Overunity.com Archives

Now this is what anyone who has posted anything about this topic on any media gets

"I doubt that you or anyone ever has"

So my response has always been:

"Thank you!! You are exactly what I needed to prove a point.
How many people would rather be the latest in a long line of sheep to yell "You can't do that, it's impossible" because that is what the establishment has taught us through the wonderful educational system they have created, would want us to yell. This will keep the unbelievable status quo we have achieved that has worked so well for so few for so long.
Or would you rather be part of the few and be someone who believes that the future of mankind could look a bit brighter for the many and say "yeah maybe that's possible, let's see what we can do to do that" and then get your hands dirty.
I'd rather be part of the few.
So if you have nothing to add please don't.
Thanks "

But as I said I have a proven model and I will be announcing it to the world. I really do hope that this works for the many, somehow betters the world for the many, and the few don't get theirs greedy little paws on it and not share it.

Hello all, I'm Frank from Canada I am looking today to find like minded people who are interested in over unity machines. I have looked far and wide on the Internet and found so many reason why they won't work but I have yet to find any info that relates to an overunity machine I have designed. It is so simple in design that no one wants to believe me that it works. It is a simple math formula and design that reduces the input needed to rotate flywheels and/or to increase the output of flywheels. It has been built and tested my myself and my associate but since neither of us have a degree in physics, it needs to be tested and validated by someone with one. I found this website when I tried posting on a NASA site about overunity machines. I'm always looking for knowledgable people woho know a thing or two about this subject.
As a child, I thought about this long and hard how to do this. As I discussed it with many people throughout my life, I was always told "It's Impossible". So I finally built it and proved to myself it works and is "Totally Possible", all I need now is to validate my machine as it is not a theory anymore. I will be posting a copy of my machines plans in a bit, so keep watching and help with input if you can.

Best of luck with what you have.   I would strongly suggest you study well how to release such info or device so that it is not made to disappear, be stolen, bought out, threatened out of existence or otherwise pushed into oblivion.   There are some downloads here with several pages of dozens of inventors who most probably had some great devices and those papers show how everyone of them was made to go away.   Take a look at these downloads from here:
http://overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/480/

http://overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/553/

http://overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/554/

http://overunity.com/downloads/sa/view/down/555/

Yes open sourcing the plans is a good idea and since you have announced that you have such a device built it would be wise to put up the plans as soon as possible.  It might be good to upload them to a number of places.   www.energeticforum is another big energy research forum and also http://www.overunityresearch.com both have good people on those forums.   I would suggest staying anonymous for now and possibly putting a heavily encrypted message in along with your plans that would identify you as the inventor so if anyone else tries to claim it you can ask them to decrypt the message which they won't be able to do.  Things may not really need to be so cloak and dagger but such a device may draw huge attention if it truly works.   And some of that attention will try to stop it. 

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 17, 2016, 11:52:50 AM
But as I said I have a proven model and I will be announcing it to the world.

Announcing the announcement! Why not show it straight away?

Quote
So I finally built it and proved to myself it works and is "Totally Possible", all I need now is to validate my machine as it is not a theory anymore. I will be posting a copy of my machines plans in a bit, so keep watching and help with input if you can.

Well, plans are fine. Why not post measurements and the machine itself. Is a video showing the measurements to difficult to post on YouTube? It does not take a physics degree to do basic measurements. And if you show a comprehensible video of your contraption and also show in the video how you do measurements, most questions could be answered immediately. One could also give advice on how to do the measurements better.
   
We have heard enough talk in this forum. If you want to have an audience show something substantial. Show something real and spare us the talk!

If you want to keep a secret, shut up. Any idle talk (without substance) is useless for you and for us.

Greetings, Conrad

As I am a 58 yr. old gentlemen who has barely has an idea on how to follow this string of comments as it has taken 3 days to set up this conversation, I don't think I'll be encrypting anything soon. Lol. But I do think I'm ready to share so please copy and share yourself all of you so that this will get out there and change the world for the better. I am including my file on how my machine works!! So get copies of this file out there as soon as possible. Please and thanks again
Again I am proving my incompetence with computers. Lol I cannot add file from my apple crap I am logged on. I will be right back on a laptop and then will post my proven theory.
made it back and here goes
Try one more time  lol
definitely cannot encrypt anything. its taken me all day to get this far just to post this file.

Reply to Conrad: What we don't need is ignorance from people like you to mouth off. As i stated before i was posting my concept. Which, by the way, is proven, so thanks for the support.
GO EAT IT.  LOL

To all "naysayers" the problem with posting ASAP is all I have is this laptop with no "Microsoft Word" or any other programs that have the capabilities of saving a PDF or DOC or any other program that is uploadable with this site. Also my crappy IPad can not do it either. so ive spent the better part of the day just trying to get it to you guys.
Again GO EAT IT
Thanks
Frank

Reposted as PDF.

Thank you for sharing Frank.

so when I tried to log onto:
www.energeticforum
I was told site is unavailable
and then i went to the other site that i was told about and tried to log on:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=register
I tried to register to post my DOC and I got this:
An Error Has Occurred!
Sorry, registration is currently disabled.
do  you think they are onto me as soon as i posted my DOC on here?
lllllet me know if anyone has gotten a copy of it?

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 17, 2016, 04:58:43 PM
do  you think they are onto me as soon as i posted my DOC on here?
lllllet me know if anyone has gotten a copy of it?

So I just read your paper and the first thing that occurs to me is timing.  Let me explain...


If the next flywheel in the series takes 30 seconds to come up to speed, but takes 60 seconds (once disconnected) to dump its energy into a load, then you may really be on to something.  However, if the disconnected flywheel dumps it's energy into the load in only 10 seconds, then we have a problem, because we have no way to "charge" these flywheels faster than we "discharge" them.  I'm looking at all this from a power perspective, not energy.  What we are looking for is a device that requires less input power than it can deliver as output.  As has been said many times, timing is everything.

Lets play some numbers...


If you have a 1 HP motor consuming 746 watts, driving these flywheels and I add another flywheel in the sequence, lets suppose it take 60 seconds to "charge" up to full RPM.  Can I in fact now disconnect this last flywheel and drive a generator for a full one minute producing 746 watts of power?  My instinct says no--the flywheel would probably dump its energy in less than 60 seconds or it would dump less than 746 watts of power for the full 60 seconds.  I understand that when we disconnect the last flywheel we could begin "charging" another one.  I still see a hurdle I'm not clear about with your paper.  It looks to me like you have found an optimum sequence for "charging" flywheels, but I just don't see the connection to the "discharging" being able to achieve overunity.  "Power amplification" is all charge-discharge based.  Static rotation doesn't help us any as this is only energy storage, not energy transfer.

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 17, 2016, 04:58:43 PM
so when I tried to log onto:
www.energeticforum (http://www.energeticforum)
I was told site is unavailable
and then i went to the other site that i was told about and tried to log on:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=register (http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=register)
I tried to register to post my DOC and I got this:
An Error Has Occurred!
Sorry, registration is currently disabled.
do  you think they are onto me as soon as i posted my DOC on here?
lllllet me know if anyone has gotten a copy of it?

Hi Frank,

Yes your doc file can be downloaded from this site, no problem.

Regarding the other sites you mentioned, this is a working address to energeticforum, from your link above you omitted the dot(com):
http://www.energeticforum.com/register.php      To get admission needs one or two days over there.           

As far as I know presently there is no possibility to register for new members at overunitresearch.com site:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=register

Thanks for sharing your idea.

Gyula   

Quote from: gyulasun on February 17, 2016, 05:45:09 PM
As far as I know presently there is no possibility to register for new members at overunitresearch.com site:
http://www.overunityresearch.com/index.php?action=register

Yes, invitation only.

You can however register at OSE (http://open-source-energy.org) if you so desire.

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 17, 2016, 04:35:03 PM
Reply to Conrad: What we don't need is ignorance from people like you to mouth off. As i stated before i was posting my concept. Which, by the way, is proven, so thanks for the support.
GO EAT IT.  LOL

Ok, I ate your "document" and what I got is words.

