velocity of the pivot when it moves up and down, or both?
Clear is just one thing: To me it looks sometimes strangely like as if one wants to rewrite the physics books, not because of the discovery of free energy, but to hide the possibility of its discovery. ;D
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 28, 2015, 12:00:55 PM
The only thing here in the forums that is clear is that nothing is ever clear.
Is it clear, that the lever-pendulum device works as claimed (more energy out than in), or is it clear that this can't work?
Is it clear, that a free energy device is generally possible, or is it clear that such a thing never can be constructed?
Is it clear, that v1 and v2 in the formula refers to the velocity of the pendulum when it swings up and down, or is this the velocity of the pivot when it moves up and down, or both?
Clear is just one thing: To me it looks sometimes strangely like as if one wants to rewrite the physics books, not because of the discovery of free energy, but to hide the possibility of its discovery. ;D
Where is there any energy out? Maybe you would be so kind as to show net external work being done by your favorite two cycle pendulum. Then we can compare that work performed to the input work and test your over unity claim.
Quote from: MarkE on May 28, 2015, 02:06:46 PM
Where is there any energy out? Maybe you would be so kind as to show net external work being done by your favorite two cycle pendulum.
Here it is, in plain view:
Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator -- A Mechanical Amplifier (http://overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/dlattach/attach/149759/)
»You can see that the output energy, in general, is much larger than the input energy.«
I can see it. No problem with that. :)
Further I can see, that the mass of the lever appears to be larger than the mass of the pendulum. What could this indicate? Is this perhaps necessary in order to get it to work correctly? A small pendulum moves a massive lever?
So, energy of one generator flashlight in, and energy of four to five generator flashlights out. Yes, that's my favorite two cycle pendulum. :D
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 28, 2015, 03:15:32 PM
Here it is, in plain view: Two-Stage Mechanical Oscillator -- A Mechanical Amplifier (http://overunity.com/13500/brazil-company-is-building-a-gravity-generator-httpwww-rarenergia-com-br/dlattach/attach/149759/)
»You can see that the output energy, in general, is much larger than the input energy.«
I can see it. No problem with that. :)
LOL, Good for you. So please be so kind as to state the input and output power and how you obtain your values. I see a guy pushing on a machine and some LEDs blinking.
Quote
Further I can see, that the mass of the lever appears to be larger than the mass of the pendulum. What could this indicate? Is this perhaps necessary in order to get it to work correctly? A small pendulum moves a massive lever?
So, energy of one generator flashlight in, and energy of four to five generator flashlights out. Yes, that's my favorite two cycle pendulum. :D
If that is the best, then it establishes the whole idea as being pretty useless.
Quote from: MarkE on May 28, 2015, 04:23:59 PM
If that is the best, then it establishes the whole idea as being pretty useless.
If 1190% efficiency is useless, then - I'm afraid - it is useless by all means.
Measurement with an oscilloscope (http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Measurement_with_oscilloscope.pdf)
A small weight - the pendulum - pushes a heavy weight - the lever - constantly over its tipping point. I think that's the basic principle behind this, resulting in a coefficient of performance (η) of 11.9 (or maybe more). If the COP of that device is > 1 then what are the defining conditions for that? The mass of the lever perhaps? The greater the mass the greater the COP, because more mass means more gravity power?
Mass = inertia, inertia = inductance - I have to think about this ... :)
Quote from: Zeitmaschine on May 29, 2015, 05:35:06 AM
If 1190% efficiency is useless, then - I'm afraid - it is useless by all means. Measurement with an oscilloscope (http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Measurement_with_oscilloscope.pdf)
A small weight - the pendulum - pushes a heavy weight - the lever - constantly over its tipping point. I think that's the basic principle behind this, resulting in a coefficient of performance (η) of 11.9 (or maybe more). If the COP of that device is > 1 then what are the defining conditions for that? The mass of the lever perhaps? The greater the mass the greater the COP, because more mass means more gravity power?
Mass = inertia, inertia = inductance - I have to think about this ... :)
No output = zero efficiency.
Quote from: MarkE on May 29, 2015, 06:59:51 AM
No output = zero efficiency.
Does this refer to your comment? No comment output, hence no efficiency? 8)
I was curious to see what had happened to this thread.
I wasn't surprised to see that it had gone wildly off topic before it petered out.
You have to admit that RAR gave it their all. ;D
I think it must hold the record for magnificent failure. Steorn was rather pathetic
by comparison.
My current black swan option in Mooie Energie. I notice they have started up a
subsidiary in Italy.
They could of at least documented their failure.
And get like 20 million YT views?
My guess is that it was a scam from the get go and it was never finished in order to make a try out video.