Shadoobie!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aihfooKBb0U&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aihfooKBb0U&feature=youtu.be)
M.
Nice work!!!
There is many possibilities the Roberval balance offers together with it's modifications. Always believed it.
;)
That makes my eyes hurt trying to figure out what's connected to what.
In the iso view, I can't tell which way is up! Or what parts are higher to start with.
Thanks Rafael.
Sorry lumen. Not sure what I can do to make it easier to understand. Most of the model is only links and pivot pins (axles). There are also two rollers, one static counterweight, and one weight (blue) that is moved laterally (no work) to cause the construction to torque CW or CCW.
M.
Attached is a similar model I presume, however doesn't show the behavior you showed case. Are you sure it's not an anomaly due to inaccuracies of the model?
broli,
The simulation was based on physical testing of a build by someone else. The system that they shared with me, along with the behavior they reported, led me to do the simulation. It worked. And a bit better than the real world construction of the "inventor" since I was able to optimize a few minor details in the build of the sim. The real world build took several days, if not weeks, while I was able to sim it up in a day and a half.
To clarify, the first sim did not work and I could not understand why. But after sleeping on it I figured out a less complex way to sim it in WM2D and was able to get that up and running in about an hour. As you know, WM2D has some "peculiarities," so I do not know if my original build attempt broke some boundaries (too many interactions?) or what. But once I simplified it the sim worked not only as the real world build predicted, but what I logically thought should happen.
My take on the system is this: A mass in a gravity field can be used to exert two simultaneous effects: A direct downward force (weight) and a torque. This unique construction utilizes both. So possibly "dropping the weight twice?" Or if Bessler was right, maybe it is a 4 to 1 relationship?
What I have shown in the sim is just a PoC and not intended to be an optimized embodiment of this idea. We just wanted to get it out there so the greater minds could begin working on it.
M.
edited to add: I see I did not actually answer your direct question... The geometry was drawn in AutoCAD 2010 (I think) to whatever level of precision that can handle. It was imported to WM2D as an AutoCAD 2004 level DXF file. The precision in WM2D was set to default of 7 decimal places.
What I've been shown.
Face PALM.
A rock falls once. A pendulum rocks back and forth, losing a bit of energy with each cycle.
You are wasting your valuable time, and after pages and pages of argument, the facts will still remain: A rock falls, once, and you are wasting your time.
I have two different simulation models that run perpetually in a physics simulator. One is a water-weight powered gravity wheel and the other is an overcenter spring-powered design. Should I open a thread and try to get people to build them?
Why... or WHY NOT?
Now... carry on, I won't bother you, I'll just be watching and chuckling to myself.
But I wonder why something like this is even needed.... when Wayne Travis has found the secret, uncovered the jewels, has patents pending and engineers working round the clock on his Hydro Energy Revolution. And Mondrasek helped!
TK, sorry that I have disappointed you.
Webby1, I know no more that what I have shown. The sim appears to create a usable output torque at the pivot joints while requiring only a lateral shift in the mass on the right side of the device. That shift should not require any Work (as defined by Physics) that I can tell. So I am as curious as anyone else.
M.
Oh, you haven't disappointed me! I am highly amused, in fact.
In further fact, let me point out that _when_ you do succeed in showing an actual physical system that demonstrates that "gravity CAN do Work" you will make ME, and all your other detractors and naysayers all over the world, look completely silly and stupid and we will all have to apologize and eat our collective hats.
So redouble your efforts, get some decent plywood and a router table, and get to work! What, has it got seven whole parts? Take your design to a machine shop and pay them a couple hundred dollars to build it exactly, with lowfriction bearings and proper materials, if you don't have the tooling at home.
Note well: I am ENCOURAGING YOU TO BUILD AND DEMONSTRATE A REAL OBJECT. So you can't accuse me of being a "nay-sayer".... can you.
Meanwhile I note that you do not bother to take my question seriously. I have two simulations that run perpetually in a physics simulator. Both are very simple and appear to violate simple conservation laws. Should I open a couple of threads entitled "Springs CAN do Work" or perhaps "Falling Water CAN do Work" and present these sims as proof, and encouragement to builders? Or would it be a waste of time?
TK,
I respect the fact that simulation software can produce non-real world results. And thus I build sims as carefully as I can.
Right now I have shown a sim of a device (not of my own design) that appears to mimic the results of a real world build (also not mine).
So I post this all on OU.com to look for critique of the builder's and my efforts.
Not ridicule.
I am totally open to any counter arguments of the way I have simed this device. If you have any suggestions about what I should test I would do the best that I can.
I am not RA.
Please help me/us out on this one.