Fine, you like words. I do not like words, I prefer working machines.

Well, where is the working machine putting out more energy than one puts in?

Describing a machine does not really make it do anything.

You said,  you have a proven model you built? May be there is at least a photo of this thing?

A proven model which you built has to be more than a "document", it should be something that really spins.

Sorry for being sarcastic or for mouthing off, but it was you who wrote "I have a proven model I built". So, where is the proven model?

I can understand "computer problems", so, tell as in clear words (if you can not post a photo): is there a machine that spins and where is it? Can you do a demonstration of that machine if someone comes to the place where it stands? Can somebody come to the place where the "proven model built by you" stands in order to do measurements?

Greetings, Conrad

As far as Getting the next flywheel in motion, it usually doesn't take that for one thing. And as far as i can tell that the biggest problem most people have with flywheel technology is disconnecting from motor. And if you read the whole paper, as i don't think you have because as stated in the paper, you NEVER EVER disconnect the motor from "the machine". "The Machine" will always produce more energy then you need to keep this motor Energized thus overunity. So read the complete paper and then:

Do the numbers: then please feel free to add more comments:

If you read the complete paper, you would find that what you are in fact doing is increasing the output of the combined flywheels to reach way over the requirements to keep motor energized and because
1) a motor with flywheels at full speed is not under much load.
2) flywheels rotating at full speed of the motor have approximately usually over 80% in reserved energy from getting it up to speed which is always way more than is required to get the next flywheel in motion and to full speed.
3) "The Machine" is always returning the energy required faster than you lose adding each flywheel.

Gotta love the Naysayers even on this site. Love it. LOL
ok it took better part of this day to upload the  file "Mister doesn't like to read" lol
Now i have pics and videos to upload and if you would like to come down here and help me with that, you could check out the working model and do something positive instead.
Thank you come again
Frank

Wow again stupid Apple crap!!! I am on this website (now with the laptop that i borrowed from a friend to post this and i cant find any programs Im used to) and i cannot find the "Reply" button on there and this is where all my videos and pics are. so i will be spending the next part of the day emailing myself again with all that. Have i mentioned i hate these stupid Apple products.
Pardon me for ranting but some things which might seem simple to others might not be as simple for some.
"I WILL BE BACK" as Arnold would say
Thanks for your patience
Frank

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 17, 2016, 06:51:57 PM
As far as Getting the next flywheel in motion, it usually doesn't take that for one thing. And as far as i can tell that the biggest problem most people have with flywheel technology is disconnecting from motor. And if you read the whole paper, as i don't think you have because as stated in the paper, you NEVER EVER disconnect the motor from "the machine". "The Machine" will always produce more energy then you need to keep this motor Energized thus overunity. So read the complete paper and then:

Do the numbers: then please feel free to add more comments:

If you read the complete paper, you would find that what you are in fact doing is increasing the output of the combined flywheels to reach way over the requirements to keep motor energized and because
1) a motor with flywheels at full speed is not under much load.
2) flywheels rotating at full speed of the motor have approximately usually over 80% in reserved energy from getting it up to speed which is always way more than is required to get the next flywheel in motion and to full speed.
3) "The Machine" is always returning the energy required faster than you lose adding each flywheel.

Hi Frank,

I invite you to check out my like mindedness evidenced by my website: http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/
if you have not already found it yourself.

I read your paper and completely understand what you wrote. How: because I also have already done much of what you write about, and dozens of different ways, proving out each of the underlying concepts with real "spinning devices", photo's and videos. Also design calculators for each of the different styles to automate the design process.

I would enjoy chatting privately with you.

http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/contact.html

Michael

 

QuoteI have a proven model I built. I am looking for like minded people who know more

No, you are looking for people who will agree with you, because the "people who know more" will immediately see the flaws in your "theory"... and you will immediately reject what they have to say, as you have already proven in this thread.


Yes, I downloaded and read, carefully, your document... then moved it to the Trash, because that's what it is. It's in the "not even wrong" category. You think there is some "overunity magic" in the Phi ratio... you think that you have "proven" something but you provide no measurements and of course you have nothing that runs itself without outside power.  So go ahead and continue to insult your critics, because that's the only proof of anything you'll provide, and it's clear what you are proving when you do that. EAT THAT.

If you have really wasted 10 thousand dollars on this... I'm sorry for you. Yes, you and "Temporal Visitor" should definitely get together and have lots of fun in private, proving each other right. Meanwhile... Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy are laughing at you both.

i think this is my first video i shot when i was putting it together as i cannot view MOV files with this laptop as it is not mine and Ive emailed all of them to myself from my iPad, I do not know which is which?
so enjoy

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 17, 2016, 11:27:55 PM
i think this is my first video i shot when i was putting it together as i cannot view MOV files with this laptop as it is not mine and Ive emailed all of them to myself from my iPad, I do not know which is which?
so enjoy

Converted to MP4.

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 17, 2016, 11:27:55 PM
i think this is my first video i shot when i was putting it together as i cannot view MOV files with this laptop as it is not mine and Ive emailed all of them to myself from my iPad, I do not know which is which?
so enjoy

I like the video, it proves everything I was afraid of.

I was not polite, but I should have been, because you need help.

Over and out,

Conrad

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 17, 2016, 07:52:53 PM

Meanwhile... Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy are laughing at you both.

Dearest Tinsel Koala,

It has been a while since we swapped words, seems to me we left off with you not answering the few "simple" questions I left you with. That's OK because honestly I did not expect you to know the answers.

Today you insult me and that is OK also, because it serves as proof of the self imposed limits of your mind.

You wrote: "Meanwhile... Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Energy are laughing at you both."

Now perhaps you can show off how much you know about both by applying both to: MULTIPLE OPEN SYSTEMS, ACCELERATING MATTER, FUNDAMENTAL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN MATTER IN DIFFERENT FRAMES OF REFERENCE, ON MULTIPLE PLANES, DURING INELASTIC COLLISIONS.

If that is too much work for you to do for "FREE" without getting your "consulting fee" then just explain to everyone what you "know" about how you and or your "laws" are going to inhibit Nature's manifestation of Kinetic energy in all matter in motion in accord with Ek=1/2mv2 for starters.

You just never know: I might be freindly and buy you a cheeseburger, and we both can laugh at how little we both "know" about each others WORK experience.

I dare to invite you again: http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/contact.html

Michael Frost

Quote from: Temporal Visitor on February 18, 2016, 09:52:56 AM
I dare to invite you again: http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/contact.html (http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/contact.html)

Temporal Visitor and MeGaFaRR should talk to each other about who got the strange idea first.

The contents of this page http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/evidence.html sound a lot like the "document" from MeGaFaRR.

But I think that MeGaFaRR is more of a world saviour than Temporal Visitor. Temporal Visitor just throws his "gift" at the world and does not really want to save it.

On the other hand, Temporal Visitor has a physics teacher lay vocation.

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 17, 2016, 07:10:34 PM
Wow again stupid Apple crap!!! I am on this website (now with the laptop that i borrowed from a friend to post this and i cant find any programs Im used to) and i cannot find the "Reply" button on there and this is where all my videos and pics are. so i will be spending the next part of the day emailing myself again with all that. Have i mentioned i hate these stupid Apple products.
Pardon me for ranting but some things which might seem simple to others might not be as simple for some.
"I WILL BE BACK" as Arnold would say
Thanks for your patience
Frank

Even having been a computer / network tech for a very long while I was often frustrated with Apple products and do sympathize - I agree they are crap.  You have now met the number one naysayer on overunity.com - initials TK.   While he is often right don't let it discourage you or even annoy you.   Ignore is what works best. 
Sorry I forgot they aren't taking any new registrations at overunityresearch.com.   Energeticforum.com will welcome you though.  Just make sure you get the .com after the name as gyulasun mentioned.   
So now I have one question for you and don't want to be looked on as one of the naysayers but it is important to clarify where things are at here and depending on the answer may help get a lot more positive folks in here for you.   The questions is :  Do you have a current working model that is self running or can be disconnected from the grid power and keep running?   It seems you have stated you have that and to clearly state whether this is true will likely move things in a positive direction.   If you do have such a model working then please post a picture of video if possible.   If you don't yet have that but expect to soon then that's okay with me but please clarify this for everyone here.   Thanks for all you effort in sharing this.   You appear to have some very good craftwork abilities and I wish you luck. 

