Overunity.com Archives

Hi all!

I've put together a report where I try to show how Euler Lagrange and classic Newtonian physics of a double pendulum can explain why certain mechanical and gravitational systems produce "excess" power.  The key is that we are dealing with an open system. The machine have to by firmly attached to the ground, or something heavy enough, to work and the other side of the Newtonian equilibrium is the minute movements of this heavy object.

By rotating a pendulum/unbalanced wheel we create vibrations originating from the centrifugal force.  By tuning the damping mechanism for example by an AC generator we can extract AC power directly from these mechanical vibrations. The interesting part is that it does not take any more power to keep this unbalanced wheel rotating except to initially set it in motion and to overcome friction. The vibrations however create power and the amount can be derived from Newtonian physics.

There are of course issues of construction and material strength.   

All feedback is greatly appreciated, please read the full report here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/146232946/Douple-Pendulum-Power (http://www.scribd.com/doc/146232946/Douple-Pendulum-Power)

Quote"If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration."  -Nikola Tesla

@nybtorque:


That's an interesting concept you have developed. Have you built any proof-of-concept models in your research? Any photos you care to post here?


truesearch

truesearch:

No, unfortunately not. I dont have the skills and resources to make a prototype myself. But an easy experiment to verify the effect is to put a bicycle upsidedown and safely fasten a heavy tool of sorts inside the wheel, which then becomes seriously unbalanced. Then pedal by hand, try to keep one point fixed and measure amplitude and weight at another point.

The interesting part is that you do not need to pedal any harder with the tool fastened inside the wheel than without. And you can certainly feel (and measure) the output difference. This is the power of vibrations. And it becomes greater with increased frequency of rotation by a power of three.

http://opensourceenergy.net/index.php?topic=7.0

Quote from: nybtorque on June 10, 2013, 01:03:21 PM
Hi all!

I've put together a report where I try to show how Euler Lagrange and classic Newtonian physics of a double pendulum can explain why certain mechanical and gravitational systems produce "excess" power.  The key is that we are dealing with an open system. The machine have to by firmly attached to the ground, or something heavy enough, to work and the other side of the Newtonian equilibrium is the minute movements of this heavy object.

By rotating a pendulum/unbalanced wheel we create vibrations originating from the centrifugal force.  By tuning the damping mechanism for example by an AC generator we can extract AC power directly from these mechanical vibrations. The interesting part is that it does not take any more power to keep this unbalanced wheel rotating except to initially set it in motion and to overcome friction. The vibrations however create power and the amount can be derived from Newtonian physics.

There are of course issues of construction and material strength.   

All feedback is greatly appreciated, please read the full report here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/146232946/Douple-Pendulum-Power (http://www.scribd.com/doc/146232946/Douple-Pendulum-Power)

Hi nybtorque,

I have a problem to fully understand your setup shown in Figure 2 of your report file at scribd.com. I edited your Figure and uploaded below to refer to the parts.
I assume for simplicity the gear has a 1:1:1 ratio, okay? Now I also assume wheels B and C have to be able to rotate around their own shafts (see axle B and axle C) so that the pendulum weights could exert their force, okay?
Now my question is why arm D (which holds the wheels B and C) should rotate in accordance with wheel A?  I mean what force rotates arm D? because wheel A can rotate wheels B and C and maybe arm D will turn a little but why it should transfer useful torque towards the generator shaft?

To understand my question better, let us examine the setup from the generator side: suppose you switch off the prime mover (input motor) in your setup, everything is at standstill  and you grab arm D with your hand where the generator axle connects to arm D and you start to rotate arm D, okay?  I ask: will wheel A start rotating?   I am afraid wheels B and C will "circle" around wheel A as if they were planetary wheels and the rotation of wheel A remains casual, without transferring any significant torque. And this is what I think may happen when the input motor starts wheel A rotating.

What I am missing?  please comment.

One more thing: you wrote in the Figure: fixed axis on the right side of the generator. What does it mean? Is it a theoritical reference axis of the setup, maybe the axis of symmetry for the setup?

Thanks, Gyula

Hi Gyula!
Thankyou for your sincere questions.

QuoteI assume for simplicity the gear has a 1:1:1 ratio, okay? Now I also assume wheels B and C have to be able to rotate around their own shafts (see axle B and
axle C) so that the pendulum weights could exert their force, okay? 

This is correct.

QuoteNow my question is why arm D (which holds the wheels B and C) should rotate in accordance with wheel A?  I mean what force rotates arm D? because wheel A can rotate wheels B and C and maybe arm D will turn a little but why it should transfer useful torque towards the generator shaft?

It does not rotate according to A. Exactly as you say it only turns a "Little" depending on the weights of the pendulums and machinery. This is what I call the amplitude (s) in the equations. Ideally it only moves with an amplitude of about half the radius of of the pendulum wheels. It will vibrate with the frequency of A. And vibration is continous acceleration/deacceleration of mass. If there is no load it will oscillate with maximum amplitude and if the load excedes the centrifugal force it will stop. However, for all loads between zero and maximum there will still be amplitude and acceleration, which equals power.

This is because we are utilizing the centrifugal forces of the pendulums. There is no torque (apart from setting B and C in rotation) at all transfered from A to B and C. It does not take any more power to rotate an unbalanced wheel than a balanced (if it is stabilized and frictionless etc.).

Consequently...

QuoteI ask: will wheel A start rotating?   I am afraid wheels B and C will "circle" around wheel A as if they were planetary wheels and the rotation of wheel A remains casual,
without transferring any significant torque. And this is what I think may happen when the input motor starts wheel A rotating.

Exactly. No torque is transfered in that direction either. The trick is to consider the centrifugal force of B and C and what happens at the other end of that newtonian equilibrium, You could fix D to the ground and transfer the vibrations to the fixture and surroundings and actually the earth would shake a "little"... Or as I propose you could optimize the damping and use an AC generator for the purpose (which is fixed to the ground) and actually get AC power.

QuoteOne more thing: you wrote in the Figure: fixed axis on the right side of the generator. What does it mean? Is it a theoritical reference axis of the setup, maybe the axis of symmetry for the setup?

I guess both! The axis needs to be fixed in position in relation to the ground. I believe bearings could be useful. Also the input motor and the output generator needs to be properly fastened.     

Hi nybtorque,

Thanks for the explanations, now the operation seems to be clear. Practically the arm D moves as a 2 arm lever, back and forth, with a limited and load dependent amplitude. To utilize this 'back and forth' like motion, you need to use a special generator to have 50 Hz AC power (what you indicated) or you need to convert this back and forth motion to continuous rotary motion to drive a conventional generator.

>

QuoteOne more thing: you wrote in the Figure: fixed axis on the right side of the generator. What does it mean? Is it a theoritical reference axis of the setup, maybe the axis of symmetry for the setup?

I guess both! The axis needs to be fixed in position in relation to the ground. I believe bearings could be useful. Also the input motor and the output generator needs to be properly fastened.     
Practically, which axis you mean here?  The axis of the generator driven by  arm D?

Thanks,  Gyula

Hi Gyula!

QuoteTo utilize this 'back and forth' like motion, you need to use a special generator to have 50 Hz AC power (what you indicated) or you need to convert this back and forth motion to continuous rotary motion to drive a conventional generator

.

Theoretically you could use any DC motor in the desired load-range as a generator. The back and forth torque from the the D arm will result in a AC current out from the motor/generator. If it is a 12V DC motor you will get 12V AC current. To get 220V AC you need some sort of transformer.

QuotePractically, which axis you mean here?  The axis of the generator driven by  arm D?

In the schematic I use the same axis for the input motor and driving cogwheel as the axis of arm D and the generator. I did it that way because I found it easy to understand. However, there could be other designs with other benefits.

Quote from: nybtorque on June 14, 2013, 02:45:54 AM

In the schematic I use the same axis for the input motor and driving cogwheel as the axis of arm D and the generator. I did it that way because I found it easy to understand. However, there could be other designs with other benefits.

Now I am confused.  If the axis of the motor and driving cogwheel as the axis of arm D and the generator is the same axis, then wheels B and C cannot rotate.
In your drawing you used a dotted line, probably for indicating the center line (this is what I meant in my question on the fixed axle above) and you used cylindrically shaped shafts for both the input motor and the output generator axle, there is no any continuos and cylindrical axle lines in your drawing to connect the motor and the generator axles. 
The best would be to clear this setup if you make another drawing which leaves no questions.
You used a circular arrow for the input motor to indicate its rotational direction and you drew a two-way arrow for both arm D and the generator shaft: how can it be if you now has said you use the same axis?

Gyula

Hi Gyula!

Ok, I see. You are right. It's not the SAME axis. It's only the same theoretical axis. And that is basically a design issue. Exactly as you say the input axis is rotating and the output axis oscillating. I hope this clears it up.

Quote from: nybtorque on June 11, 2013, 04:56:54 AM
truesearch:

No, unfortunately not. I dont have the skills and resources to make a prototype myself. But an easy experiment to verify the effect is to put a bicycle upsidedown and safely fasten a heavy tool of sorts inside the wheel, which then becomes seriously unbalanced. Then pedal by hand, try to keep one point fixed and measure amplitude and weight at another point.

The interesting part is that you do not need to pedal any harder with the tool fastened inside the wheel than without. And you can certainly feel (and measure) the output difference. This is the power of vibrations. And it becomes greater with increased frequency of rotation by a power of three.

This is true only if the unbalanced bicycle wheel is 100% fixed, or can viberate without friction. As soon as you try to get energy out from the viberation, there will occour a phase shift less than 180 degrees between the position of the weight and the position of where the bicycle wheel finds itself during bouncing up and down or side to side. This <180 degree shift will counterforce rotation, so that more input on the pedals are neccessary - ofcourse as much more input as the energy output are.