M.
in a zero G environment kinetic energy is stored very efficiently do to the lack of gravity and as you approach a gravitational horizon the efficiency of holding onto that stored kinetic energy becomes less efficient and eventually the object gets caught in the higher gravitational tensor field and is pulled to the planet and or heavenly body. there can be no unassisted gravity motor without adding more kinetic energy back into the system. this is why when satellites run out of fuel to stay in orbit they fall back to earth and smash to bits.
if you understood that gravity is a carrier tensor field for kinetic energy/mass you wouldn't even bother trying to make a gravity motor. you would be better off making a hydroelectric dam that is made friendly for the environment. now that's a real gravity motor.
Mond: What is the title of your thread? You are making a claim. You present your sim data, presumably in support for your claim. I challenge the idea that your sim can support your claim.... and you have to admit, the apparatus you show is pretty crude and certainly doesn't support the claim.
Now you appear to be backing off from that claim. Why? Koalas aren't that mean, as long as you respect them. Continue trying to support the claim you made in the title of this thread, and get off my case.
Or.... you could always retract or modify the claim, so that it represents the true state of your knowledge and investigations.
i back up TK 100% when it comes to this project, he knows what he's talking about.
another thing, gravity is so miniscule in return why do you even bother?
it's not that you are blind, it's that you wish to be blind,
Gravity causes the weakest or strongest Force we know of. Depending on the mass at the center of it's acceleration field, or something like that. Here on Earth it is a pretty miniscule Force. That is because the mass of the Earth is relatively small compared to other celestial bodies, or even when viewed as a fraction of the mass of the entire Universe, etc. Even the tiniest magnet can overcome it!
I agree that using gravity to power anything meaningful is a stretch. Is it a practical solution to any energy need? Probably not too many cases. But gravity does exist everywhere on this planet, regardless of the location's proximity to a conventional power grid or accessibility to solar, wind, or other natural energy sources. But enough with that for now...
I was taught that Gravity is a Conservative Field of Force and therefor cannot do Work. More recently I was told of a device that appears to contradict that claim. I assembled a simulation of a principle form of that device in a Physics based software program. The simulation reacts in a similar manner to the device it was intended to model and therefor also appears to contradict the claim that Gravity cannot do Work.
I think the discussion should be focused on the principal of the device more so than on the intentions of myself or the inceptor. I am of no consequence AFAIK. The device and what it potentially demonstrates is, however, significant.
M.
I think it is probable with moving right the weight ,the system lose potential energy. If you can attach the wm file it's sure we understand the trik
Here is the WM2D file from the video. Also attached should be the DXF file of the geometry in a .zip file so you can build your own if you like.
The geometry file has extra circles to be targets for the pins (axles). I erased all of those (after placing the pins) except the one on the far upper left that is the counterweight and the two smaller ones that are rollers. After assembly I added the "slider weight" from the included WM2D tools and changed it's mass to be 1 kg. I positioned it somewhat near the center of the lever arm that I moved it on in the video and then adjusted the mass parameter of the counterweight until the system nearly balanced.
No other changes to parameters of object or additional items were added.
I think I changed the collision value from .01 to .001 to accommodate the scale of the objects and the clearance I allowed for the rollers.
M.
numble numble...
Gabriele,
Sorry, but there is no doubt that the system is NOT Overunity. There is a clear source of Energy involved. That source is apparently Gravity.
The problem with what I have just said is that Gravity is taught to NOT be a source of Energy (ie. Cannot do Work).
If you have a question about "tolerances" then please let us all know exactly what you think might be wrong.
Thanks,
M.
Edited to add: You have changed your post that questions the "tolerances" so please feel free to ignore this reply.
Bump.
PS. Australia starts coming on line when? Also, I hope the earthquake near NZ did not cause any noticeable negative effects to our friends there.
M.
Webby1,
Yeah, I'm sorry. I did not give suggestions on the "correct" or "best" way to build a real world embodiment of the sim only because I have no idea what advice could be relevant!
I have only reproduced what I believe has been shown (the construction being discussed) in a computer simulation program.
My own interpretation was to MAXIMIZE the roller arm to the limit of what the PABB (Parallel Arm Balance Beam) (or Roberval balance as Rafael was so quick to recognize) could do.
It might not be optimal as far as Work is concerned .
But that was just my initial and probably simplistic idea about how to optimize this system.
M.
I strongly suggest you read the following
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm)
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/centgrav.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/themes/centgrav.htm)
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/phys101.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/phys101.htm)
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/psych.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/psych.htm)
Mark
make a dam hydroelectric dam and work off that dam it!!!
to be honest, it will require a trillion fold more energy which nature can't produce to reach another earth like planet. this is the goal of all humans trying to survive the next extinction of earth. we are happy your with your god and are dead now, less people to interfere with in real life!!!