Thanks for the paper and the video of the model you want to build.  Do you have a model you built because I think the only thing you have proven so far is you haven't  proven anything.

Yes many more videos are coming but it's taking me longer to put all this together and share it with everyone then it did for me to built this machine. Keep watching YouTube as I will be posting as I get this videos ready. It's very hard for me not to smash the crap out of my iPad or my friends laptop. Which is last thing I want to do

Err Frank just a quick one, whats that thing your leang against in your profile youtube picture ?

What I don't get is why there is a second thread opened on the same subject?

The first thread ended here......
http://overunity.com/16427/here-is-my-claim-to-the-prize-mother-natures-power-supply/msg474655/#msg474655

I am 58 as well, born 1958 so this is indeed a special year for us, hahahahahaha.

Look, this type of gearing is not easy. The more gears you use, the more friction you have to overcome, flywheel or not and as I said before, the gears you showed are not the best type because they are thin, the teeth get mashed up, easy to misalign, require lots of force for one gear to turn the next gear. That's why pulleys are so much better because you do not have a total of 1000 gear teeth or more chewing away at your input energy.

This again is not being critical, only based on experience and good money. hahahaha

wattsup

Yes, you may want to consider a magnetic gearing system similar to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-6nFJfjhj0

Quote from: conradelektro on February 18, 2016, 10:57:27 AM
Temporal Visitor and MeGaFaRR should talk to each other about who got the strange idea first.

The contents of this page http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/evidence.html sound a lot like the "document" from MeGaFaRR.

But I think that MeGaFaRR is more of a world saviour than Temporal Visitor. Temporal Visitor just throws his "gift" at the world and does not really want to save it.

On the other hand, Temporal Visitor has a physics teacher lay vocation.

Greetings, Conrad

Hello Conrad,
I am Michael Frost, a very much humbled servant made in the image of my Creator = not a Savior.

If you had actually read my entire website you might "know" more about me, my intent and my WORK, I.e.: from my page http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/knowledge.html

"KEY II.9 UNDERSTAND I know am merely a man like yourself and with all the same shortcomings of any man alive. Yes I claim to have some answers that can help man reshape our "energy" needs and understanding of how to access two of Natures forces in ways that are beneficial to both man and Nature Without violating any law. But I am not making any claim to be a savior of any kind nor do I pretend to be.

As such sharing beyond what I am attempting to freely share here is a task far beyond my own financial ability besides that of physically typing it all out, let alone doing the manufacture of the parts required for you. I can only offer you an honest accounting of my life's work, and the drawings of many advanced machine designs yet to be constructed and validated by yourself because these machines have never in recorded History been constructed.  They are original thought.

Like anyone else alive without some means of support and help from other men who offer to assist in whatever manner for whatever they reason they feel is the driving force in their life I and this effort to share much more of True hard learned Knowledge will fail and the warm glow of this computer with fade into the mist of Time. As always any decision to help further share in these efforts or reject them like everything in life rests with you."

So rest assured I'm not even trying to save the world. It is not my job.

Teachers typically get paid, and I don't mind WORKING FOR A LIVING, teaching what I do have knowledge about.

http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/freedom.html

From this page:  http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/energy.html

Quote
Understand this process does require a constant input of power, and its output cannot be used as the input. Don't believe - try it, you will learn something.

...

The motors do not care where electricity comes from and generators do not care where their electricity goes.

Which statement is true, first or second?

A high efficiency synchronous AC motor will run at synchronous idle speed almost for free, but when
it is slowed down it begins drawing energy from utility line. So when two flywheels are coupled they
will share the rotational momentum stored energy between themselves and the composite will slow
down below line synchronous speed. The energy shared between them will be minus any energy lost
to a friction clutch. This loss may well be very low in a magnetic clutch. But then new energy will be
needed be added to get the composite flywheel system back up to line synchronous speed of
3500RPM.  This energy is translated by the motor from utility line to mechanical energy. A one
HP motor is only a one HP motor when it is supplied with one horse power worth of load.

I notice the calculations in your paper you do not show any of this...Why would you feel this process
is overunity, if you do not show with mathematics that it is?

Quote from: Dog-One on February 19, 2016, 10:22:25 AM

Which statement is true, first or second?

They are both true.

While a motor or generator is not affected outside itself, drawing more load, or driving more input - DOES affect them
because the electricity must go THROUGH the motor or generator after it arrives or before it goes anywhere!!.

The math is equivalent (minus losses) from either perspective.

I could break this device down piece by piece and explain to this gentleman why I do not think it will work as described.
but that would take away from the learning experience of both builder and readers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@ MegaFarr

Thank you for your update and video. Looking forward to the progress on your build.

Quote from: Temporal Visitor on February 19, 2016, 09:15:11 AM
As such sharing beyond what I am attempting to freely share here is a task far beyond my own financial ability besides that of physically typing it all out, let alone doing the manufacture of the parts required for you. I can only offer you an honest accounting of my life's work, and the drawings of many advanced machine designs yet to be constructed and validated by yourself because these machines have never in recorded History been constructed.  They are original thought.

I leave you to your original thoughts. Everyone should realise by himself his own original thoughts. Your thoughts are for you not for me, I would not want to intrude.

Why do think anybody would like to build your original thoughts?

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: conradelektro on February 19, 2016, 02:18:16 PM
I leave you to your original thoughts. Everyone should realise by himself his own original thoughts. Your thoughts are for you not for me, I would not want to intrude.

Why do think anybody would like to build your original thoughts?

Greetings, Conrad

If you are being truthful: why do you then ask me for my thought while you tell everyone else what you "think"?

Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 19, 2016, 12:53:19 PM
They are both true.

While a motor or generator is not affected outside itself, drawing more load, or driving more input - DOES affect them
because the electricity must go THROUGH the motor or generator after it arrives or before it goes anywhere!!.

The math is equivalent (minus losses) from either perspective.

I could break this device down piece by piece and explain to this gentleman why I do not think it will work as described.
but that would take away from the learning experience of both builder and readers.

Nice answer, one I could add to; but would prefer to first read your breakdown and learn where to go first from there.

Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 19, 2016, 12:53:19 PM
They are both true.

Okay, that satisfies my curiosity.  What you have is a device that accumulates real power over an extended period of time and is then dumped to a load doing real work for a short period of time.  Zero sum and as Michael has stated, is not an overunity device, since it does not harness external power from the environment.  In other words, it cannot ever be a self running device.  Makes sense to me.  Not sure why anyone would get overly excited about it.

Quote from: Dog-One on February 19, 2016, 06:34:02 PM
Okay, that satisfies my curiosity.  What you have is a device that accumulates real power over an extended period of time and is then dumped to a load doing real work for a short period of time.  Zero sum and as Michael has stated, is not an overunity device, since it does not harness external power from the environment.  In other words, it cannot ever be a self running device.  Makes sense to me.  Not sure why anyone would get overly excited about it.

"does not harness external power from the environment." REALLY???: Please explain to me precisely where Kinetic energy manifests and where you suppose it comes from.

"In other words, it cannot ever be a self running device." = False assumption.

Not a false assumption at all. It's a TRUE FACT until you prove otherwise by demonstrating something built from your designs that runs itself.

Where does kinetic energy "manifest" and where does it come from? Are you kidding? It comes from your power supply and "manifests" as mass in motion. You get out what you put in, minus losses, and in your designs, the losses are massive.

What about all those motors with Flywheel and overunity claimers that WERE built, all across the world.

How does your theory explain those?

I fail to see your sincerity in trying to understand how all those BUILT motors worked.

Krstan Pejic, he has a motor that is better than yours, and built.

Quote from: ARMCORTEX on February 20, 2016, 04:00:29 AM
What about all those motors with Flywheel and overunity claimers that WERE built, all across the world.

How does your theory explain those?

I fail to see your sincerity in trying to understand how all those BUILT motors worked.