A perfect pendulum exchange kinetic energy with potential energy with 180 degrees delay. Friction or any form of attempt to take out energy will reduce this shift to less than 180 degrees and the pendulum will finally stop - even a double one.


Vidar

Hi Vidar,

Thankyou for your response.

Maybe I'm missing something here. But I cant see how friction in the inner pendulum can make the outer pendulum stop if it is frictionless. Friction in the inner pendulum will make the inner pendulum amplitude smaller, as well as a large inner pendulum mass will, but none of these forces are transfered to the rotation of the outer pendulum. This is what I try to show using Euler Lagrange in the report. Please elaborate on the physics here if you got another idea.

To be honest, I'm not suggesting any magic, merely exploring the case where we supply energy by rotation of the outer pendulum and examining the work performed by the inner pendulum mass. The reason why I find this interesting is because to do this we have to consider the energy of the vibrations, ie. both static and dynamic forces in the fixture point origination from the centrifugal force of the outer pendulum. If we want to eliminate the dynamic vibrations we need to apply a equally large force as the centrifugal force to move the inner pendulum mass. That is why I'm talking about an open system because it is normally done by the fixture point and the mass of the surroundings. 

Quote from: nybtorque on June 20, 2013, 12:35:32 AM
Hi Vidar,

Thankyou for your response.

Maybe I'm missing something here. But I cant see how friction in the inner pendulum can make the outer pendulum stop if it is frictionless. Friction in the inner pendulum will make the inner pendulum amplitude smaller, as well as a large inner pendulum mass will, but none of these forces are transfered to the rotation of the outer pendulum. This is what I try to show using Euler Lagrange in the report. Please elaborate on the physics here if you got another idea.

To be honest, I'm not suggesting any magic, merely exploring the case where we supply energy by rotation of the outer pendulum and examining the work performed by the inner pendulum mass. The reason why I find this interesting is because to do this we have to consider the energy of the vibrations, ie. both static and dynamic forces in the fixture point origination from the centrifugal force of the outer pendulum. If we want to eliminate the dynamic vibrations we need to apply a equally large force as the centrifugal force to move the inner pendulum mass. That is why I'm talking about an open system because it is normally done by the fixture point and the mass of the surroundings.

These two pendulums are in one way or another connected to eachother, directly or indirectly (If I understrand right). For every action there is a reaction, and if you change the reaction in one part of a system it will also change the reaction in another part of the same system. Because one part of the pendulum is depending on the behaviour of the other part. Any condition that you affect by friction or energy output, will affect the rest of the system as you are tapping it from energy.


Vidar

QuoteThese two pendulums are in one way or another connected to eachother, directly or indirectly (If I understrand right). For every action there is a reaction, and if you change the reaction in one part of a system it will also change the reaction in another part of the same system. Because one part of the pendulum is depending on the behaviour of the other part. Any condition that you affect by friction or energy output, will affect the rest of the system as you are tapping it from energy.

　

Thankyou for your clarification.

Yes, the Euler Lagrange equation describes what happens. That is the basis of my argument. There is no way you can reduce kinetic energy in the outer pendulum with friction in the inner one, since it can only act on the outer through that arm, which is always in a 90 degree angle in relation to the movement of the pendulum mass.

However, as I state; the two pendulum per se is not a closed system. So to be able to set up the equations for action/reaction the Newtonian way for the inner pendulum we have to take into account the forces that act on the fixture, both as momentum and as push/pull through the inner pendulum arm. The other side of that equation in my example is the centrifugal force from the outer pendulum. This is what I try to show in my report. The forces on fixture have to be part of the system. These are the vibrational forces I want to examine, and which a propose can be used to generate power.

@ nybtorque:
Maybe you could build a small prototype and take a video of it while playing with it. Because I'm not sure if I follow you on this :-\


This is the design you're describing, right? http://htmlimg4.scribdassets.com/7720h8reps2iacuk/images/1-d7d911a5c0.jpg



Vidar.

Vidar,
Yes, that is the double pendulum I'm refering to.
　

QuoteMaybe you could build a small prototype and take a video of it while playing with it. Because I'm not sure if I follow you on this

Well, I would like to, but I'm not really in a position to do it right now. The easiest example is the bicycle test, which is covered before in this thread:
http://www.overunity.com/12119/centripetal-force-yealds-over-unity/15/#.UcMIHhpvmUk (http://www.overunity.com/12119/centripetal-force-yealds-over-unity/15/#.UcMIHhpvmUk)
 
If we play with my equation [13] : P(work)=(2*f^3*m(load)*m(pend)^2*r^2*pi^4*sin(pi/4)^2)/(m(pend)+m(load)+m(machine))^2
and som data that resembles the bicycle. For example:

f=10Hz, m(load)=10kg, m(machine)=10kg, m(pend)=1kg, r=0,3m

We get P(work)= 195W

Actually this kind of make sense since that is the about the amount muscle power a man kan sustain for some period of time. (Lift 20 kg, 1m, once a second...) And this is exactly what it feels like trying to keep the bicycle fixed to the ground while pedaling. It's hard work...

Quote from: nybtorque on June 20, 2013, 11:59:38 AM
Vidar,
Yes, that is the double pendulum I'm refering to.
　
 
Well, I would like to, but I'm not really in a position to do it right now. The easiest example is the bicycle test, which is covered before in this thread:
http://www.overunity.com/12119/centripetal-force-yealds-over-unity/15/#.UcMIHhpvmUk (http://www.overunity.com/12119/centripetal-force-yealds-over-unity/15/#.UcMIHhpvmUk)
 
If we play with my equation [13] : P(work)=(2*f^3*m(load)*m(pend)^2*r^2*pi^4*sin(pi/4)^2)/(m(pend)+m(load)+m(machine))^2
and som data that resembles the bicycle. For example:

f=10Hz, m(load)=10kg, m(machine)=10kg, m(pend)=1kg, r=0,3m

We get P(work)= 195W

Actually this kind of make sense since that is the about the amount muscle power a man kan sustain for some period of time. (Lift 20 kg, 1m, once a second...) And this is exactly what it feels like trying to keep the bicycle fixed to the ground while pedaling. It's hard work...

The bicycle experiment can be compared with riding a bicycle on a very bumpy road. If there is no dampers and no suspension on the bicycle, it require less energy to ride, but if you put on dampers it requires more energy. Some of the energy you put into the ride will convert into heat in the dampers. It's like riding on a hard surface vs muddy surface. Cars with very stiff or no suspension is more fuel efficient than cars with soft dampers. The fuel efficiency is not depending on the suspension which is a steel spring that has very little loss.

If you take out energy from the bicycle in your experiment, the mass that is put on one side of the wheel will cause retardation of the wheel so you must put in extra energy to sustain the RPM of the wheel.
You can see this more clear if you have an electric motor with an imbalanced flywheel on it. The motor will start to viberate if you hold it in your hand, and the RPM drops. But if you fix the motor to the table or the ground, the RPM rises. Your hand isn't a perfect suspension, but also an effective damper. Tha damping cause reduction of RPM, and the motor must be fed with more energy to sustain RPM.

Further, you can translate this experiment into the double pendulum. So I guess there is a missing part in your equation. The missing part is most probably a variable that depends on the load/friction you put into the system.

I have done an experiment with a pendulum that partially consist of a soft steel spring with very little loss. Mass is added on the bottom of the spring. If the spring isn't damped the pendulum sustain its swing for quite some time. If I put whool inside the spring, the pendulum stops relatively quick. That is because some of the kinetic energy that i represented by the stretch/bounce in the spring is converted to heat in the whool because it is no longer sync between the bounce and the period of the pendulum, but some delay.

Vidar

Vidar,
　

QuoteThe bicycle experiment can be compared with riding a bicycle on a very bumpy road. If there is no dampers and no suspension on the bicycle, it require less energy to ride, but if you put on dampers it requires more energy. Some of the energy you put into the ride will convert into heat in the dampers. It's like riding on a hard surface vs muddy surface. Cars with very stiff or no suspension is more fuel efficient than cars with soft dampers. The fuel efficiency is not depending on the suspension which is a steel spring that has very little loss.

I guess you could compare the feeling, and I agree that friction in any system generates heat. However, I do not see the analogy with a double pendulum.

QuoteIf you take out energy from the bicycle in your experiment, the mass that is put on one side of the wheel will cause retardation of the wheel so you must put in extra energy to sustain the RPM of the wheel.

　
Correct. But I do not propose to take any energy out of the rotating wheel, only from the fixture point (center of the inner pendulum). And this is important. Because, for the system to work it has to be fixed to the ground in one direction (through the inner pendulum arm), so that it can use the ground as a "counterweight".

QuoteYou can see this more clear if you have an electric motor with an imbalanced flywheel on it. The motor will start to viberate if you hold it in your hand, and the RPM drops. But if you fix the motor to the table or the ground, the RPM rises. Your hand isn't a perfect suspension, but also an effective damper. Tha damping cause reduction of RPM, and the motor must be fed with more energy to sustain RPM.

Exactly. What you do here is that you release the motor from the ground completely.Then the motor with the unbalanced flywheel will start to behave "complicated". Basically it would like to rotate freely around its combined center of mass. RPM will of course be reduced. But since the ground as a counterweight is an essential part of the theory, it is not valid as an example of a double pendulum.

QuoteFurther, you can translate this experiment into the double pendulum. So I guess there is a missing part in your equation. The missing part is most probably a variable that depends on the load/friction you put into the system.

No, as I explained, you can not translate it to a double pendulum when you dissconnect the system from the ground. As I said, if you do that, you are not analyzing the problem correctly. It is not difficult to put friction in the equation as a counter momentum in the both centers of rotation. Load is already taken into account by the masses of the pendulums.