Gravity powered devices have been around for some time. These produce power by using only gravity as the source to produce this power.
Those that are blind, have no vision.
Quote from: tinman on July 22, 2013, 02:08:12 AM
Gravity powered devices have been around for some time. These produce power by using only gravity as the source to produce this power.
Those that are blind, have no vision.
Absolutely untrue. I challenge you to provide evidence even one credible instance of a working gravity (only) powered device.
Quote from: tinman on July 22, 2013, 02:08:12 AM
Gravity powered devices have been around for some time. These produce power by using only gravity as the source to produce this power.
Those that are blind, have no vision.
This is because people do not consider the gravity as a form of energy. You can call it Neutrinos, or in some cases Solar Wind or Cosmic Ray... never mind. The fact is that the gravity of planets comes from the space/Vacuum filled with energetic Chaos. These little particles carrying energy just hit the particle structure of Earth rendering some part of their energy. That causes gravity. This is also why the Earth can keep it's temperature. So we float in the sea of energy which is free.
Even if we say that gravity is a force.. the force is always result of operating energy.
The presence of such a big mass - the Earth causes kind of unbalance in energetic chaos in Cosmos. Being in Earth's proximity allows us to utilize the energy of gravity.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on July 22, 2013, 03:29:12 AM
Absolutely untrue. I challenge you to provide evidence even one credible instance of a working gravity (only) powered device.
I will take up your challenge LibreEnergia.
What you and many others fail to realise,is that there is two gravitational forces here on earth-not one. And one of them is a non linear force from our frame of reference. I have attached a few video's of these machines that work using this non linear gravitational force. Infact gravity powered devices have been around since the late 11th century. I can provide many more gravity powered devices if you wish.
So if not powered by gravity-then how?
This gravitational force has been around for over 4 billion years,and will be here for another 4 billion-well we all hope anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUqCU_yIvY4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZyGlR-AmRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-le0CvK3kJk
Nice! The tides are a gravitational effect, for sure.
But.... er..... gravity, or rather the gravitational gradient, provides the force that "stretches" the oceans out in the radial direction.... but the ebb and flow of the ocean tides is caused by the Earth itself rotating under the humps made by this elongation, which always points toward and away from the Moon. (And a smaller pair of humps caused by the Sun.) SO really it is the flywheel of the Earth's rotation that provides the "power" in the tides, not gravity itself, and the tides are a drag on the stored energy of this flywheel. That's why the moon wound up always facing us: it is tidally slowed and locked, having had all its energy of rotation relative to the Earth extracted and dissipated by tides in its body caused by the Earth's gravity.
Quote from: tinman on July 22, 2013, 05:03:22 AM
I will take up your challenge LibreEnergia.
What you and many others fail to realise,is that there is two gravitational forces here on earth-not one. And one of them is a non linear force from our frame of reference. I have attached a few video's of these machines that work using this non linear gravitational force. Infact gravity powered devices have been around since the late 11th century. I can provide many more gravity powered devices if you wish.
So if not powered by gravity-then how?
This gravitational force has been around for over 4 billion years,and will be here for another 4 billion-well we all hope anyway.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUqCU_yIvY4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZyGlR-AmRo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-le0CvK3kJk
Tides are powered by the slowing down of the earths rotation and the increase in distance between the sun and the moon. Gravity provides the 'glue' that allows this to occur, but it is not the source of energy. Tides are absolutely not an example of gravity alone 'doing work'.
Gravity is a force and a conservative one at that, meaning masses travelling in a closed path do not give rise to an excess of energy.
Hi Mondrasek .. find attached two sims - the first is yours with a bit of colour added & some outputs for PE & KE for the two opposing masses - I've disregarded the structural mass of the rest as its minimal - the second sim is my facsimile that didn't use autocad imported structures - I think it behaves the same as yours [have a play].
Clearly, as you said, the rhs mass has a gravitational acceleration acting on it vertically - via its connection to the parallelogram like structure the mass exerts a torque on the structure twisting it - the small roller wheels allow movement & the torque wants to 'open up' the structure if out on a long arm.
A metaphor would be like water always finding its own level - in this case a structure under some tension/compression & able to move will do so to release those forces.
The important bit I think is that if you follow the sims it appears that they are predicting that there is no energy gain - i.e. when PE of position is added to KE of movement for each mass & compared we see a net Energy deficit, regardless of which direction it moves, IMO - IOW's its always lowering it's CoG.
Let me know if I have misinterpreted something or your sim has an anomalous energy gain that mine didn't & I'll look into it.