Krstan Pejic, he has a motor that is better than yours, and built.

they DId work!!!
at least until their inventors disappeared, or died of mysterious causes,
and all their friends and relatives forgot how exactly to built them....
or the oil companies bought up all the patent rights...
or the government stole them under the guise of national security...


you see,.. that's why we don't have them today......

Well i have never seen a device that works so far, seen loads of stuff with hiden wires though, and a fly wheel winds down !

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 19, 2016, 11:18:59 PM
Not a false assumption at all. It's a TRUE FACT until you prove otherwise by demonstrating something built from your designs that runs itself.

Where does kinetic energy "manifest" and where does it come from? Are you kidding? It comes from your power supply and "manifests" as mass in motion. You get out what you put in, minus losses, and in your designs, the losses are massive.

If you know an one with one does it work any better with a redesign and Neo magnets fitted ?

Quote from: AlienGrey on February 20, 2016, 01:28:30 PM
If you know any one with one does it work any better with a redesign and Neo magnets fitted ?

Historically speaking, all PM machines "will work better with the next redesign"
and "adding more powerful magnets" is always a good idea!!

A good eyed dear, what's the rest of her like, but seriously speaking you can forget over unity if it involves an electric motor because of the loses involved, people can argue all they like but that 's what i was tort and all the experiments we did on that subject were tested on the bench ant that was always supported by this rule of thought ! so count me out of this one !

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 19, 2016, 11:18:59 PM
Not a false assumption at all. It's a TRUE FACT until you prove otherwise by demonstrating something built from your designs that runs itself.

Quite to the contrary, at best it is OPINION. I chose "false assumption" for in fact such an opinion; "cannot ever be" forecloses the future (if there is going to be any) and its reality, which would require omnipotence that men do not control or possess.

"TRUE FACT"; rather redundant since a "fact" is something done, thus in "reality" and therefore true. In D-O's opinion nothing has been done, nothing can be done, nothing will be done and smells of being false or faulty logic to me.

TK you have been invited more than once, it is up to you to open the door for a look at what you have little if any knowledge of.

Quote from: TinselKoala on February 19, 2016, 11:18:59 PM
Where does kinetic energy "manifest" and where does it come from? Are you kidding? It comes from your power supply and "manifests" as mass in motion. You get out what you put in, minus losses, and in your designs, the losses are massive.

No not kidding at all.

"It comes from your power supply" = fair enough to be considered correct although so generic that it could mean something entirely different from what "in reality" is the power supply actually used in each of the different BUILDS and designs already in existence is.

"and "manifests" as mass in motion." = Perhaps at relativistic velocities but unimportant and not measurable to be significant to the ordinary Joe who simply needs juice of his own making. Unimportant because ALL MATTER has mass whether at rest or in motion. Matter is a physical object, mass is a property of Matter. Kinetic energy manifests WITHIN THE MATTER ITSELF.

We are back to my simple question directly to you that remains unanswered: Are you able to explain how or what you can do to inhibit Nature from manifesting its Kinetic energy within ALL Matter in motion? (I know of at least 2 that are undeniable)

"You get what you put in, minus losses" = True, and in ways you have yet to learn, or not.

Over efficient designs eliminate losses.

Quote from: Temporal Visitor on February 21, 2016, 08:50:32 AM
"TRUE FACT"; rather redundant since a "fact" is something done, thus in "reality" and therefore true. In D-O's opinion nothing has been done, nothing can be done, nothing will be done and smells of being false or faulty logic to me.

I'd prefer if you let me speak for myself.

What I concluded from reading your material doesn't align with what I'm looking for.  Though a struggle, I did actually read the material and attempted to digest the meaning.  With what appeared to me to be contradictory statements, metaphysical claims and a lot of dancing around the core technology, I concluded my efforts would be better spent on my current project, which in order to work, MUST harness an untapped oscillatory power source directly from the environment.  If my current project results in a successful implementation, the device will indeed be self running, since it will have no other power source connected to it.  And I will not have to make any claims whatsoever.  All I will need to do is publish the complete list of parts and assembly instructions, which no one will ever see until I have successfully done this multiple times with identical results.

The fact of the matter is this:  If you do have a working technology, you should know this to be true by having multiple functioning prototypes.  I was unable to discern this from your website.  I saw design and calculations, but no videos of actual working models; no testimonials of others that have replicated any such models.  So when you post to a thread titled, "I have a proven model I built", I would assume you not only engineered this device on paper, but actually built it, followed by the necessary legwork to have it proven.  If the evidence of all this exists, I did not see it.

In any event, I wish you luck.  I haven't the time or resources to assist you in your endeavor.  There was a possibility of adjusting my priorities provided you had clearly demonstrated what you state to be true.  I cannot concur with your assessment and therefore leave you to make improvements to a point where I can unquestionably see an obtainable objective.

Quote from: Dog-One on February 21, 2016, 09:26:00 AM
I'd prefer if you let me speak for myself.

What I concluded from reading your material doesn't align with what I'm looking for.  Though a struggle, I did actually read the material and attempted to digest the meaning.  With what appeared to me to be contradictory statements, metaphysical claims and a lot of dancing around the core technology, I concluded my efforts would be better spent on my current project, which in order to work, MUST harness an untapped oscillatory power source directly from the environment.  If my current project results in a successful implementation, the device will indeed be self running, since it will have no other power source connected to it.  And I will not have to make any claims whatsoever.  All I will need to do is publish the complete list of parts and assembly instructions, which no one will ever see until I have successfully done this multiple times with identical results.

The fact of the matter is this:  If you do have a working technology, you should know this to be true by having multiple functioning prototypes.  I was unable to discern this from your website.  I saw design and calculations, but no videos of actual working models; no testimonials of others that have replicated any such models.  So when you post to a thread titled, "I have a proven model I built", I would assume you not only engineered this device on paper, but actually built it, followed by the necessary legwork to have it proven.  If the evidence of all this exists, I did not see it.

In any event, I wish you luck.  I haven't the time or resources to assist you in your endeavor.  There was a possibility of adjusting my priorities provided you had clearly demonstrated what you state to be true.  I cannot concur with your assessment and therefore leave you to make improvements to a point where I can unquestionably see an obtainable objective.

Hello,

Thanks for your reply and please know that I would not dream of speaking for you.

Additionally so there is no confusion; I hope you know the machine, design, engineering and pdf. writing describing it of this thread are not mine.

The http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/ website is mine and surely does not please everyone which is fine with me.

On that website there is a path to make "contact" to learn more about my work, work that is not on it, and is not a give away.

Those that make "contact" and survive long enough to get to "know" me somewhat more, often get much more of what you wrote of and seemingly expect to be provided as "improvement to a point where I (you) can unquestionably see an obtainable objective".

You are welcome to visit, and surely free to continue looking for whatever may please you.

So for all you naysayers. Thank you very much for all the input. Lol whatever it may be. Most naysayers have no more to back their statements than what is our exceptional education system has taught them. Mostly to say "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" instead actually going out and experimenting on their own. Now most of what is taught is correct except for the ideas that would help change the world for the better. And take away any original thoughts that would go against the establishment that has the consumerism of fossil fuel in mind.

For all the others who have positive and helpful comments. Thank you very much. I as always appreciate intellectual conversations to inspire, learn and/or teach others. There are few such as Temporal Visitor, who actually have challenged the establishment education that has taught us so well. It seems the only ones who have positive and helpful suggestions are these same people who actually have built and tested their own equipment and have found that not all that we know and have been taught is correct.

http://youtu.be/KL_ZSrQ5Hf4

Mr Frank, did you use to be a tram driver in a past life by any chance ?  ;)  any way can't you simply run it up slowly  a variable power supply or light / motor dimming circuit just to test it ?

Its not that we are naysayers, its just that your theory is not actually the real reason why these devices work, because all these people have devices, that work, that cost alot of money to build, and that are built, and they are saying that they work, they have patents, and they got offered alot of money already, and they are not at all like the way you want to build yours. You dont know how these work, and you have built nothing.