QuoteI have done an experiment with a pendulum that partially consist of a soft steel spring with very little loss. Mass is added on the bottom of the spring. If the spring isn't damped the pendulum sustain its swing for quite some time. If I put whool inside the spring, the pendulum stops relatively quick. That is because some of the kinetic energy that i represented by the stretch/bounce in the spring is converted to heat in the whool because it is no longer sync between the bounce and the period of the pendulum, but some delay

　
I'm not sure I understand completely, but it seams that it would behave like friction where the motor (outer pendulum center) is. This would of course have a direct effect on the RPM and input power needed. I do not see how it is related to the double pendulum though.

/NT

Quote from: gyulasun on June 14, 2013, 06:13:18 PM
Now I am confused.  If the axis of the motor and driving cogwheel as the axis of arm D and the generator is the same axis, then wheels B and C cannot rotate.
In your drawing you used a dotted line, probably for indicating the center line (this is what I meant in my question on the fixed axle above) and you used cylindrically shaped shafts for both the input motor and the output generator axle, there is no any continuos and cylindrical axle lines in your drawing to connect the motor and the generator axles. 
The best would be to clear this setup if you make another drawing which leaves no questions.
You used a circular arrow for the input motor to indicate its rotational direction and you drew a two-way arrow for both arm D and the generator shaft: how can it be if you now has said you use the same axis?

Gyula

Gyula,

Here is a somewhat more detailed drawing of the proposed machinery. Efficiency depends on maximizing pendulum mass and minimizing the mass of the oscillating machine parts (cogwheels, bearings and levers).

I understand the design now. This might be very funny as a seesaw in the kindergarden :-))
Well, back to the serious part:
Have you analyzed the inner workings if you load the seesaw with the generator?


At first glance I cannot point out anything that cannot work, but I have a feeling that if the seesaw is loaded there will occour a delay between its motion and the position of the weights, OR that the motor will work hardest when the generator isn't loaded at all, and not work at all if the generator is short circuit (The seesaw stops).


I can make a simple demonstration with your initial drawing, but replace the lower pendulum with an inbalanced flywheel. What I imagine is that if the actual pendulum is massless, the weight in the flywheel will not longer gain momentum as it spins up, since the flywheel spins the weight it self will not longer follow a circular path, but more or less going stright up and down. This will effectively stop the rotation (Due to lack of momentum)


Vidar

Vidar,
Thankyou for showing interest.  Well, at 3000 rpm it'll be a hell of a tickle for the kids... :D

I believe you are correct in some respects. At low RPMs the motor will rotate the "whole thing" since the centrifugal forces will not be big enough to overcome friction and bring the levers to oscillate. The same thing will happen if the pendulum mass are to low compared the the mass of the cogwheels, levers, etc.

To be clear; the output levers should not rotate but oscillate. According to my calculation an oscillating amplitude of about 40-50% of the pendulum radius is ideal (more or less as I've drawn the arrows in the pic).

If you short the generator the amplitude of oscillation will be really small generating little power. If there is no load, amplitude will be large, but of course; no power. So there is a maximum power somewhere in between depending on the design (masses, radius and frequency)

Physically there should be no delay (not exactly sure what you mean here); the forces are always what the are sort of... You say that the pendulum masses will not follow a circular path. This is correct. When the machine is oscillation I think they will move more or less horisontal depending on the amplitude, since upward acceleration is maximized when the position is at it's lowest point and vv.

So, there are some optimizing to be done with the different masses. Ideally the any mass that is not unbalanced  should be minimized and the pendulum mass should be maximized. That is what I mean by using lightweight cogwheels and levers. This enables the system to take more relative load from the generator. The double pendulum equations states that ideally m(load)+m(machine)=m(pendulum) is optimal.

But,that said. As soon as you get the system to oscillate from the centrifugal forces, you should be able to get "overunity". Allthough it is not overunity per se, since we are utilizing the "ground" as counterweight in the oscillations.

It will be really interesting to see a demo!
Regards NT

Hi again!


I've updated my report on a mechanical oscillator (double pendulum). In the previous version I made too many simplification and ignored the feedback momentum to the driving pendulum. I'm now using the Runge Kutta method to solve the equations numerically instead. By doing this it is possible to simulate all kind of setups. As an example I use the Milkovic Pendulum in the report. Please have a look. All possible feedback is appreciated!


http://www.scribd.com/doc/146232946/Double-Pendulum-Power-AC-Power-from-a-Mechanical-Oscillator


Regards NT

Keep going....it is quite clear that more energy is produced in these systems than is necessary to keep them going.  An example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjVQWG7xUQk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjVQWG7xUQk)

Even the layman can see that, at least in the preceding example, much more energy is produced than is required to put the device back at the starting point/energy.


TS

Quote from: nybtorque on October 22, 2013, 06:00:49 AM
Hi again!


I've updated my report on a mechanical oscillator (double pendulum). In the previous version I made too many simplification and ignored the feedback momentum to the driving pendulum. I'm now using the Runge Kutta method to solve the equations numerically instead. By doing this it is possible to simulate all kind of setups. As an example I use the Milkovic Pendulum in the report. Please have a look. All possible feedback is appreciated!


http://www.scribd.com/doc/146232946/Double-Pendulum-Power-AC-Power-from-a-Mechanical-Oscillator


Regards NT

I think you are missing something. 

Sure energy is being transferred between the two pendulums and alternately causes one or the other to accelerate.  However I guarantee you the sum of all the potential and kinetic energies in the system remains constant. (or decreasing slowly due to friction).

As soon as you try to extract energy from one location the system will very quickly come to a stop as there is no excess being generated.

Nybtorque, they "guaranteed" the wright brothers never flew.  They "guaranteed" the atom would never be split....many of the "guarantees" of the high minded, are about as useful as a wet paper sack.

PHDs.....Piled Higher and Deeper.

And where is the pile sitting?

Squarely on top of the heads of those who blindly follow them.

That, I "guarantee".



TS

Quote from: TechStuf on October 22, 2013, 09:22:33 PM
Nybtorque, they "guaranteed" the wright brothers never flew.  They "guaranteed" the atom would never be split....many of the "guarantees" of the high minded, are about as useful as a wet paper sack.

PHDs.....Piled Higher and Deeper.

And where is the pile sitting?

Squarely on top of the heads of those who blindly follow them.

That, I "guarantee".



TS

Ok then, I'll do the math that shows this to be so, and post it here.

In the meantime it shouldn't be too hard to connect a small generator to this and prove me wrong, should it :)
Your time starts now.

LOL.  Do the math on a double pendulum.....Do ALL that math.....if you can.  Math is a tool.  And man too often employs it like a blunt instrument.   In so doing, which then, is the bigger tool?  Look at what he's done with the wheel, the wing, and his other weapons.  It is certainly no coincidence that he assumes too much and therefore misses much more.


TS

Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 22, 2013, 07:46:50 PM

I think you are missing something. 

Sure energy is being transferred between the two pendulums and alternately causes one or the other to accelerate.  However I guarantee you the sum of all the potential and kinetic energies in the system remains constant. (or decreasing slowly due to friction).

As soon as you try to extract energy from one location the system will very quickly come to a stop as there is no excess being generated.

You're correct. Kinetic and potential energy remains constant at all times. This is accounted for by using Euler Lagrange. What you and most other seems to miss is that the pendulums actually performs real work constantly; accelerating/decelerating mass; i.e. E(work)= m * a  * s. This is the work/power I calculate in the report, and propose might be partially productive (by replacing the mass by a resistive load or pumping water). And this does not violate the energy equilibrium.


The easiest way to comprehend the function is to think of the inner pendulum mass as water which is moved back and forth and replaced by more water as we go; i.e. a pump... (as in the case of Milkovic, Feltenberger and others)


So, how is this possible? Well, I suppose it has to do with the centrifugal force acting on the fixture resulting from swinging/rotating a pendulum. This force is there at all times and is a function of speed of rotation squared. So even though the kinetic energy is constant (constant speed) of pendulum, we get a force acting on a fixture or a mass as in the case of the double pendulum. And if that mass is free to move the force will accelerate/decelerate the mass, i.e work is performed. It's the power of vibrations. (it's a little bit more complicated of course, and thats the reason for solving the Eular Lagrange equations numerically)


No doubt my model can be validated/falsified by putting a double pendulum on a generator and start swinging. I would suggest replacing as much as possible of the inner pendulum mass with a resistive load on the generator (which can be analyzed) and have a heavy enough outer pendulum to get good results. Even better if the outer pendulum can be set in rotation before the inner pendulum is released to act on the generator. 


I've used my model on the High Perfomance Double Pendulum in the youtube clip above and if we assume the pendulums mass is 1kg each and the levers are 0.4m each and that the operator sets them i motion at a 2 Hz speed from a straight up position (86 J is needed to do this). Then, if we replace the inner pendulum mass with a resistive load and assume no losses, the output would be 21 W . So within 5 seconds we have a COP>1.


Regards NT

Quote




No doubt my model can be validated/falsified by putting a double pendulum on
a generator and start swinging. I would suggest replacing as much as possible of
the inner pendulum mass with a resistive load on the generator (which can be
analyzed) and have a heavy enough outer pendulum to get good results. Even
better if the outer pendulum can be set in rotation before the inner pendulum is
released to act on the generator. 


I've used my model on the High Perfomance Double Pendulum in the youtube clip above and if we assume the pendulums mass is 1kg each and the levers are 0.4m each and that the operator sets them i motion at a 2 Hz speed from a straight up position (86 J is needed to do this). Then, if we replace the inner pendulum mass with a resistive load and assume no losses, the output would be 21 W . So within 5 seconds we have a COP>1.