Thanks for bringing up the interesting parallelogram that uses the 'square' & hardly changes separations.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on July 22, 2013, 05:40:32 AM
Tides are powered by the slowing down of the earths rotation and the increase in distance between the sun and the moon. Gravity provides the 'glue' that allows this to occur, but it is not the source of energy. Tides are absolutely not an example of gravity alone 'doing work'.
Gravity is a force and a conservative one at that, meaning masses travelling in a closed path do not give rise to an excess of energy.
So remove the moon,and see what happens to the tide's. The gravitational pull of the moon is the source of tidle movement,along with a small amount from the sun.You remove this source,and the tide's will stop. The fact is that it is there for us to use right now,and i can asure you the earth wont stop rotating any time soon. What people like you want to see is some exotic sort of energy that you believe cannot be achieved,while dismising those that already exist.
The earth may be slowing down,but the moon is speeding up as it gains distance from the earth-every action has an equal and opposite reaction. So there is no net energy gain or loss,and yet we can harness power from this 0 loss system.
In 23 000 000 years we would have slowed enough to add another hour to our day-now thats something we all should be concerned about !!right!!.
I guess premanent magnets cant do usful work either?
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 22, 2013, 05:35:33 AM
...
SO really it is the flywheel of the Earth's rotation that provides the "power" in the tides, not gravity itself,
...
Quite so.
And by reacting against the earth in the right way we can also bleed off (or add to) some of that flywheel energy on a continuous basis, as Bessler, Keenie, Uncle and Sjack have done.
And I shouldn't forget RAR who are making a magnificent (as yet unsuccessful) attempt to do.
Mondrasek .. BTW & FWIW - even if a mass is moved horizontally IMO it does take some work/energy [ force x distance ] - that is because you have to either overcome an objects inertia & accelerate it or accelerate & then decelerate it (overcome its momentum) again - we usually don't think about it too much in mind experiments with horizontal transitions & frictionless environments etc.
Quote from: Rafael Ti on July 22, 2013, 04:56:31 AM
This is because people do not consider the gravity as a form of energy. You can call it Neutrinos, or in some cases Solar Wind or Cosmic Ray... never mind. The fact is that the gravity of planets comes from the space/Vacuum filled with energetic Chaos. These little particles carrying energy just hit the particle structure of Earth rendering some part of their energy. That causes gravity. This is also why the Earth can keep it's temperature. So we float in the sea of energy which is free.
Even if we say that gravity is a force.. the force is always result of operating energy.
The presence of such a big mass - the Earth causes kind of unbalance in energetic chaos in Cosmos. Being in Earth's proximity allows us to utilize the energy of gravity.
Good representation of the vertical gravitational wind that blows down on the very smallest structure in a body. A bit like a very very very intense X-ray which sees every single gravicule. It's like a wind blowing though a fleet of widely dispersed ships. Every ship experiences the full force of the wind. No ship shadows any other ship because they are so widely dispersed. This is why of course the gravitational force on a body is proportional to the mass and not to the external area.
Good post. Keep it up. Don't let people like Al put you off. They believe in the dogma
that there's no such thing as a free lunch.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 19, 2013, 07:15:14 PM
...
In further fact, let me point out that _when_ you do succeed in showing an actual physical system that demonstrates that "gravity CAN do Work" you will make ME, and all your other detractors and naysayers all over the world, look completely silly and stupid and we will all have to apologize and eat our collective hats.
...
Exactly. Which is why the Powers That Be, the Scientific Establishment, browbeat poor Eric into recanting his views on the offset gyro. When Laithwaite's instincts are proved correct it will discredit a large number of people. I look forward to the day TK comes to this forum and eats his metaphorical hat - and to be fair to him I'm sure he won't just slink off behind his pseudonym.
Quote from: fletcher on July 22, 2013, 09:11:35 AM
Mondrasek .. BTW & FWIW - even if a mass is moved horizontally IMO it does take some work/energy [ force x distance ] - that is because you have to either overcome an objects inertia & accelerate it or accelerate & then decelerate it (overcome its momentum) again - we usually don't think about it too much in mind experiments with horizontal transitions & frictionless environments etc.
I agree completely. While requiring no Work in the classical sense, any real world mass transfer device will have losses that must be overcome.
Thanks for giving this sim so much consideration! I look forward to reviewing your versions and learning about the way you analyzed and tested it. Unfortunately I am at home today and do not have the WM2D program on this computer, so it will have to wait until I can get in to use the laptop at work.
@libre.. Those are foolish assumptions. i have a working gravity machine right here in front of me..yes..in violation of the 2nd law.
Quote from: LibreEnergia on July 22, 2013, 05:40:32 AM
Gravity is a force and a conservative one at that, meaning masses travelling in a closed path do not give rise to an excess of energy.