Not only that, those look far cheaper to build vs yours, wich is unrealistic and not built. Why would we listen to you anyways ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s86kfABdcY4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr67j71NSsQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkbeTlqlLr4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEJsXRS4Wnw&list=PLCHkhwd8h-Hsa73yj3YJpZpCWnfAftI6x

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awOHkxfsxCQ

To :ARMCORTEZ again wow.
1st video you show has no English and lots of clicking noises couldn't watch it to the end.
2nd video ya about $200,000 to build nothing but music to explain.  Lol
3rd video: once again, lots of music lots of components that prove nothing at all.
4th one: again, why don't you come over and translate to English the I'll explain to you in English why that doesn't work either and the same time you could see a proven working model that does work.
If they work and are so cheap to build, why are we not lining up to buy em. You should be first. If you BELIEVE.

http://youtu.be/16B2dpMNV7c

Now for all you naysayers, here's it working exactly as I said.
Now tomorrow I will give you some physics lessons that I learned as a child that surpasses the lessons you have learned and continue to try to convince others that you are right and "YOU CAN'T DO THAT" mentality. They are simple and prove my concept right and the teachings wrong.
Enjoy


http://youtu.be/e1a2gGSAztI

Oh by the way. How many seconds does it take to get the rpm's up to speed of the motor and flywheels? Lol. Not minutes as some have suggested, those who don't understand some physics, just mere seconds. And if I were to add more flywheels as in my paper it won't take too much longer. It's a matter of timing.

Watch this !   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNAdMEfcJOM

To : AlienGrey now I've seen about 200 of thes YouTube videos with wires and little flywheels with magnets. The host connecting this and that to batteries. I have no idea what it's suppose to prove
My machine only proves my concept that "I CAN REDUCE THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO ROTATE A FLYWHEEL TO FULL SPEED OR BEYOUND OF ANY POWER UNIT AND/OR INCREASE THE OUTPUT OF STORED ENERGY IN A SET OF FLYWHEELS" done.

http://youtu.be/e1a2gGSAztI

Those are not bad videos.

There is some videos where the Flywheel is accelerated in 5 seconds.

How do you explain this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoyDX0A02gw

Not bad videos, thanks.

To: ARMCORTEZ
I don't really understand the point of this video. I'm not suggesting that my machine is any faster anyone else. All I'm stating is that with my formula and system, I can get more stored energy out of flywheel system than any other. As you can see I my videos that I cannot start the set of flywheels without it in place. But once attached the 1 hp motor has no problem getting the whole set of flywheels up to speed. THUS INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF STORED ENERGY A 1 hp motor can produce. As of yet no one has produced any evidence that my concept doesn't work. The statements that have been produced so far has nothing to do with my claims.

http://youtu.be/e1a2gGSAztI

 "My machine only proves my concept that "I CAN REDUCE THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO ROTATE A FLYWHEEL TO FULL SPEED OR BEYOUND OF ANY POWER UNIT AND/OR INCREASE THE OUTPUT OF STORED ENERGY IN A SET OF FLYWHEELS" done."
Without measuring, how does it prove anything?

To:  memoryman
You are more than welcome to come over with your tape measure. If I cannot start a set of flywheels that weigh 270 lbs to rotate with a 1 hp motor, but when I use my system then I can. If that's not measurements than bring your tape measure. Ok

http://youtu.be/e1a2gGSAztI

http://youtu.be/16B2dpMNV7c

http://youtu.be/KL_ZSrQ5Hf4

How interesting to use a tape measure for measuring energy...

Well then bring a bucket of energy and we'll compare yours to mine and we'll see who has more energy?

If this is humour or sarcasm, it seems to contrary to your intent on the subject.
If it is serious, it deserves no reply. Which is it?

This guy has same sort of an idea  Watch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgk0HfXhU9M

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 21, 2016, 07:07:51 PM
Well then bring a bucket of energy and we'll compare yours to mine and we'll see who has more energy?

Come on Frank, loop that puppy.  You're keeping us in suspense.

To: AlienGrey
Yes it might be similar to my machine but I have no way of knowing as they don't really explain anything in that video how it would work. But you have to love the fact that they get an expert on this that says "THAT WONT WORK". Lol neither do the government officials know either but they are fine with rejecting his claims because that's what they've all been train to do. GOOD BOYS. Pat pat. So ya I admire the gentleman in this video way more than the so called expert and the government officials.

Sorry memoryman:
If you don't know the difference between sarcasm and humor. I'm not sure I could really help you
Have a great day

I have talked before about disconnecting the Power source before, thanks you for bringing interesting ideas forward.

Do you think your system could be maintained by powerul Impulses once it reaches higher speeds even if there was massive OU drag?

Do you think the clutch effect could somehow be emulated by purpously bad belt effects?

If adding the generator, try modifying the alternator windings, some hearsay that Krstan Pejic does this. This comes from a source who went there to see the man.

But for now, lets talk about your idea, perhaps these are totally unrelated inventions.

The real question, and where you should be concentrating your efforts is in the followeing scenario. With your apparatus, once brought up to speed, and impulses of input power + input loss, will you be able to continuously feed greater power loss on the generator side.

Now you have no rate of loss, as memoryman has said.

You have yet to prove a magic effect, I dont think endless chain of weights is attractive solution? How big do you wish to make this.

I am going to pose a series of redundant questions, the answers to which, will define everything you think you understand.

What is energy?
What is momentum?
What is kinetic energy?

What is the kinetic energy of a particle that has no Mass?
What is its' Momentum?

and Why?

Let us take the basic example of a Photon.

We can create photons, measure their "energy", send them along a trajectory, and measure both their kinetic energy (impact),
and momentum (induction).
these particles have no mass.

Take a good look at the questions stated above, and YOUR OWN answers to them.

And try to answer the question "why?"

Where from, does this massless particle obtain its' momentum?

How does something with no mass, have kinetic energy while in motion, that is different from its' kinetic energy while stationary?
What does this information do to your "equations"?
Are they still "equivalent"?

fell free to keep this moment of self-awareness private, or share if you are duly inclined.
These questions are completely rhetorical, and intended for personal enlightenment.

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 21, 2016, 07:07:51 PM
Well then bring a bucket of energy and we'll compare yours to mine and we'll see who has more energy?

you do understand that a simple "worm-gear" will do this, without all the extra losses, right?
you are complicating the situation, for no reason...

Test it out, compare "your system" to a worm gear of the same diameter as your output,
geared to the same RPM as your output.

using the same drive motor, determine which operates "better".

It seems that MeGaFaRR  has a lack of understanding about torque/force power, energy and work. They are related but not the same. Either self-looping or a thorough measurement of input/out energy will prove something; not eyeballing.

Quote from: memoryman on February 22, 2016, 10:50:17 AM
It seems that MeGaFaRR  has a lack of understanding about torque/force power, energy and work. They are related but not the same. Either self-looping or a thorough measurement of input/out energy will prove something; not eyeballing.

To memoryman:
Do tell me then: Does a 2000 lbs. flywheel rotating at 3500 rpm's have more stored energy than a 1 lbs. flywheel rotating at 3500 rpm's?

kinetic energy is calculated by k.e.=m x V^2. Where did that energy come from?

Quote from: memoryman on February 22, 2016, 11:15:35 AM
kinetic energy is calculated by k.e.=m x V^2. Where did that energy come from?

Exactly, where as most of my stored energy comes from the stored energy already in the system, then as I add flywheels with clutches and and motor already rotating to the total, then I am not using just the input from the power source, I am using both. I am using the stored energy already there and I add approximately 60% of the total flywheels to the total. Thus keeping the energy required from power source input to a minimum. So in conclusion again:

Which has more stored energy in a 2000 lbs flywheel rotating at 3500 lbs.?

1) A flywheel that requires 30 hp motor to get it up and running to speed (1 minute)

2) or with my system in place with 1 hp motor (1 minute)

Again same stored energy but which system used more energy to get it to full rpm's?

