.....at : www.evert.de/eft323e.htm
We can find all around us the increasing ( decreasing ) spiral trajectory , related to all kind of motions , from fractals to galaxies.
When the natural motion of energy is manifest , his path is a spiral / vortex.
Related with the subject of forum's topic , there is a simple manner to play energy : we can store the gravity fall energy ( 0*-180* ) , then to "release " it , into an upward spiral trajectory ( 181*-360* ) , alike a sling motion of a trebuchet...free gravity fall into free rotational " fall "...
Al_ex
.....at : http://energythic.com/view.php?node=197
Starting with a simple device ( sprinkler ) , then thinking about a gravity powered lever ( trebuchet ) .....due to the same Coriolis effect , but as a self-motion one...
Al_ex
Quote from: iacob alex on May 31, 2016, 03:16:39 PM
.....at : http://energythic.com/view.php?node=197 (http://energythic.com/view.php?node=197)
Starting with a simple device ( sprinkler ) , then thinking about a gravity powered lever ( trebuchet ) .....due to the same Coriolis effect , but as a self-motion one...
Take a look at : https://youtu.be/mcPs_OdQOYU (https://youtu.be/mcPs_OdQOYU)
So , the problem is to explain the working of an old and well known gravity powered simple machine ( trebuchet ) with the help of the Coriolis effect , then to use this possible "gate" for a self powered gravity device...
Al_ex
Prof. Alfred Evert likes to write books and web pages, but does not show that his "functional model" really works:
http://www.evert.de/ap0520e.pdf
http://www.evert.de/bookf.htm
It would be simple to demonstrate the thrust of this "closed cylinder with a rotor in it", but he does not care to do that. Why?
Words and drawings are cheap, but a functioning model is obviously not feasible. Every serious inventor would show a functioning model, it is the only thing that counts. Why is Evert not doing this very important step?
Greetings, Conrad
Hi !
About the feasibility of Evert's proposals there are some doubts , because a little experience often upsets a lot of ( his...) fheory.
Here , we have a "face-to-face" of the existing :
www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/helica/helica.htm (http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/helica/helica.htm)
www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/proprail/proprail.htm (http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/TRANSPORT/proprail/proprail.htm)
...with his "closed cylinder with a rotor in it".
The answer resides in the available efficiency of the comparison...or how we play the free/non-free spiral acceleration face to the same power input.
Al_ex
Quote from: iacob alex on May 31, 2016, 03:16:39 PM
.....at : http://energythic.com/view.php?node=197 (http://energythic.com/view.php?node=197)
Starting with a simple device ( sprinkler ) , then thinking about a gravity powered lever ( trebuchet ) .....due to the same Coriolis effect , but as a self-motion one...
Al_ex
Excellent article even though I could not even come close to verifying the math myself. But it definitely made me think about the braking effect of the Coriolis force within a spinning rotor with straight arms. Even more interesting is that the Coriolis braking force can be negated and can actually add energy if the rotor arms are swept backward at a certain angle. The angle is dependent on the angular velocity of the rotor.
Anyway there may be another way to negate or manipulate the coriolis force that could relate to some of the Schauberger machines. He suggested that the fluid in the rotor arms should be spiraling as it traveled radially outwards. The question is: what effect would spiraling vortex flow in his radial pipes have on the coriolis force? Would it negate the Coriolis effect somehow? Or perhaps throw the Coriolis force "out of phase"? Could this have anything to do the the claims Schauberger made about his machine producing thrust or lift if the coriolis force was re-directed perpendicular to the plane of rotation?
.....is related to the Coriolis effect , as a manner to explain the physics of rotation , at :
www.meteohistory.org/2005historyofmeteorology2/01persson.pdf
Al_ex
Boscovich "Theory of Natural Philosophy" (1763), the first unification theory, deriving all natural laws from singularity simple yet dynamically complex laws of attraction and repulsion, and consequently derived oscillatory forces, that influenced Lord Kelvin, Faraday, Maxwell, J.J. Thomson as well as Tesla, and many other researchers throughout the 18th and the 19th century in shaping their view of the force dynamics expressed the natural world:
https://archive.org/details/theoryofnaturalp00boscrich (https://archive.org/details/theoryofnaturalp00boscrich)
He was a scientist and a visionary centuries ahead of everyone else. One can easily see the atom and electron theory developed 150 years before the discovery of the electron by J.J. Thomson.