Please show me this closed path between the earth and moon?.
@tinman.it becomes non-conservative when we deal with 2nd law breach..libre just has to shove two identical platinized platinum electrodes at different depths in sulfuric acid solution and measure continuous capacitance current.an oxygen electrode potential is dependant on oxygen concentration.bouyency at work here.
Quote from: tinman on July 22, 2013, 05:03:22 AM
I will take up your challenge LibreEnergia.
What you and many others fail to realise,is that there is two gravitational forces here on earth-not one.
There is only one force in the universe, and that force expresses itself in two opposite ways: centripetal force (called gravity), and centrifugal force (also called radiation).
Newton's apple falls to the ground because of gravity, but what lifts it (the stuff it's made of) up in the tree in the first place? Centrifugal force.
An excerpt from Walter Russell's "The Universal One":
CHAPTER XII.
GRAVITATION AND RADIATION
Gravitation is the generative force and radiation is the degenerative force of the universal constant. These are the opposing powers which, within all mass, seek an equilibrium zone of pressure for the potential of that mass.
Gravitation is the generative force of increasing potential and the regenerative force of decreasing potential.
It is the power within the electric force of action to attract the electric force of action.
It is the contractive power within electricity to divert the universal constant of energy into centripetal vortices of closing spirals of increasing speed, thereby attracting similar states of motion into an accumulation of mass the pressure of which increases toward its center.
It is an expression of the power of electricity to accumulate by induction and, by so doing, to force magnetism to increase its resistance to that accumulation.
It is the inductive force.
It is the desire within the electric force of action to integrate into the appearance of form.
It is the power of electricity to associate by displacement.
Radiation is the power of magnetism to dissociate by replacement.
Radiation is the degenerative force of decreasing potential.
It is the power within the magnetic force of reaction to resist the electric force of action.
It is the separative force which repels, spreads, separates, diffuses and redistributes that which has been assembled by the collective force.
It is the conductive force.
The attraction of gravitation and the repulsion of radiation is nature's simple method of distribution and redistribution of all masses, so that each mass will find its proper position.
It is not proper to conceive either of these apparently opposite forces as two forces.
The south wind and the north wind are not two winds. They are the same wind blowing in opposite directions.
It is more correct to say that gravitation and radiation are processes.
The one motive force which directs these processes is equally divided into opposite effects, but these opposite effects are unequally balanced.
The unequal divisions of the two opposites totalled together constitute an equilibrium.
The One force never subdivides into any minus expression of force without counterbalancing that minus with an equal and opposite plus.
Gravitation is a synthetic process of putting things together, and radiation an analytic one of taking them apart.
The chemist uses these processes in every action and reaction.
Quote from: rado on July 22, 2013, 10:25:10 PM
There is only one force in the universe, and that force expresses itself in two opposite ways: centripetal force (called gravity), and centrifugal force (also called radiation).
Newton's apple falls to the ground because of gravity, but what lifts it (the stuff it's made of) up in the tree in the first place? Centrifugal force.
An excerpt from Walter Russell's "The Universal One":
CHAPTER XII.
GRAVITATION AND RADIATION
Gravitation is the generative force and radiation is the degenerative force of the universal constant. These are the opposing powers which, within all mass, seek an equilibrium zone of pressure for the potential of that mass.
Gravitation is the generative force of increasing potential and the regenerative force of decreasing potential.
It is the power within the electric force of action to attract the electric force of action.
It is the contractive power within electricity to divert the universal constant of energy into centripetal vortices of closing spirals of increasing speed, thereby attracting similar states of motion into an accumulation of mass the pressure of which increases toward its center.
It is an expression of the power of electricity to accumulate by induction and, by so doing, to force magnetism to increase its resistance to that accumulation.
It is the inductive force.
It is the desire within the electric force of action to integrate into the appearance of form.
It is the power of electricity to associate by displacement.
Radiation is the power of magnetism to dissociate by replacement.
Radiation is the degenerative force of decreasing potential.
It is the power within the magnetic force of reaction to resist the electric force of action.
It is the separative force which repels, spreads, separates, diffuses and redistributes that which has been assembled by the collective force.
It is the conductive force.
The attraction of gravitation and the repulsion of radiation is nature's simple method of distribution and redistribution of all masses, so that each mass will find its proper position.
It is not proper to conceive either of these apparently opposite forces as two forces.
The south wind and the north wind are not two winds. They are the same wind blowing in opposite directions.
It is more correct to say that gravitation and radiation are processes.
The one motive force which directs these processes is equally divided into opposite effects, but these opposite effects are unequally balanced.