So again as I have claimed that "MY SYSTEM ALLOWS YOU TO REDUCE THE INPUT REQUIRED FROM A POWER SOURCE TO GET A FULL SET OF FLYWHEELS TO FULL RPMS OF THIS POWER SOURCE AND/OR TO INCREASE THE STORED ENERGY OUTPUT FROM THE FULL SET OF FLYWHEELS."
So no matter what size input you start with as long as this power source can start the set of maybe 5 flywheels ( again sized to correspond with size of input power source) and then add as many sets of flywheels you want, it will always be enough to do what I claim.

I'm not the physicist or mathematician to tell me when my system will run into a problem with drag and resistance but I've proven that I could add way more flywhee to it, to gain a lot more stored energy.

I really appreciate all the comments lately, they have been rather enjoyable to help this discussion along as opposed to the naysayer comments that appeared at the beginning of my thread. As I said I really enjoy positive criticism, and thank you for making my poor little, frazzled and aged brain do some work. Hopefully we can all get along. Lol

@MeGaFarr and all flywheel lovers:

Look at these flywheel energy storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage) and you will understand better, what can be done with a fly wheel.

Quote
Energy storage efficiency: Flywheel energy storage systems using mechanical bearings can lose 20% to 50% of their energy in two hours. Much of the friction responsible for this energy loss results from the flywheel changing orientation due to the rotation of the earth (an effect similar to that shown by a Foucault pendulum (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foucault_pendulum)). This change in orientation is resisted by the gyroscopic forces exerted by the flywheel's angular momentum, thus exerting a force against the mechanical bearings. This force increases friction. This can be avoided by aligning the flywheel's axis of rotation parallel to that of the earth's axis of rotation.
Conversely, flywheels with magnetic bearings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_bearings) and high vacuum can maintain 97% mechanical efficiency (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_efficiency), and 85% round trip efficiency.

Remark: energy storage efficiency does not take into account the losses in the electric motor (about 60% to 80% efficiency) and the losses in the electric generator (also 60% to 80% efficiency).

One can put energy in a fly wheel by spinning it up e.g. with an electric motor. This takes time T1 and energy E1.

Then one can take out energy from a fly wheel by driving e.g. an electric generator, lets say we take out energy E2 for time T2.

Without losses we get T1 x E1 = T2 X E2.

But because we have losses (friction, losses in the electric motor, losses in the electric generator) we get T1 x E1 > T2 X E2 (less can come out as one has put in).

It is true that it takes little energy to keep the fly wheel running at a constant speed once it has reached that speed. But this is also a loss, because this "maintaining energy" can not be recovered.

In simple words: in the ideal case as much energy as is stored in the fly wheel can be recuperated. In the real case much less can be recuperated (because of losses).

I think that the mental error the fly wheel lovers are doing is the following:

Because it takes little energy to maintain the speed of a fly wheel (with no load on the fly wheel) they think, that this remains the case once a load is put on the fly wheel.

Greetings, Conrad

Quote from: conradelektro on February 22, 2016, 02:29:26 PM
I think that the mental error the fly wheel lovers are doing is the following:

So far, I don't see that Frank has any intention of taking energy back out.  He just likes spinning wheels.  ah hum.   :D

MeGaFaRR, your flywheels (number and size/mass don't matter) start with zero energy (stopped).
They get energy by being rotated. They don't GAIN energy anywhere, they don't create energy, they don't multiply energy. Why do you think that they have more energy coming out than was input? Where would that happen?

Quote from: memoryman on February 22, 2016, 11:15:35 AM
kinetic energy is calculated by k.e.=m x V^2. Where did that energy come from?

Quote from: WickiKinetic energy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Kinetic energy

Ek = ½mv2

In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion.[1] It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a body of a given mass from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body in decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.

In classical mechanics, the kinetic energy of a non-rotating object of mass m traveling at a speed v is \begin{smallmatrix} \frac{1}{2}mv^2 \end{smallmatrix} .

You are wery velcome
CANGAS 207

CANGAS, the question was addressed to MeGaFaRR. I wanted HIM to answer.

memoryman, MY question was for YOU. You left out the 1/2 that is supposed to be in front of the m. I wanted YOU to tell ME and HIM why it is a crucial component of the kinetic energy formula.


many tanks
CANGAS 208

Quote from: memoryman on February 21, 2016, 06:14:41 PM
"My machine only proves my concept that "I CAN REDUCE THE ENERGY REQUIRED TO ROTATE A FLYWHEEL TO FULL SPEED OR BEYOUND OF ANY POWER UNIT AND/OR INCREASE THE OUTPUT OF STORED ENERGY IN A SET OF FLYWHEELS" done."
Without measuring, how does it prove anything?

without measuring, it proves nothing at all.
But when we DO measure, what do we find?
I will not charge you to being honest, or accuse you of falsehood.
For these things are irrelevant, and will present themselves soon, irrespective of my personal opinion of you.

"done" ? what exactly did you "do"?
Understand there is a difference in "energy" and torque.
a difference between torque and RPM
a difference between RPM and radius.
what is "energy" when compared to radius, RPM and torque?

here is your "done" with 4 times the efficiency if the machine YOU describe.
STILL not "overunity". But considerably more torque, per radii.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvz9A0c_HeQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvz9A0c_HeQ)

Quote from: CANGAS on February 22, 2016, 11:33:02 PM
memoryman, MY question was for YOU. You left out the 1/2 that is supposed to be in front of the m. I wanted YOU to tell ME and HIM why it is a crucial component of the kinetic energy formula.


many tanks
CANGAS 208

reading his post, it may have been an unintentional disclusion.
While this does make a mess of the mathematics, I believe your question was "why" it is a crucial component.

If I may, attempt to answer that by stating that is equally as crucial as the ^2 component it refers to.
You see, there is a function here not fully described  by theory.
Theory says it is the square root of the square, which does not work out in the math.
therefore, to more closely estimate the answer to the actual measurements, one half of the square is taken to be the "value".

What does that do, mathematically speaking ?

2^2 = 4, 1/2 of 4 = 2
2^2 = 4;  (sqrt)4 = 2
ok....

3^2 = 9, 1/2 of 9 = 4.5
3^2 = 9; (sqrt)9 = 3
see the difference?

the real question is not the importance of the 1/2.
but "why" it differs from the square root of the square.
[1/2(x^2)] vs [(X^2)^(1/2)]

I do not like to make assumptions when it comes to other peoples perspectives.
However, I envision, that by the way your question was asked,
that you do not see this from the perspective which is required to receive your answer.

The answer lies in a fudge factor, that pertains to gravity.
not "every" gravity, but that which applies specifically to an average value encountered here on earth.

It is, simply put, the difference between E = MC^2
                                                    and E = 1/2(MC^2)
and pertains to a fudge factor, of unknown derrivitave, that differentiates a mass from its' momentum.
This is a quantity of earth's gravity, and varies slightly from the constant derived in gravitational fields of lesser or greater value.
such as that of our moon, or the planet Jupiter. [moon; Ke= 1/3(Mv^2) and Jupiter Ke=159(Mv^2)]

mathematically, it is equivalent, per unit mass, to the 'missing' mass of a photon of known energy, as derived from its' momentum.
or that of the difference between the mass of a gluon, and the "expected value" of the mass of its' associated hadron.

This is an incompleteness in our physics, which should someday be described as E=(Mc^2 - some yet unexplained value) instead of the "1/2" currently assumed.

And although your question was probably intended to point out someones mistake, or mistyping,
It is more relevant to our field of research than you probably understand.

A frictional clutch is only 50% energy efficient while engaging and transferring energy from one flywheel to another.

To transfer the angular momentum from one flywheel to another, with minimal losses, a torsional spring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_spring) must be used

Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 23, 2016, 01:16:02 AM
without measuring, it proves nothing at all.
But when we DO measure, what do we find?
I will not charge you to being honest, or accuse you of falsehood.
For these things are irrelevant, and will present themselves soon, irrespective of my personal opinion of you.

"done" ? what exactly did you "do"?
Understand there is a difference in "energy" and torque.
a difference between torque and RPM
a difference between RPM and radius.
what is "energy" when compared to radius, RPM and torque?

here is your "done" with 4 times the efficiency if the machine YOU describe.
STILL not "overunity". But considerably more torque, per radii.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvz9A0c_HeQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvz9A0c_HeQ)

Hp=torque X rpm's
Does a bigger flywheel at same rpm's have more torque?