In just five seconds?  That would be impressive!  Generators are now common, both linear and rotary, that are in the high nineties for efficiency.  So even at 10 seconds, or heck, say the entirety of it's cycle until dead stop.....

A "smidge" more than necessary to start all over again.

Bessler's way is cool, no doubt, but with the tech of today, following his entire path is unnecessary.


TS

Your "model" can be falsified simply by observing that the "double pendulum", more commonly known as a Chaotic Pendulum, always comes to a stop.

Consider this: If you had really sticky bearings the thing would swing a few times and slow down and stop. Right? SO decrease the friction a little bit. Now it takes a bit longer to run down and stop. Reduce friction even more, even put it in a vacuum. It takes a bit longer... but it still stops.

Why? Because the friction eventually dissipates _all_ the energy you put in with your initial starting impulse... and nothing comes in from anywhere to replace it.

If there were _any_ excess energy in the system, by reducing friction to some arbitrarily small value... a value that is less than the magical "incoming" or created power... it would not stop swinging.  But it always does. Therefore... there is no extra energy, no excess power coming in.

ANY load you put on the system will make it come to a stop faster.


The physics simulation "Phun" or "Algodoo" even comes with a couple of Chaotic Pendulums as example scenes. If you think that the chaotic pendulum cannot be modeled mathematically... how does Phun do it, by smoke and mirrors?

QuoteThe physics simulation "Phun" or "Algodoo" even comes with a couple of Chaotic Pendulums as example scenes. If you think that the chaotic pendulum cannot be modeled mathematically... how does Phun do it, by smoke and mirrors?

Umm...actually......yes.  (It's ok.  The little things are easy to miss.)

Smoke and mirrors are a part of the process.  I assumed you knew?

But then, you know what they say about assumption....

Or maybe not.



TS


P.S.  Math is rather like the Heavens.  Only the fool thinks he knows any one part of it completely.  But one of many cases in point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

@nybtorque

it works. see this french guy nicbordeaux. His channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/nicbordeaux?blend=21&ob=5 (http://www.youtube.com/user/nicbordeaux?blend=21&ob=5)

Real motion-speed : three full turns !

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EIikIEHqwU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EIikIEHqwU)

Slow-motion-speed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IO-Ui6tmko (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IO-Ui6tmko)

I had a few mail-exchanges in the last year. This time he does not react for some reason..I do not know

Regards

Kator01

Quote from: nybtorque on October 23, 2013, 10:47:09 AM

What you and most other seems to miss is that the pendulums actually performs real work constantly; accelerating/decelerating mass; i.e. E(work)= m * a  * s. This is the work/power I calculate in the report, and propose might be partially productive (by replacing the mass by a resistive load or pumping water). And this does not violate the energy equilibrium.

I disagree. The system is given a certain amount of energy to start. After that this energy oscillates between kinetic and potential. With no friction it would continue forever. As such it acts as an energy STORE, but it is not GENERATING an excess of energy. If you bleed of the stored energy either by friction or using a generator, it will stop. The total amount of energy dissipated or generated will exactly equal the amount to energy given to it at the start.

Your proposal violates conservation of energy principles. Sorry, it just doesn't happen.

Your math is guilty of the same double counting error that Wayne Travis makes with his non working device, except your analysis is rather more complex.

Good find Kator.  There are numerous videos which point out the hilarity of hiding one's head in numbers.

The possibilities of resetting the device in that humble video demonstration alone, are numerous.

That is the funny thing about chaos.  It doesn't take much to cause many men's emotions to push their heads back under the comfy blanket of numbers. 

Another funny thing about chaos.  There are hidden within, many, many forms of order.  Order which man is neither capable nor worthy enough to experience, for long.

Chaos that's consistently repeatable, is no longer chaos.

And our "chaos" is, to those who've gone before (way before), is among the simpler forms of Order.

Of course, once all is said and done, there is lower order and then there's Higher Order.


TS

Single arm version of nybtorque's double pendulum continuos drive machine.
Anybody curious? I was.


Vince

Quote from: TechStuf on October 23, 2013, 06:00:20 PM
Good find Kator.  There are numerous videos which point out the hilarity of hiding one's head in numbers.

The possibilities of resetting the device in that humble video demonstration alone, are numerous.

That is the funny thing about chaos.  It doesn't take much to cause many men's emotions to push their heads back under the comfy blanket of numbers. 

Another funny thing about chaos.  There are hidden within, many, many forms of order.  Order which man is neither capable nor worthy enough to experience, for long.

Chaos that's consistently repeatable, is no longer chaos.

And our "chaos" is, to those who've gone before (way before), is among the simpler forms of Order.

Of course, once all is said and done, there is lower order and then there's Higher Order.


TS

Egregious bullshit. Even in chaotic systems , energy is conserved and this one is no different.

QuoteEgregious bullshit

Since you speak admittedly as a connoisseur, are you using the word egregious in the primary or secondary definition?  Just curious.  Definitions, like all other areas of reality, have a way of going round and round perpetually.


As for bullshit ..... there's "LibreEnergia" to be found in there too.


???



TS

Quote from: TechStuf on October 23, 2013, 07:16:47 PM

Since you speak admittedly as a connoisseur, are you using the word egregious in the primary or secondary definition?  Just curious.  Definitions, like all other areas of reality, have a way of going round and round perpetually.


As for bullshit ..... there's "LibreEnergia" to be found in there too.

???

TS

In this case it would not matter if it was the modern or archaic usage. The operative word is still 'bullshit'.

Measuring this device could be done with a small weight on a string with a ratchet and then compare the distance lifted (work done) with the work used to cock and start the double pendulum.

I did this with a wheel version of the Milkovic device and did not find anything extra.

But the big problem is when you take work out of the balance or pattern you disturb that balance and tend to shorten the cycle.

Norman

QuoteIn this case it would not matter if it was the modern or archaic usage. The operative word is still 'bullshit'

We get it.  LibreEnergia sure knows his cases of bullshit.


You've already declared yourself an expert on the stuff...


Why rub it in?

Quote from: vince on October 23, 2013, 06:17:57 PM
Single arm version of nybtorque's double pendulum continuos drive machine.
Anybody curious? I was.


Vince

Hi Vince,

Thank you for showing the single arm version.  I am curious...  so if you could share your findings or impressions, that would be very helpful.

Greetings,  Gyula

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 23, 2013, 03:07:48 PM
Your "model" can be falsified simply by observing that the "double pendulum", more commonly known as a Chaotic Pendulum, always comes to a stop.

Consider this: If you had really sticky bearings the thing would swing a few times and slow down and stop. Right? SO decrease the friction a little bit. Now it takes a bit longer to run down and stop. Reduce friction even more, even put it in a vacuum. It takes a bit longer... but it still stops.

Why? Because the friction eventually dissipates _all_ the energy you put in with your initial starting impulse... and nothing comes in from anywhere to replace it.

If there were _any_ excess energy in the system, by reducing friction to some arbitrarily small value... a value that is less than the magical "incoming" or created power... it would not stop swinging.  But it always does. Therefore... there is no extra energy, no excess power coming in.

ANY load you put on the system will make it come to a stop faster.


The physics simulation "Phun" or "Algodoo" even comes with a couple of Chaotic Pendulums as example scenes. If you think that the chaotic pendulum cannot be modeled mathematically... how does Phun do it, by smoke and mirrors?

I think you've misunderstood. Modeling the double pendulum mathematically is EXACTLY what I've done by solving Euler Lagrange numerically using Runge Kutta. I doesn't get much better than that... Preservation of energy sort of comes with the deal. And yes, if you take kinetic/potential energy out of the system it will stop eventually, as in the case of friction.


However. Consider this: You have a double pendulum swinging freely, preserving energy. Then you start increasing friction but ONLY for the inner pendulum. What will happen? Well, the inner pendulum will slow down (act heavier). And by acting heavier it will accelerate less  and therefore exchange less kinetic energy with the outer pendulum during each oscillation. I the end friction will be 1 and the inner pendulum will stop, but the outer pendulum will keep rotating/swinging, preserving it's energy. And keep acting on it's fixture (fixed or a mass free to move) with centrifugal force without any more energy added. Like a single pendulum...


Regards NT

Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 23, 2013, 05:47:55 PM
I disagree. The system is given a certain amount of energy to start. After that this energy oscillates between kinetic and potential. With no friction it would continue forever. As such it acts as an energy STORE, but it is not GENERATING an excess of energy. If you bleed of the stored energy either by friction or using a generator, it will stop. The total amount of energy dissipated or generated will exactly equal the amount to energy given to it at the start.

Your proposal violates conservation of energy principles. Sorry, it just doesn't happen.

Your math is guilty of the same double counting error that Wayne Travis makes with his non working device, except your analysis is rather more complex.

As I said, using Euler Lagrange guarantees that the math is in accordance with the conservation of energy principles. It IS the principles. Do you disagree with the fact that the pendulum masses constantly accelerates (decelerate) as they exchange pot/kin energy, and that Energy=mass*acceleration*distance?


What I have done is to analyze the work performed by the inner pendulum mass using Euler Lagrange and the above basic equation. A flywheel with a constant speed of rotation STORES energy. This is something different. Here we have constantly accelerating masses; a whole different animal and it performs work constantly without energy added. The trick is how to make it useful, and add energy to overcome friction, etc.

Quote from: nybtorque on October 24, 2013, 04:31:51 AM

Preservation of energy sort of comes with the deal. And yes, if you take kinetic/potential energy out of the system it will stop eventually, as in the case of friction.

There is no difference energy-wise between a pivot that has friction and a pivot joint containing a generator where the energy generated drives an external load. Both will dissipate energy from the system. Both will cause it to stop.

The pendulum does not simply 'act heavier'.  Any kinetic energy it has will be reduced as it either drives an external load or is dissipated as heat. It CANNOT do both, as in drive an external load and maintain kinetic energy.  The reduced kinetic energy is then translated into less potential energy, and the system eventually stops.

Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 24, 2013, 06:42:40 AM
There is no difference energy-wise between a pivot that has friction and a pivot joint containing a generator where the energy generated drives an external load. Both will dissipate energy from the system. Both will cause it to stop.

The pendulum does not simply 'act heavier'.  Any kinetic energy it has will be reduced as it either drives an external load or is dissipated as heat. It CANNOT do both, as in drive an external load and maintain kinetic energy.  The reduced kinetic energy is then translated into less potential energy, and the system eventually stops.

Sorry, I've been a bit unclear. My mistake! I agree that friction in the inner pendulum joint drains the inner pendulum of kinetic energy. What I meant is  that it "acts heavier" from the perspective of the outer pendulum.


Do you agree that friction at the inner pendulum joint doesn't drain kinetic energy from the outer pendulum?  Do you agree that if you stop the inner pendulum (go from friction 0 to 1 in an instant) the outer pendulum will keep moving with the kinetic energy it had at that moment (but the inner pendulum kinetic energy will turn into friction/heat)?


But, now, the most important part. How much energy did you actually need to stop the outer pendulum short and drain it from its kinetic energy (mv^2/2). Well, if it was rotating with a constant speed, that would be it.


But it's not... It's accelerating (oscillating) with considerable torque. If we take an example: I'm looking at a spreadsheet with a simulation of a 50Hz system with dt=1/1000s. At one particular moment a 1kg pendulum on a 20cm lever has v(t)=25rad/s and a(t)=3000 rad/s^2.  So if you stop it short in an instant, you're right, you only need to drain it of kinetic energy; 12.5 J. BUT you will experience a static torque of 120Nm trying to hold it (thats really hard, but not work per se... :) .


So, lets imagine instead that you want to reduce both velocity and acceleration by 50% on a continuos basis. Since the mass is still moving you need to take acceleration into account to do that. Of course you can reduce velocity instantly by using 9.38 J of energy (3/4 of the kinetic energy). It will now move at 12.5rad/s instead but still performs work of P(t)=1500W at that velocity and acceleration. To reduce the acceleration from 3000 rad/s^2 to 1500 rad/s^2 you consequently need to apply 750 W at that particular time.


And no, this does not violate the conservation of energy principles. Because we're dealing with the derivatives of energy and speed, i.e. power and acceleration. Much more interesting if you ask me... :)

@ nybtorque

I find it extremely strange that you have shown no curiosity or interest in my one arm build of your device. You have made no comment at all,not even to dispute it. I know that if I had a design for something and not the ability to build it I would be very interested in someone elses build of the device and their observations.
I'm not sure if you feel I have not captured the intent of your design or maybe you feel that a bad build will tarnish your predicted results.
Let me assure you that I understand your design and have implemented it into my build. Basically you are driving an outer pendulum( rotating offset weighted wheel) with gears or belts in my case via an inner pendulum which is free to rotate (occilate) around the primary driving axle. You are then harnessing the inner pendulum occilations for power.
When I first read your paper I felt you had a clever idea and was determined to prove it out for myself. I was going to build a 2 arm version as in your balanced design but I only had two matching gears and did not want to spend money on an unproven idea. I decided that the one arm version although unbalanced should net results in occilations to prove the concept.

My machine is driven by a 1/2 hp dc 5000 rpm motor with variable speed. There is a 1 to 4 reduction in speed from motor to rotating pendulum. If you hold onto the driven pulley that drives the rotating pendulum (that is after a reduction of 1 to 4) you can stop the motor with ease even at full power. It is not a strong motor at all. I did not post observations until now because I was testing different speeds and offset pendulum weights.
What I found was that indeed as you predicted there is a critical minimum weight that will begin occilations on the inner pendulum arm depending on it's design.
In my case the occilations began with 1/2 lb. at 2 1/4" radius. Speed was not as important in my observations as it started to ocillate immediately even at low speed. Speed however did make a huge difference in output power of the occilations. The amplitude of the occilations was hard to measure but it was somewhere between 1/4 and 3/4 of an inch at about 6 inches from pivot of the inner pendulum.
This is where a two arm balanced machine would shine . The one arm version would shake itself apart if not held down firmly.
Holding onto the ocillating pendulum it was impossible to hold it from occilating even with my full body weight leaning into it.
It is extremely powerful in it's ocilations.
The real challenge that I see is harnessing that small movement to a generator
To all you math experts out there I cannot verify my observations with math so I leave that to you to debate. What I do know' is that if you build this thing you WILL be impressed. 
Going to be looking for some gears or will make some to build a balanced two arm version. Hopefully some one will come up with a generator that can harness this power.
Hats off to you ncbtorque!

Vince

Hi Vince,
I'm very interested in your implementation.
Can you please post more pictures.
Thank you.

Quote from: nybtorque on October 24, 2013, 10:32:25 AM

And no, this does not violate the conservation of energy principles. Because we're dealing with the derivatives of energy and speed, i.e. power and acceleration. Much more interesting if you ask me... :)

So tell me, what would happen were you to integrate those derivatives over time.. You'd be back to energy and velocity, and unless your analysis was flawed you would have a conservative result.

If a double pendulum contain pivots with friction (or generators) then you need to include a damping term into your simulation equations just like you would if it was damped simple harmonic motion. I'm not seeing that in your simulation.

The damping term would be a counter torque proportional to angular velocity at the pivot.

These people are using a very similar concept, except they make the output to rotate,
rather than oscillate.

http://www.universalengines.com.au/how-ue-works

The double pendulum always stops because they don't use a part of the output to
maintain the input speed. This can be achieved by  rectifying AC from the generator and sending part into the input motor, another part to lightbulbs.

Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 24, 2013, 04:38:34 PM
So tell me, what would happen were you to integrate those derivatives over time.. You'd be back to energy and velocity, and unless your analysis was flawed you would have a conservative result.

If a double pendulum contain pivots with friction (or generators) then you need to include a damping term into your simulation equations just like you would if it was damped simple harmonic motion. I'm not seeing that in your simulation.

The damping term would be a counter torque proportional to angular velocity at the pivot.

You're absolutely right. But there's one big difference between integrating acceleration and power... acceleration is vectorbased and it changes direction as the pendulum is oscillating, so the velocity (and kinetic energy) never get very high... But, power is scalar and when you integrate you get energy regardless of direction. This is one key feature of the report. Probably not emphasized enough.

Quote from: vince on October 24, 2013, 03:25:05 PM
@ nybtorque

I find it extremely strange that you have shown no curiosity or interest in my one arm build of your device. You have made no comment at all,not even to dispute it. I know that if I had a design for something and not the ability to build it I would be very interested in someone elses build of the device and their observations.
...

@ Vince


I'm sorry I haven't responded to your posts yet. I just want you to know that I'm very grateful and have extreme curiosity in your work. I will take the time and look at pictures and try to grok your machinery later today to se if I can give valuable input.


Regards NT

Quote from: vince on October 24, 2013, 03:25:05 PM
@ nybtorque

I find it extremely strange that you have shown no curiosity or interest in my one arm build of your device. You have made no comment at all,not even to dispute it. I know that if I had a design for something and not the ability to build it I would be very interested in someone elses build of the device and their observations.
I'm not sure if you feel I have not captured the intent of your design or maybe you feel that a bad build will tarnish your predicted results.
Let me assure you that I understand your design and have implemented it into my build. Basically you are driving an outer pendulum( rotating offset weighted wheel) with gears or belts in my case via an inner pendulum which is free to rotate (occilate) around the primary driving axle. You are then harnessing the inner pendulum occilations for power.
When I first read your paper I felt you had a clever idea and was determined to prove it out for myself. I was going to build a 2 arm version as in your balanced design but I only had two matching gears and did not want to spend money on an unproven idea. I decided that the one arm version although unbalanced should net results in occilations to prove the concept.

My machine is driven by a 1/2 hp dc 5000 rpm motor with variable speed. There is a 1 to 4 reduction in speed from motor to rotating pendulum. If you hold onto the driven pulley that drives the rotating pendulum (that is after a reduction of 1 to 4) you can stop the motor with ease even at full power. It is not a strong motor at all. I did not post observations until now because I was testing different speeds and offset pendulum weights.
What I found was that indeed as you predicted there is a critical minimum weight that will begin occilations on the inner pendulum arm depending on it's design.
In my case the occilations began with 1/2 lb. at 2 1/4" radius. Speed was not as important in my observations as it started to ocillate immediately even at low speed. Speed however did make a huge difference in output power of the occilations. The amplitude of the occilations was hard to measure but it was somewhere between 1/4 and 3/4 of an inch at about 6 inches from pivot of the inner pendulum.
This is where a two arm balanced machine would shine . The one arm version would shake itself apart if not held down firmly.
Holding onto the ocillating pendulum it was impossible to hold it from occilating even with my full body weight leaning into it.
It is extremely powerful in it's ocilations.
The real challenge that I see is harnessing that small movement to a generator
To all you math experts out there I cannot verify my observations with math so I leave that to you to debate. What I do know' is that if you build this thing you WILL be impressed. 
Going to be looking for some gears or will make some to build a balanced two arm version. Hopefully some one will come up with a generator that can harness this power.
Hats off to you ncbtorque!

Vince

@ Vince


First, great machine! You got the principles right and from what I can see right now it validates my model. I miss some information; for example the mass and dimensions of the inner pendulum. Also I would like to know if it is correct  that the outer pendulum was rotating at 1200rpm and the mass and radius was about 225g, 5.7cm respectively when you got the approx. 1.2 cm amplitude?