The unequal divisions of the two opposites totalled together constitute an equilibrium.
The One force never subdivides into any minus expression of force without counterbalancing that minus with an equal and opposite plus.
Gravitation is a synthetic process of putting things together, and radiation an analytic one of taking them apart.
The chemist uses these processes in every action and reaction.
the only thing that lifts that apple is every heavenly body in the universe. the closer the better.
for the sake of sanity (Mine) please have a look through this website
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm)
Then come back with some arguments
Mark
Quote from: markdansie on July 23, 2013, 02:27:47 AM
for the sake of sanity (Mine) please have a look through this website
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm)
Then come back with some arguments
Mark
Well i dont think this one has be debunked yet Mark,and Stefan was there. Maybe he could shed some light on this. Most will say there is very little friction on the rolling ball,but there is more than you think. The ball would actualy be skidding on either the inside track,outside track or both.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq2BII29oKM
webby1,
Your minipalm is very similar to one sim of what eventually became the PALM device. However I modeled only one side, so it was not balanced. I could measure how the weight created a different torque at the upright arm as it was moved in and out on the horizontal member attached to it (the clamp arms in your case). But it did not lift the weight. I assumed because a weight cannot create enough torque to lift itself, but now I wonder. With a long enough lever arm it should be possible? Though impractical to build a device except in a sim where you can have infinitely long perfectly ridged members with zero mass!
Adding a second movable weight as you did instead of a counterbalance is a nice optimization. Now if the weight could shift back and forth to both sides of each upright it would do even more?
in order for any overunity device to work it has to circumvent the 2nd law thermodynamics.this does not exclude gravity machines.there must be a point in the cycle of steps where ambient heat intake is going to happen otherwise all energy costs will balance.
Quote from: markdansie on July 23, 2013, 02:27:47 AM
for the sake of sanity (Mine) please have a look through this website
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm (http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm)
Then come back with some arguments
Mark
"Psychic energy is nothing but pseudoscientific moonshine, unworthy of further comment here. There's no evidence of its existence."
Actually, all energy is psychic energy, produced by a mind (in Cosmic terms, God's mind).
No she cannot
mini-facePALM, actually.
Tinman, Finsrud's device has been explained by Finsrud himself. It works by essentially the same mechanism as a cuckoo clock: a slowly descending heavy weight drives an escapement mechanism involving pendulum regulators. The weight needs to be raised up every week or so to keep it running.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 24, 2013, 07:50:16 AM
mini-facePALM, actually.
Tinman, Finsrud's device has been explained by Finsrud himself. It works by essentially the same mechanism as a cuckoo clock: a slowly descending heavy weight drives an escapement mechanism involving pendulum regulators. The weight needs to be raised up every week or so to keep it running.
Well i have never heard that one befor?.I was unaware of any such weight within the device.
Thanks for the mail Mondrasek - I'll reply in detail there asap.
Quote from: fletcher in BW.com today
I was clearing out some files recently, some from 15 years ago where I found this one.
I decided I would post it up here for others to look into if they wish - I did do a search here & couldn't find anything on the board about the 'Braess's Paradox' [or on overunity.com] so this may be new for at least a few.
It should be particularly interesting to members like Pete & Trevor who don't discount the possibility of springs playing a major role in a working wheel.
Links below & vids on You Tube of physical experiments with springs I found yesterday.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiOEYNGV5P8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMrYlspifuo
Mike .. this is about as close to a "bootstrapping" device I think I've ever come across - it was nearly 15 years ago when I was a real newb, so I didn't give too much thought how it might be plied inside a rotating reference etc.
IIRC I had thoughts of using it similar to the 'rubber band motor' except the energy to shorten the radial was via releasing the connection & changing dual springs from in series to parallel etc as per Braess's Paradox, seen here in physical form - I naively thought that there would be better examples out there I'd find in time as I got more experience, so quickly moved on to other things.
But it did occur to me at the time that there would probably be an elctro-magnetic equivalent to Braess's Paradox that might be used effectively in some way to cause overbalance or asymmetric torques in a wheel [but I'm no expert in those areas].
If you study the sim you will see a useable increase in height gain just from changing from springs in series to parallel - it is a linear response so can be scaled - I give an explanation of why that is in the attached pic which you can deduce for yourself by studying the Output data in the sim - I guess a type of parametric oscillation.
Whether it is legitimate 'bootstrapping' or has any OU potential I leave you to decide - I do think it is an interesting study of principles.
Folks, I have found this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMrYlspifuo which includes a test with springs. The gain in height comes out in practice too. Question is how it could be utilized advantageously...
Wandering if height-gain means also energy-gain?
It is an interesting effect. Now all you have to find is how to reset it automatically.