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 23, 2016, 12:48:55 PM
Hp=torque X rpm's
Does a bigger flywheel at same rpm's have more torque?

Thanks verpies
If I could afford it I would have used a lot more efficient and useful equipment to prove my concept but I couldn't. I understand the helpful hint and appreciate it but I'm not in the position to do that at the moment. Now I have an associate in China that has read my paper and is not wearing any kind of physics blinders, that is in the process of using my theory to build a machine like I have. But I do believe he has way more resources than I do and he is following this thread so any useful hints he can use will be greatly appreciated.
Thanks
Frank

Well didn't they invent the rocket, perhaps they will make it into some thing called a cuckoo clock mechanism rocket powered type device and include gravity like the Ausy guy did ? who knows how far it will go ;) however joking apart their does appear to be some sort of magic attached to the spinning fly wheel.

Quote from: verpies on February 23, 2016, 02:54:43 AM
A frictional clutch is only 50% energy efficient while engaging and transferring energy from one flywheel to another.

To transfer the angular momentum from one flywheel to another, with minimal losses, a torsional spring (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torsion_spring) must be used

Well said verpies, I believe Pejic is using one of those "torsional springs", a new word to learn and a path to study.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44O3crS-B9k

Finally a bit of progress, maybe someday we will unravel the secrets of these flywheel devices.

Very enlightening thread, thanks to MegaFarr

Quote from: ARMCORTEX on February 23, 2016, 05:17:42 PM
Well said verpies, I believe Pejic is using one of those "torsional springs", a new word to learn and a path to study.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44O3crS-B9k

Finally a bit of progress, maybe someday we will unravel the secrets of these flywheel devices.

Very enlightening thread, thanks to MegaFarr

I wish I could understand what they are saying

 Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2016 7:44 PM
To: the_physicist@askthephysicist.com
Subject: New Ask the Physicist question
Email: Megafarr@hotmail.com question-

If a 5 ton flywheel was rotating at 5000 rpm,
in a vacuum with magnetic bearings, would a
1 horsepower motor be adequate to keep the
momentum going?


On Feb 12, 2016, at 11:22 AM, physicist <the_physicist@askthephysicist.com> wrote:

There is always some friction, no matter how hard you try to eliminate it.
It would seem that for vacuum and magnetic suspension that the friction would be small and 1 hp motor might very well be fine. To do better than guess, I would need a number for frictional torque.

Does everyone agree with this or is this physicist wrong?
Please do comment as to your thoughts
Frank

Does everyone agree that once the flywheel is at speed whatever the power source is, you have put in 100% of the stored energy you are going to put in? I'm not saying that's what you will get out, but no matter how long you rotate this flywheel with this power source, you will never add to stored energy?

Minde91 kindly made translation videos, please watch to the end.

He skipped the useless beginning only.

Quote from: ARMCORTEX on February 23, 2016, 06:29:09 PM
Minde91 kindly made translation videos, please watch to the end.

He skipped the useless beginning only.

Ok thank you. I did not watch for too long. My bad

Well I watched the whole thing. No English.
No translation, that was fun
http://youtu.be/44O3crS-B9k

Quote from: conradelektro on February 22, 2016, 02:29:26 PM
@MeGaFarr and all flywheel lovers:

Look at these flywheel energy storage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage) and you will understand better, what can be done with a fly wheel.

Remark: energy storage efficiency does not take into account the losses in the electric motor (about 60% to 80% efficiency) and the losses in the electric generator (also 60% to 80% efficiency).

One can put energy in a fly wheel by spinning it up e.g. with an electric motor. This takes time T1 and energy E1.

Then one can take out energy from a fly wheel by driving e.g. an electric generator, lets say we take out energy E2 for time T2.

Without losses we get T1 x E1 = T2 X E2.

But because we have losses (friction, losses in the electric motor, losses in the electric generator) we get T1 x E1 > T2 X E2 (less can come out as one has put in).

It is true that it takes little energy to keep the fly wheel running at a constant speed once it has reached that speed. But this is also a loss, because this "maintaining energy" can not be recovered.

In simple words: in the ideal case as much energy as is stored in the fly wheel can be recuperated. In the real case much less can be recuperated (because of losses).

I think that the mental error the fly wheel lovers are doing is the following:

Because it takes little energy to maintain the speed of a fly wheel (with no load on the fly wheel) they think, that this remains the case once a load is put on the fly wheel.

Greetings, Conrad

So everything I quoted in my paper is in this website. I did not change or break any of the rules described here. Please help me understand what you guys aren't seeing that I can plainly see.
Strange thing is whenever I've asked questions on this site, I never get an answer related to it.
I agree with everything on that site. F.E.S.S. Is what my whole paper is all about.

What are you saying, there is english translation on the bottom of all videos from that YT page.

Quote from: Dog-One on February 22, 2016, 02:56:15 PM
So far, I don't see that Frank has any intention of taking energy back out.  He just likes spinning wheels.  ah hum.   :D

As far as I can tell that is probably a stupid comment that is meant to be sarcastic, but like I will show you and everyone else, you are not too far off the mark. Dog-One, after a few more simple physics lessons, I learned as a child, that some of you with your physics educational blinders don't quite understand yet, I will try to help you along slowly. ok?
All I need is for some of you to answer some of my simpler questions that you have been expensively educated on. Then we will put 2 + 2 together so we can all understand.

Like I've said before I really don't appreciate naysayers comments.
If you have nothing constructive to add then please don't.

Quote from: ARMCORTEX on February 23, 2016, 10:05:01 PM
What are you saying, there is english translation on the bottom of all videos from that YT page.

I just went to YouTube again to watch it and there are no comments, nothing. Again probably because I'm using my crappy 8 yr old iPad and YouTube comes up differently then yours. I get shit like this all the time when my brothers on the phone with me and he's describing a webpage we are both looking at but I get slightly different view then his desktop with Windows

Something for you guys to watch

http://youtu.be/03uC9bhX0Rc

The Fibonacci Sequence - God's Mathematical Design of the Universe

http://youtu.be/8Vajq-UK2aE

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 23, 2016, 10:23:11 PM
As far as I can tell that is probably a stupid comment that is meant to be sarcastic, but like I will show you and everyone else, you are not too far off the mark. Dog-One, after a few more simple physics lessons, I learned as a child, that some of you with your physics educational blinders don't quite understand yet, I will try to help you along slowly. ok?
All I need is for some of you to answer some of my simpler questions that you have been expensively educated on. Then we will put 2 + 2 together so we can all understand.

Like I've said before I really don't appreciate naysayers comments.
If you have nothing constructive to add then please don't.

I apologize Frank.

I don't pretend to "know" much of anything; but there are many things I "think" work a certain way.  I would love for you to show me something where I have to re-evaluate that thinking.

I did a bunch of Internet searching based on the acronym FESS (Flywheel Energy Storage Systems).  There are devices out there that have been built with the utmost of precision with millions of dollars of engineering know-how thrown at them.  What I have yet to find is one of them that shows a method of extracting energy in excess of what has been put into it.  If you truly have a way to do this, you have my attention.  I'd love to learn something new.

My comments probably appear to you as being a naysayer; that is understandable.  They really aren't meant to be so.  They are more of a jab to push you to the next level where we can really get down to brass tacks and determine what is and what can be done.  A man needs to know his limitations; especially here in this kind of research and development.  What do you say we push the limit, learn something together and drop the bias.  So many projects I have worked on with the end result always the same, the chips have to fall where they may.  Like it or not, believe it or not, the universe will not bend to our desires, only to our creativity.

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 23, 2016, 10:00:55 PM
Please help me understand what you guys aren't seeing that I can plainly see.

Maybe the opposite is true--we see something you do not.

I see power as related to energy transfer over time.  It looks clear to me this is an immutable relationship.  More energy in less time holds an equivalence to less energy in more time.  It's a balanced equation.