If I assume the inner pendulum mass of 2 kg and radius of 0.4m I will get an amplitude of approximately 0.7 cm (1/4"). Does this make sense? With this configuration vibrational output would peak at 137W and average about 66W. If you put 80kg of bodyweight on it you would damp out about 97% of the amplitude as an example (but certainly still feel the vibrations...).


Then, if you want to increase the output the rule of thumb is that a double pendulum mass gives four times the output (power of two) and double rotational speed eight times output (power of three). Also it would improve performance to reduce the mass of the inner pendulum as much as possible. Output will peak when it has about the same mass/load as the outer pendulum.


An interesting consequence, that I have not thought about before, is that the belts probably acts as springs damping the feedback momentum to the outer pendulum wheel. There could also be friction between belts and wheels? Do they get hot?
Maybe some of it travels all the way back to the motor? It would be interesting to analyze the voltage and current going there. Maybe  there are some interesting spikes? If cogwheels/chains were used there would certainly be.


When I think about it now, maybe this is the easiest way to validate the output. Eliminate losses in the transmission and measure the feedback power in the actual motor, then acting as a generator at the same time. (I'm not sure how difficult it is though)


Good luck with your work and keep going... 


Regards NT

@ NT

I have disassembled the machine but took some measurements for you to peruse before doing so.

motor draw, diving central pulley but not the pendulum wheel--3.9 amps  120 volts
motor draw, driving pendulum with no resistance, 490 rpm at central shaft --- 4.5 amps  120 volts
motor draw, driving pendulum with strong resistance at occilating pendulum, 490 rpm at central shaft---4.5 amps 120 volts
motor draw , with and without resistance at occilating pendulum, 1480 rpm at central shaft---6. 5 amps  120 volts

Note: All measurements taken by clamp on meter on one ac wire feeding PWM
         RPM measured on central shaft by laser tachometer
         Because of extreme vibration measurements are not considered definitive

Vince

@NT

As this is your design, I do have some questions.   To design and build a proper machine that can be harnessed for testing I would appreciate your comments on the following questions.

Do the offset weights have to turn in opposite directions ( CW and CCW) I realize that they must me positioned correctly to each other to balance the centrifugal forces but can the same thing be done with them spinning in the same direction.  This would open the design up to sprockets and chains and be less dependent on gear size and weight.

Is there an optimum radius for the offset weight?

Is there an optimum radius for the inner pendulum?

Does the weight of the pendulum matter as much in a balanced system where one side offsets the other?

Do you have any thoughts on a possible generator for the system? You mention a dc motor but if it is a brushed motor it would only utilize a few bars of the commutator and their respective coils. A PM motor would be better but can it generate any real power with such little movement even though the frequency would be high. Im not sure how a conventional ac generator would react?

Thanks
Vince

Hi Vince,
you have mentioned that you have a DC motor. I believe that in a DC motor you change speed by varying voltage, however your readings always show 120V.
How do you increase the speed of the motor in this case?

Hi Telecom


You will see in my notes that voltage and amperage were measured at the ac input line to PWM ( pulse width modulator).  The voltage will remains the same at this point.  After it goes thru the PWM,  power is pulsed to the motor to vary the speed, Hence PWM. Read up on PWM and you will understand better.


Vince

Quote from: vince on October 25, 2013, 03:59:41 PM
...
Do you have any thoughts on a possible generator for the system? You mention a dc motor but if it is a brushed motor it would only utilize a few bars of the commutator and their respective coils. A PM motor would be better but can it generate any real power with such little movement even though the frequency would be high. Im not sure how a conventional ac generator would react?

Hi Vince,

I think that converting the oscillating movements into a rotary motion would solve the generator question?  Crankshafts like used in old steam machines?  and the wheel rotated by the crankshaft(s) would serve as a flywheel too and could surely drive a normal generator or alternator.

Thanks for all the measurements efforts!

Gyula

Hi Gyula
That was my first thought but several problems arise .  First the stroke is to short to make any usable rotary motion . Levers a could be used to increase stroke but that adds complexity and drag. The other problem is the stroke gets shorter with loading which would never work with a crankshaft.
What do you think of a magnet or an electro magnet positioned over a core with a coil . It could be made to reciprocate with the pendulum and induce a current in the coil. I don't know how much movement would be required to have induction occur though.


Vince

Quote from: vince on October 25, 2013, 05:33:02 PM
Hi Gyula
That was my first thought but several problems arise .  First the stroke is to short to make any usable rotary motion . Levers a could be used to increase stroke but that adds complexity and drag. The other problem is the stroke gets shorter with loading which would never work with a crankshaft.
What do you think of a magnet or an electro magnet positioned over a core with a coil . It could be made to reciprocate with the pendulum and induce a current in the coil. I don't know how much movement would be required to have induction occur though.


Vince

Yes if the strokes are too short then no cranshaft-like convertion is practical. 

Veljko Milkovic has shown some conception on the coil - magnet induction, to utilize his two stage mechanical oscillator, the magnets could be moved by the strokes, see here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Do_dTI_Ow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4Do_dTI_Ow)       from this link:  http://www.pendulum-lever.com/applications.html (http://www.pendulum-lever.com/applications.html) 

Even a small 1cm long displacement (stroke) can induce useful power, it mainly depends on the strength of the magnets.

Gyula

Quote from: vince on October 25, 2013, 04:40:34 PM
Hi Telecom


You will see in my notes that voltage and amperage were measured at the ac input line to PWM ( pulse width modulator).  The voltage will remains the same at this point.  After it goes thru the PWM,  power is pulsed to the motor to vary the speed, Hence PWM. Read up on PWM and you will understand better.


Vince

Hi Vince,
the reason I asked the question is because the power consumption is too high based on your data, in particular for driving the pulley alone.
Either it wasn't measured correctly or some bearings are jammed.
I suggest to take a fish scale and measure the actual turning torque .

Hi Telecom


you are right , the numbers are high but it is because it is an old motor with bad bearings and all the bearings are recycled old bearings. The motor alone draws just over 3 amps with nothing on it at all. I was just trying to show relative numbers to different situations.  The  main inference here is that the draw does not go up appreciably when loading the pendulum.

Quote from: vince on October 25, 2013, 03:59:41 PM
@NT

As this is your design, I do have some questions.   To design and build a proper machine that can be harnessed for testing I would appreciate your comments on the following questions.

Do the offset weights have to turn in opposite directions ( CW and CCW) I realize that they must me positioned correctly to each other to balance the centrifugal forces but can the same thing be done with them spinning in the same direction.  This would open the design up to sprockets and chains and be less dependent on gear size and weight.

Is there an optimum radius for the offset weight?

Is there an optimum radius for the inner pendulum?

Does the weight of the pendulum matter as much in a balanced system where one side offsets the other?

Do you have any thoughts on a possible generator for the system? You mention a dc motor but if it is a brushed motor it would only utilize a few bars of the commutator and their respective coils. A PM motor would be better but can it generate any real power with such little movement even though the frequency would be high. Im not sure how a conventional ac generator would react?

Thanks
Vince

@Vince


1. CCW or CW rotation doesn't matter as long as they are synchronized the right way.


2. There are no optimus radius for either of the pendulums. They do have impact on the power and amplitude on different aspects, but there is no optimization to done for other than for design reasons.


3. Larger weight gives larger output power since the centrifugal force is larger. The reason for two pendulums is to cancel out the forces that are not utilized for power and makes the machine vibrate. Basically, two pendulums gives twice the power.


4. Unfortunately I don't know enough about generators/motors to know which would be the best to utilize small angular amplitudes with hight frequence. The way I calculate it should be abie to output high voltage low current power, since voltage is correlated with acceleration and current with velocity.


Regards NT

One way to make my concept (http://www.scribd.com/doc/146232946/Double-Pendulum-Power-AC-Power-from-a-Mechanical-Oscillator)  easier to grasp, is to think of the inner pendulum mass as in constant free fall.


It's not in free fall with the acceleration G in one direction (down...) but it's in free fall using an oscillating artificial gravity (varying in strength and direction with the frequency of oscillation) provided by the centrifugal force of the outer pendulum. And, the nice part is that this artificial gravity is free, as the system is set in rotation.


It's analogous to free fall, and as I pointed out; power has no direction.


The general critique is that if energy is taken out of the system it has to be replaced. And this certainly is valid, and applies to the kinetic energy in the system, as in friction. But kinetic energy is a function of velocity, not acceleration.


So, all we have to do, is learn how to utilize this power.


And, what do we do when we want to utilize gravity for power?


Of course we use a generator to capture it... Like in a hydropower plant. If we let the water fall with no resistance - no power, and if we build a dam - no power (but lots of static forces...) BUT, for all resistances in between we capture the potential energy as E=mgh.


The same applies in my concept because we're dealing with potential energy from artificial gravity - If the mass is fixed; only static forces, and if it is free to move (as in the double pendulum) no power... But, for all resistances in between... 


Here we even have the mass oscillating so we do not need to worry about the water getting up the hill again. Instead we get AC-power from the oscillations.


As Nicola Tesla said:

QuoteIf you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration.

Hi nybtorque,
can you please post your paper as a pdf file. I have difficulty reading it on where it is now, as well as downloading.
But otherwise, very fascinated with your concept!
May be it will be beneficial to connect your oscillating ring to a pivoting arm, to increase the leverage?
Regards

Quote from: nybtorque on October 30, 2013, 07:40:20 AM
One way to make my concept (http://www.scribd.com/doc/146232946/Double-Pendulum-Power-AC-Power-from-a-Mechanical-Oscillator)  easier to grasp, is to think of the inner pendulum mass as in constant free fall.


It's not in free fall with the acceleration G in one direction (down...) but it's in free fall using an oscillating artificial gravity (varying in strength and direction with the frequency of oscillation) provided by the centrifugal force of the outer pendulum. And, the nice part is that this artificial gravity is free, as the system is set in rotation.