I believe I have figured out the error with the sim. There is an Advanced Accuracy parameter called Overlap Error that defaults to 0.01 mm. My belief is that is a value for how far objects are allowed to interfere/overlap with others before causing some reaction in the sim (like motion) to relieve that condition. The smaller this value is set the more accurate the sim becomes but also the slower it runs due to being more CPU intensive.
Here is my interpretation of the sim events during the "rise" portion after the weight was moved to the right. The 0.01 overlap parameter was allowing the roller wheels to cross over the arms they are pushing on by a larger value more than that amount due to the greatly increased torque. This was allowing the arm with the weight to DROP ever so slightly (also more than before the weight shifted to the right). Once that overlap limit is met the sim reacts by moving the weight and lever arm back up slightly to alleviate that condition. But it will then drop again. This is repeated over and over in the calculations of the sim, but not visible in the video rendering due to being so miniscule. It is the larger value of continuous dropping of the weight that caused the upward motion.
I had actually changed the Overlap Error parameter from 0.01 mm to 0.001 mm before making the video. This was because the default value caused the sim to be a bit jerky and that change smoothed it out. But by upping it to 0.0001 and then 0.00001 the motion became less and less. Once below 0.000001 the upward motion of the sim in the second half stopped and in fact it would fall just like in the first half.
Broli may have come closest to pointing out the error early on when questioning the accuracy of the models. Fletcher helped a great deal with his annotations and analysis. The rest was ferreted out while trying to make the sim travel through a full cycle.
M.
Quote from: webby1 on August 21, 2013, 05:55:45 PM
...
I say "looks like", because it is not all hands free at the moment, ...
Hi Webby1,
So how does it look like now? :)
Gyula
Hi Webby,
could you model your build in Phun? (Algodoo, I know, but it's a terrible name)
I'm on your side, I currently think gravity-power is possible, for the following reasons:
1) I think Bessler was genuine.
2) I can't believe RAR Energia would waste $X million.
3) I think Eric Laithwaite was onto something.
4) I think the programmers of this reality put 'cheat-codes' in all sorts of places.
5) Most things we're told by the GovernmentScientistChurch is the opposite of the truth.
:)
Tim
Quote from: webby1 on August 22, 2013, 03:15:32 PM
I do not do "sim" work,, that is for others,, got to share the fun:)
Fair enough. Sims are no substitute for the real thing. :)
I read that Eric Laithwaite tried to mechanise his 'anti-gravity gyroscope' arrangement, and failed. I've wondered if it's because it requires a kind of movement that comes naturally to people, but is difficult to mechanise. When you or I lift a gyroscope, we can feel how it reacts and compensate, but to make a machine to do that - not easy.
Could you explain how your device is designed to work? What's the mechanism that should deliver the OU?
It sounds interesting. Good luck. :)
I just did a bit of research on Laithwaite, and found that he did 'crack' the gyro problem before his death, resulting in this patent for a reactionless drive:
http://www.gyroscopes.org/patents/5860317LaithwaiteDawson.pdf
'It became more exciting than ever now because I could explain the unexplainable. Gyroscopes became absolutely in accordance with Newton's laws. We were now not challenging any sacred laws at all. We were sticking strictly to the rules that everyone would approve of, but getting the same result -- a force through space without a rocket.'
'Sadly Eric Laithwaite died in 1997. His device remains in prototype form, comparable perhaps to the Wright Brother's first aircraft or Gottlieb Daimler's first automobile. '
Quote from: webby1 on August 22, 2013, 04:16:56 PM
Simms are an important tool,, if a sim can not duplicate what I am doing then I would assume that I am missing something.
I wouldnt go assuming that Webby,as sims are based around know factor's. As we are looking for the unknown,then i hardly think a sim would be able to replicate it correctly. They are a great tool,but they are not absolute-just as the laws that they are designed around are not absolute.
The only accurate measureing tool tool is an actual device and you-providing you know how to measure correctly. I know for fact that rotating wheels with specialy designed weight's,can create a force greater in one direction,than it dose in the other.This seems to circumvent the" every action has an equal reaction in the opposite direction. Every force used to project or move something in one direction,is suppose to create the same amount of force in the opposite direction.
An example-Take a boat in water,and inside that boat there is a motor that rotates wheels and weights. One would think that no uni directional motion could be achieved,but it can be.How is it that force can be greater in one direction,than the force it took to create it in the opposite direction?.
I've done a few sims in Phun and Physion. Phun, in particular, has a very good UI, BUT I've always felt they weren't very lifelike. Now I know why. I read about the 'Fifth Element' years ago, and just spent an hour re-educating myself on this excellent website:
http://www.halexandria.org/dward124.htm
Basically, sims don't include the *rate of change of acceleration* in the force model. Because mainstream physics doesn't. So they're mostly useless for OU purposes.