It's analogous to free fall, and as I pointed out; power has no direction.


The general critique is that if energy is taken out of the system it has to be replaced. And this certainly is valid, and applies to the kinetic energy in the system, as in friction. But kinetic energy is a function of velocity, not acceleration.


So, all we have to do, is learn how to utilize this power.


And, what do we do when we want to utilize gravity for power?


Of course we use a generator to capture it... Like in a hydropower plant. If we let the water fall with no resistance - no power, and if we build a dam - no power (but lots of static forces...) BUT, for all resistances in between we capture the potential energy as E=mgh.


The same applies in my concept because we're dealing with potential energy from artificial gravity - If the mass is fixed; only static forces, and if it is free to move (as in the double pendulum) no power... But, for all resistances in between... 


Here we even have the mass oscillating so we do not need to worry about the water getting up the hill again. Instead we get AC-power from the oscillations.


As Nicola Tesla said:

You are going to find out shortly that this 'power' is simply an illusion of your flawed analysis.

Any attempt to extract it WILL slow the pendulum down. Once that happens the pendulum has less kinetic energy to exchange for potential energy and the system ends up in a lower potential state. That lower potential is subsequently exchanged for a lower amount of kinetic energy and so on oscillating back and forward until it stops. The total amount of energy that you can extract is equal to the amount of energy it was given to start.

It is ludicrous to analyse in terms of  power (the time derivative of energy) and expect that it can be magically extracted without lowering the total energy state of the system.

Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 30, 2013, 07:01:49 PM
You are going to find out shortly that this 'power' is simply an illusion of your flawed analysis.

Any attempt to extract it WILL slow the pendulum down. Once that happens the pendulum has less kinetic energy to exchange for potential energy and the system ends up in a lower potential state. That lower potential is subsequently exchanged for a lower amount of kinetic energy and so on oscillating back and forward until it stops. The total amount of energy that you can extract is equal to the amount of energy it was given to start.

It is ludicrous to analyse in terms of  power (the time derivative of energy) and expect that it can be magically extracted without lowering the total energy state of the system.

@LibreEnergia


I value your feedback since it gives me direction on where to put my effort in explaining the line of thought. I would appreciate though if you could give me a less opinion based explanation to why it's "ludicrous" to integrate power over time and calculate work performed.


I do agree that if you take energy out the pendulum WILL SLOW DOWN and that kinetic energy WILL have to be replaced.


If we leave the energy extracting aspect, do you agree with the free fall/artificial gravity analogy? I.e the inner pendulum mass being in constant acceleration (varying in direction and size)?


Then, think about it this way. How much energy does it take to stop a 1 kg mass in free fall? Well, anything from 0 J to whatever depending on the speed it have reached due to gravity (E=mgh=mv^2/2). Then again, think about it as if you always reduce the acceleration 50% by a generator and book the energy difference. How much energy will you book? Well, E=mgh/2 of course....


As you can see, this example is only limited by "h". The mass will continue to accelerate, although at a slower rate, gain velocity, etc. All because of gravity. So, what if "h" is infinite and "g" can be decided by speed of rotation. How much energy can you extract?


I'm only proposing a non-linear model of this example. The concept is used for high-G training already, although at lower rates...


Regards NT

Quote from: telecom on October 30, 2013, 09:21:53 AM
Hi nybtorque,
can you please post your paper as a pdf file. I have difficulty reading it on where it is now, as well as downloading.
But otherwise, very fascinated with your concept!
May be it will be beneficial to connect your oscillating ring to a pivoting arm, to increase the leverage?
Regards

I'll try to post it below.


Pivoting arms of different length is part of the concept. It could be beneficial depending on what you want to achieve. If you want angular amplitude short arm is best, if you want linear amplitude a long arm is better. The power will be the same though.

Quote from: nybtorque on October 31, 2013, 02:14:12 AM

I do agree that if you take energy out the pendulum WILL SLOW DOWN and that kinetic energy WILL have to be replaced.

That is all you need to realise.

You cannot use free fall of gravity to replace the energy lost. For that to occur the system would need to have gravitational potential to allow it to fall, but the maximum of potential reduces at exactly the same rate as the energy is dissipated either by a generator or by friction.

Build a simulation that has a damping force proportional to the angular velocity at the pivots and you'll see that.

Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 31, 2013, 04:34:50 AM
That is all you need to realise.

You cannot use free fall of gravity to replace the energy lost. For that to occur the system would need to have gravitational potential to allow it to fall, but the maximum of potential reduces at exactly the same rate as the energy is dissipated either by a generator or by friction.

Build a simulation that has a damping force proportional to the angular velocity at the pivots and you'll see that.

Well, that is not really ALL I have to realize!! Of course friction in the pivots will make the pendulum stop eventually. Friction in the outer pendulum needs so be replaced continually. With the inner pendulum it's a bit more complicated. You need to consider that friction is in the opposite direction of velocity, but that acceleration is more or less in the opposite direction of velocity half of the time as well, so friction is actually more or less neutral to power. This is the reason why the potential does not reduce in the same rate as the kinetic energy. Friction actually has direction (DC), but power has not and an if you replace friction with a generator you will get AC-power.

Hi NT,
I'm not sure this statement is correct:
The interdependencies between the two pendulums continuously exchanging
kinetic energy as they oscillate is complex. The two pendulums transfer
momentum between themselves in both directions as described by the Euler
Lagrange equations earlier. If we try to force the outer pendulum into a
certain speed or movement, we will no doubt disturb the inner pendulum as
it transfer momentum back. Constant rotation of the outer pendulum will
simply not do.
The way I see it, the outer pendulum simply doesn't "see" the inner pendulum.
It keeps rotating in equilibrium (less friction) according to the first law of motion:
2. Rotational equilibrium:When body is not rotating at all or its rotating at constant rate it is said to be in rotational equilibrium. This is Newton's first law of motion,equilibrium.

To activate the inner pendulum with use the reaction of the axis of the outer pendulum by allowing the axis to move freely in one direction, being attached to the pivot of the inner pendulum.
What do u think?
Regards!

Quote from: telecom on October 31, 2013, 12:51:46 PM
Hi NT,
I'm not sure this statement is correct:
The interdependencies between the two pendulums continuously exchanging
kinetic energy as they oscillate is complex. The two pendulums transfer
momentum between themselves in both directions as described by the Euler
Lagrange equations earlier. If we try to force the outer pendulum into a
certain speed or movement, we will no doubt disturb the inner pendulum as
it transfer momentum back. Constant rotation of the outer pendulum will
simply not do.
The way I see it, the outer pendulum simply doesn't "see" the inner pendulum.
It keeps rotating in equilibrium (less friction) according to the first law of motion:
2. Rotational equilibrium:When body is not rotating at all or its rotating at constant rate it is said to be in rotational equilibrium. This is Newton's first law of motion,equilibrium.

To activate the inner pendulum with use the reaction of the axis of the outer pendulum by allowing the axis to move freely in one direction, being attached to the pivot of the inner pendulum.
What do u think?
Regards!

I do think the statement is correct. Because the centrifugal force of the outer pendulum acts on the inner pendulum so that i in turn accelerates, and this creates a force acting back on the outer pendulum mass which either accelerates decelerates it.... and on... This is the reason that the solution of Euler Lagrange equation is quite complex.

Quote from: nybtorque on October 31, 2013, 01:01:27 PM

I do think the statement is correct. Because the centrifugal force of the outer pendulum acts on the inner pendulum so that i in turn accelerates, and this creates a force acting back on the outer pendulum mass which either accelerates decelerates it.... and on... This is the reason that the solution of Euler Lagrange equation is quite complex.

Lets remove the motor 1 on fig. 5 and place two motors coaxial to the weights 2 and 3.
What is the mechanism of slowing down the above motors with weights attached?
The reaction of the centrifugal forces is only able to push back on the bearings holding the shafts of the motors, IMHO.

Quote from: telecom on October 31, 2013, 01:23:35 PM
Lets remove the motor 1 on fig. 5 and place two motors coaxial to the weights 2 and 3.
What is the mechanism of slowing down the above motors with weights attached?
The reaction of the centrifugal forces is only able to push back on the bearings holding the shafts of the motors, IMHO.

Yes, and by pushing back on the bearings it either accelerates or decelerate the pendulum mass depending on the angle. This is actually kind of interesting as a way to extract power because it would generate power spikes in the driving motor. I don't know how to make it useful but it would be interesting to analyze.

Quote from: nybtorque on October 31, 2013, 02:12:18 PM

Yes, and by pushing back on the bearings it either accelerates or decelerate the pendulum mass depending on the angle. This is actually kind of interesting as a way to extract power because it would generate power spikes in the driving motor. I don't know how to make it useful but it would be interesting to analyze.

What is the mechanism of action?

Quote from: LibreEnergia on October 31, 2013, 04:34:50 AM
That is all you need to realise.

You cannot use free fall of gravity to replace the energy lost. For that to occur the system would need to have gravitational potential to allow it to fall, but the maximum of potential reduces at exactly the same rate as the energy is dissipated either by a generator or by friction.

Build a simulation that has a damping force proportional to the angular velocity at the pivots and you'll see that.

I have another analogy for you. Think of it as an high-frequency, high voltage(acceleration), low current(velocity) circuit 90 degrees out of phase. If you put a resistive load on it you will not get much heat because P=i^2 * R. It's the same with kinetic energy turning into friction heat.


However if you put an inductive load it should be different because P=L * i * i', where i' = di/dt, is and analogy to acceleration. This is why I expect high-voltage AC-output from a generator with an oscillating input torque.

Quote from: nybtorque on November 01, 2013, 04:55:45 AM

I have another analogy for you. Think of it as an high-frequency, high voltage(acceleration), low current(velocity) circuit 90 degrees out of phase. If you put a resistive load on it you will not get much heat because P=i^2 * R. It's the same with kinetic energy turning into friction heat.


However if you put an inductive load it should be different because P=L * i * i', where i' = di/dt, is and analogy to acceleration. This is why I expect high-voltage AC-output from a generator with an oscillating input torque.

Ok then, I suggest you try it experimentally and report back. I'd recommend using a cheap digital multi-meter to measure the output power though. It will increase your chances of an over unity result many times over :)

NYBT.....Interesting work.  You've obviously studied your equations.  It is interesting to note that myriad creatures make use of such efficient motions for every day travel.  The swinging of legs, arms, and wings.  Creation is permeated with endless signposts that point to the "promised land".

It's too bad that the negative nellies don't have what it takes to be granted entry.

There's still hope.  I've seen some miraculous turn arounds. 

And arounds.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fED-Ky4VEMc


TS


P.S.  NYBT, you write as one who has glimpsed the realities of that which you theorize.  I would be surprised, based on what you've shared thus far, if you hadn't seen some very interesting RL results.

Quote from: LibreEnergia on November 01, 2013, 04:07:58 PM
Ok then, I suggest you try it experimentally and report back. I'd recommend using a cheap digital multi-meter to measure the output power though. It will increase your chances of an over unity result many times over :)

At this point it would be more interesting to discuss the actual analogy and physics... Or should I take it as if we agree on the theory?

Quote from: nybtorque on November 04, 2013, 01:00:25 AM

At this point it would be more interesting to discuss the actual analogy and physics... Or should I take it as if we agree on the theory?

No.. we don't agree on the theory. Your assertion that you can remove energy from the system and have it continue without stopping is unfounded. The analysis you are using to support your theory is wrong.

You do not model the forces at the pivot between the two pendulums correctly. You ignore a damping force proportional to the power extracted. You cannot extract that power without affecting the transfer of momentum between the two pendulums. For your theory to hold the momentum transfer between the two would be unaffected by the counter torque at the pivot caused by attempting to extract that power.

Also if there is an excess of energy available to be tapped it would already have been manifested. The energy of the combined pendulums would increase spontaneously, but that doesn't happen.

Quote from: LibreEnergia on November 04, 2013, 03:25:36 PM
No.. we don't agree on the theory. Your assertion that you can remove energy from the system and have it continue without stopping is unfounded. The analysis you are using to support your theory is wrong.

You do not model the forces at the pivot between the two pendulums correctly. You ignore a damping force proportional to the power extracted. You cannot extract that power without affecting the transfer of momentum between the two pendulums. For your theory to hold the momentum transfer between the two would be unaffected by the counter torque at the pivot caused by attempting to extract that power.

So, now the damping force is proportional to the power extracted, not proportional to angular velocity? If I try to put myself in your shoes; I guess you still mean the same thing. I.e only kinetic energy can be extracted at the pivot, or am I wrong?


But then again, please explain to me what you do with the oscillations and where the energy needed to counteract the angular acceleration come from when you increase friction at the pivot?  Does it also turn into heat, or do you just ignore it? Actually, to counteract the oscillations you will need to actively apply a momentum of the same magnitude in the opposite direction. Go figure!!!! Friction will simply not do, since it IS a function of VELOCITY and not acceleration.

Quote
Also if there is an excess of energy available to be tapped it would already have been manifested. The energy of the combined pendulums would increase spontaneously, but that doesn't happen.

Well, it both does and does not... The kinetic energy of the system is constant. It can be shown with the model. If you take kinetic energy out of the system for example by friction you need to replace it. No doubt about it.  However, the energy do manifest itself through powerful oscillations. These oscillations are basically "free" as they consists of angular acceleration originated from the centrifugal force, and are considerable in a system rotating at high frequency. These are also part of the model and manifests itself as "potential" energy from the "artificial" gravity created by the rotation.

Quote from: LibreEnergia on November 04, 2013, 03:25:36 PM
No.. we don't agree on the theory. Your assertion that you can remove energy from the system and have it continue without stopping is unfounded. The analysis you are using to support your theory is wrong.

You do not model the forces at the pivot between the two pendulums correctly. You ignore a damping force proportional to the power extracted. You cannot extract that power without affecting the transfer of momentum between the two pendulums. For your theory to hold the momentum transfer between the two would be unaffected by the counter torque at the pivot caused by attempting to extract that power.

Also if there is an excess of energy available to be tapped it would already have been manifested. The energy of the combined pendulums would increase spontaneously, but that doesn't happen.

As of your suggestion I have updated my model with damping forces (ie. torques) like friction and loads. All kind of loads can be simulated at both pivots and have been done so. The results are interesting and show overunity. I've used both a 50Hz model (huge COP) and a Milkovic type pump (COP =7) for my analysis. Please read my report and comment.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/146232946/Double-Pendulum-Power-AC-Power-from-a-Mechanical-Oscillator (http://www.scribd.com/doc/146232946/Double-Pendulum-Power-AC-Power-from-a-Mechanical-Oscillator)


NT

If the brothers wrigth would have tried to convince everybody with theory,  we would still think Aircraft is nonsense. Just go for it! In the worst case it won't work, that wouldn't be a catastrophe.

I finally got around to building the double pendulum drive with 2 offset weights. This is a large heavy duty version in which I can try any motor type I want. The motor mount slides from one side to the other so that I can drive the mechanism from any side depending on motor rotation.
This design incorporates all of the details in nybtorques version and the ones that are brought up in the "Motor Generator An Explanation"thread where Woopy did a demonstration.  The offset weights are adjustable for radius and mass. I will be able to change the rotational speed by changing sheaves and/or motor speed.

I am currently building the power take off in which I will be using a one way bearing to harvest ocsilations in the arm and convert them to rotary motion.

I have tested the build with no power take off and find that it is surprisinly smooth during operation. The arm ocsilates violently but is offset by the opposite side so the base does not vibrate and remains very stable. oscilations are fairly small in amplitude but very strong. with my full weight on one arm I can not stop the movement. I have placed a wattmeter on the motor and it does NOT pull more power when fully loaded.

There are several methods that I see of harvesting power from the ocsilations. One possible method is to attach a magnets or an electro magnets to the ends of the arms and fix a coil and core to the base so the magnet vibrates in front of the core and coil.

I will make a video to show the movement. I made a crappy video with my phone camera but it is too grainy and does not show ocsilations of the arm like they actually are.

Vince

Looks great - please make a video.
Great craftsmanship!
Have you tried measuring the wattage?

Thanks.  No, I have not taken any measurements other than a wattmeter to see if power increased under load.  Going to concentrate on power recovery as all the motors I will try will try will have different values.

First test.


http://youtu.be/lFornDBZsJY


Vince

Looks very impressive, but not sure how to convert the motion of the arm
into the usable power, it seems to be oscillating too fast...

Watch the video again. The sprocket in the middle is driven by a one way clutch and rotates like a normal drive. The power and speed are regulated by size of the weights, their radius of swing and speed of the pedulums rotation.

Understand now - you already installed the power take off with this one way clutch and the sprocket!
This is great - you can try lifting the weight or something with it to figure out the output.

Quote from: vince on April 18, 2014, 09:57:49 PM
Watch the video again. The sprocket in the middle is driven by a one way clutch and rotates like a normal drive. The power and speed are regulated by size of the weights, their radius of swing and speed of the pedulums rotation.

@vince,
Your design is very interesting, and please let me draw your attention to a guy from UK, who designed several motor-generators with centrifugal off-set weights. Attached are photos of his prototypes with different physical configurations, but all are based on a similar principle. Decompress the file and you will see the pictures. He is not going to disclose the information which his machines are working on, because this guy had sold out his invention to a British power company.
I hope you will find inspiration to improve your machine when staring at those pictures of this British guy.

Couldn't open that file.

Quote from: vince on April 20, 2014, 11:44:19 PM
Couldn't open that file.

I used this:
http://www.7-zip.org/

Quote from: vince on April 20, 2014, 11:44:19 PM
Couldn't open that file.

Hi Vince,

Have you managed to open in the mean time the rar file?

If not, then probably this forum software sucks us, I often find the same problem that I cannot open an uploaded file which is rared or zipped.  Now I tested another browser and used the Windows Internet Explorer to download the rar file and this time I managed to open it. If I use the Firefox browser as usual, I get checksum error in the downloaded file when I try to open it. I have not tried other browsers like Chello or whatever.

If you need help, PM me your e-mail and I will directly send the correct rar file or zip if you prefer so that you have them. Or if you prefer, I can upload it to a filestorage place.

Gyula

Hi Vince,

Great work on the build. Thanks for sharing.

I converted the images to PDF if your still having issues also some other documents that you might find interesting.

It looks like the device has offset weights to smooth out or shorten the effects of the negative impulse.

I find the phase locked Slingatron to show a similar effect of M. Kanarev's impulse drive. The only difference is the pulse effects from the symmetry of weights.

Hi DreamThinkBuild,

Very good idea was to make a PDF file from the pictures, thanks also for the other docus.

Gyula

Thanks  dreamthinkbuild for converting the file.
Thanks Gyula for your offer to help me.


Vince

Hi folks,

found this here while doing research about "bobby inertial generator". Must be a replicator. You can clearly see the principle:

http://www.v2load.com/videos/8fidHwOaUJg/ (http://www.v2load.com/videos/8fidHwOaUJg/)


on youtube:

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fidHwOaUJg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fidHwOaUJg)

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7SasCQtv-Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7SasCQtv-Q)

and here another construction ( working ? )

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfjT5Sn5apU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfjT5Sn5apU)

This is the russian guy with his wheel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5tH8ibslew (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5tH8ibslew)


Regards

Kator01