Davis & Stine's work is brilliant:
http://www.halexandria.org/dward138.htm
"The profound result of their analysis and supporting experimental/experiential evidence is that an oscillating force with a frequency comparable to the inverse of what Davis referred to as the Critical Action Time (and what is referred in Connective Physics as the time delay of The Fifth Element) can be applied without the resulting action/reaction force of Newton's Third Law coming into play. In effect, according to Davis, "You can get away with anything provided you don't get caught while you're doing it, and you leave the system immediately thereafter!"
Not sure it's relevant to your lever Webby, but thought I'd mention it.
So you're lifting 2600g with 1740g, both moving by 4 inches?
Sounds promising... :)
@Tim123,
A hi-speed room/box fan (preferably metal with metal blades) is great to experiment with. If there is a handle on top, raise the fan slightly off the floor and rotate. You can feel how the gyro forces redirect the fan. Try to duplicate the motion Laithwaite shows in his patent and see if you can feel the upward force (or reduction in weight).
Hi Zoelra, thanks, that's a good tip.
I'll definitely have to build a powered, high-speed gyro, just for fun. Only a couple of weeks and I'll have a functional workshop, with doors...
Laithwaites design for a reactionless drive wasn't ideal for land-based craft, but it was a good starting point. Perhaps the effect could be used to drive a 'flying car', but it may be difficult to engineer.
The 'Dean Drive' is another - it doesn't use gyros, but eccentrics:
http://www.inertialpropulsion.com/dean_drive.htm
Neither of these, however are really gravity-powered, or OU...
Gravity Can Do Work...
The only possible ways to get gravity to do work, as far as I can tell ATM, are
1) Use a 'gravity shield' - e.g. Podkletnov, Keeley(?).
2) A system of varying inertial frames / reference points. This is only a Bessler-inspired conjecture TBH. I'm sad the RAR Energia seem to have hit problems.
3) Electro-static-gravitic lift - e.g. T. Townsend Brown, 'Lifters'. I assume that this can be made OU - as it's essentially an electrostatic effect... Not sure it's strictly gravity though...
Hypothesis: How Electrostatic Drive Works
Here's a hypothesis for where the lift in (3) comes from: By biasing the natural quantum fluctuations in the material.
- Quantum transposition is constantly happening, and a strong electrostatic field affects the probabilities of where things will 're-appear'.
- Electrons (-ve) will tend to re-appear towards the +ve pole of the field, and atomic nuclei (+ve) the -ve.
- So electrons, in the course of their orbit, will tend to miss out part of the orbit where they are moving toward the -ve pole of the electrostatic field. They will 'jump' to a more 'likely' orbit. So their centrifugal force will be asymetric - i.e. toward the +ve pole.
- Electrons, could also tend to re-appear in a higher orbit (shell), which would decay - resulting in fluorescence that apparently is observed(?)
- The nucleus, would tend to appear towards the -ve pole, and would then tend to 'spring back' to the center of the atom. If this is repeated at the top of each rebound, I think it could result in a 'Dean Drive' like effect on the atom as a whole.
Just thought I'd throw that in...
The website of interest is http://www.blazelabs.com/
Unfortunately he closed the yahoo group - there were many very interesting posts there.
Quote from: mondrasek on July 20, 2013, 03:07:05 PM
Gabriele,
Sorry, but there is no doubt that the system is NOT Overunity. There is a clear source of Energy involved. That source is apparently Gravity.
I have come late to this little party but I wanted to reference the quote above.
The source of the energy was the energy that went into raising the weight in the first place. Giving it "Potential Energy"
Sorry if this has been stated already.
Continue on...
guys please have a look on this .........do you believe is this fake ?? i found it really interesting http://via-midgard.info/sokrovennaya-tajna-zhivoj-prirody-viktor_1.htm you have to translate with google translate it is damn interesting
Just thought I'd add a definition:
PABB = Parallel Arm Balance Beam = Roberval Balance
Cheers,
M.
@webby1:
Are you willing to share any photos of your build at this time? I'd like to be able to see what you are doing.
truesearch
About all I can say is "WOW" :)
I hope you get the last .25" ironed out. . .
Thanks!
truesearch
Quote from: webby1 on October 09, 2013, 07:05:52 AM
...
Looks to me right now that Variable Internal Geometry Levers may give that gravity thing a reason to be re-thunk :)
I'm willing to bet any amount you care to name that Newtonian Gravity describes this set up with sufficient accuracy. Any claim of a non-conservative result is pure wishful thinking.