Are you seeing something in the dependent and independent variables we are overlooking?

The only factor I see any hope of capitalizing on is time.  If one could extract a massive surge of energy in nearly an infinitesimally small portion of time without adversely disrupting the rotating flywheel, that's a start, but we would still have to figure out what happens when we flatten that chunk of energy out over a longer period of time and determine if it exceeds the steady-state power flow keeping the system in rotation.

Here's a little example test...

Suppose we have a big flywheel rotating and we have a setup to shear a nail in half with the stored energy.  Say a spring with some holes aligned so that when we release the lock, the nail finds the two holes and is sheared apart.  Hopefully you can picture that in your mind.

If we do this and determine the flywheel did not slow down by any measurable amount in RPM, yet the nail was cut cleanly into which would typically require considerably power to cut by some other means.  Would this tell us something?  How often could we snap nails in half?  How much power would this appear to consume yet we see no noticeable speed reduction in the flywheel's rotation?  Does the power consumed to snap these nails, when all added up, exceed that of the prime mover keeping the system up to speed?

Just some thoughts to consider.

To Dog-One:
Thank you for the note, I appreciate all the help I can get. You are most gracious in your apology. With that being said, I think we all deserve a pat on the back for continuing to try and solve overunity together. It is what this planet needs from us if we want to continue to survive on this Mother Earth.

To all my friends, family and others:
Again I could not sleep, I haven't slept since I started this project, the beginning of December. Last night while not sleeping, lol, I had a revalation. Everything that I've done on my project up till now has been done in other forms. Everything I tried to described to all of you has been around for a century. The fact that this is so simple will probably make you all sick that you haven't thought of it yet. There is no way in the world that this announcement today can be denounced. I have pretty well described it in my paper, in the paragraph "A Perfect Analogy".

Does a car at 100 mph have more momentum, kinetic energy or whatever you want to call it, lol, than the same car at 10 mph? So how do you get it there? Shift gears. This is what I've been trying to describe and prove with my concept only its already way easier and simpler than I thought. Just like a car that has way more drag, resistance or whatever you want to call it, lol, a flywheel with power source and a automatic transmission is all anyone will ever need to increase the output of that flywheel. Again this is what I've been trying to describe all along, once you get the flywheel rotating with the power source, you use the momentum, power source and transmission to shift gears to next gear. Just like a car, once you get that momentum going there is no stopping it, not without good brakes anyways. Again just like a car, once you get that rolling and shifting gears you'll have more than enough to power a generator to energize your power source.

Now if there is anyway that all the physicists, mathematicians or self proclaimed genius can disprove this theory here, let be known that I, Frank Dufault, will argue with them till I am blue in the face and die. Lol

Hi Frank,

I don't consider myself a naysayer as I am actively pursuing OU myself.  However until you connect some kind of load to your machine and actually take some measurements of the input and output power all we have is a bunch of words making claims.  I don't mean to offend you and I certainly appreciate the time and money you obviously have spent building your very nice looking machine.  But it is time to show more than words.  Please connect it to a load and show what it can do.  The easiest way to do this would be to connect it to a generator and then measure how much power you can draw from the generator while measuring the power going to the motor driving your machine.  Pretty simple and if it works then you have proof for all the naysayers.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 23, 2016, 11:15:29 PM
The Fibonacci Sequence - God's Mathematical Design of the Universe

http://youtu.be/8Vajq-UK2aE

Watched and enjoyed both videos, picked up on a few things I was not aware of several years ago when I was looking at/for the effect of "The golden ratio" in/on my work, so thanks for sharing them.

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 24, 2016, 06:53:54 AM
To Dog-One:
Thank you for the note, I appreciate all the help I can get. You are most gracious in your apology. With that being said, I think we all deserve a pat on the back for continuing to try and solve overunity together. It is what this planet needs from us if we want to continue to survive on this Mother Earth.

Your enthusiasm is infectious Frank.  I too have been thinking about this even though I'm trying to concentrate on another project.

Got an idea how to completely eliminate the clutch...

Radius.

We need a mechanism having bars of mass that are held close-in to the shaft.  These bars would be pinned on one end and attached to serious heavy springs on the other end--maybe even some sort of hydraulic dampener.  As RPM increases, the centrifugal force causes the unpinned end of the heavy masses to begin to swing outward from the shaft.  The springs/dampener need to be calibrated in such a way where the RPM is controlled so the mass doesn't just swing out too rapidly decreasing the flywheel RPM.  What we want is a nice smooth expansion of the masses outward while RPM is increasing.  I'm sure if we ran the numbers through some force equations we could determine the proper size springs for the mass they will be supporting.

Hopefully you can picture in your mind what I'm talking about.  Think of the spinning ballerina when she drops or raises her arms.

The interesting side effect we would see with such a mechanism is that when RPM is reduced, the springs would pull the masses back in creating a feedback that would speed the rotation back up without any help from the prime mover.  You would end up with a self recovering flywheel that within a particular range would always attempt to hold the same RPM.

What's ya think 'bout that?

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 24, 2016, 06:53:54 AM
Again just like a car, once you get that rolling and shifting gears you'll have more than enough to power a generator to energize your power source.
Now if there is anyway that all the physicists, mathematicians or self proclaimed genius can disprove this theory here, let be known that I, Frank Dufault, will argue with them till I am blue in the face and die. Lol

Hi MeGaFarr. It is not really up to others to disprove your contention, especially when you make it clear that
you will not accept anything anyone, including physicists, have to say about the matter. :)

Since you insist, that when using your setup, that once the flywheel is up to full rotational speed it will have
more than enough mechanical energy to continue to drive its own power source from that point on,
why don't you simply connect in an efficient electric generator/alternator to a sprocket/pulley setup on the flywheel
shaft and use the electric power generated to power the electric drive motor, once the flywheel is up to full speed?
There are probably people here who can recommend a suitable electric generator to use for such a test, and who can
probably give you some instructions on how to wire it in and test if you need assistance with doing that.

There are some other people around the world who have already built similar flywheel setups, and a few also claim that
such a flywheel setup will be able to run itself as well. You have already built the flywheel drive part of the setup, so why
not finish the last remaining part of the setup by adding in an electric generator and an electric switch to the output
wires from the electric generator, which allows you to switch the drive motor input power wires over from the mains to the output
from the electric generator?  All you need is an electric generator that will be able to meet the AC power requirements of
the drive motor when it is driving the flywheel and electric generator. You will probably have to use a gear/pulley system to match
the flywheel shaft RPM speed to the RPM speed requirements of the electric generator, and then you will be all set to
put your ideas to a proper test.

There is a world of difference between thinking that something will work, and actually putting the idea through proper testing
to see if in fact it will work as you think it should work. Otherwise you are only just speculating, no matter how much you may
believe the setup can run itself.

All the best...

Well I skimmed through this thread.   It's kind of amusing with respect to YouTube because you can see all the other flywheel free energy plays in the YouTube related clips section, there are so many of them.  Even good old Chas Campbell made an appearance!

Alas, Frank's box o' flywheels is just your typical flywheel zero sum game.  You can only get as much out as you put in less friction.

The Cadillac solution for a single home would probably work, but of course it is simply way too expensive:  Below your basement floor a high-tech vacuum-bearing composite carbon flywheel is entombed in the ground.  Your entire roof is a solar array.  You might even have a windmill on your property.

Presumably, the energy that you can collect from solar and wind can keep your flywheel spinning such that you could power everything in your house with it, including the electric kitchen range.   If you had an extended period of weather with overcast days and no sunshine, you might have too dip into the grid once in a while.  Note however, that that might be offset by days where your flywheel is topped off such that you sell power back to the grid for a "net zero grid" usage.

It sounds wonderful, but it just costs too damn much.

MileHigh

To void and mile high:
Please go stand in front of a car that is standing still, now as the car starts moving see if you can slow it down by pushing. Probably not, but at least you could get out of the way. Now go stand in front of a car going 100 mph and show me all that friction and resistance that you are talking about. We'll then see who is right. Just as in this scenario once momentum takes over, you ain't slowly down too easy. That is the energy I'm talking about.

As far as I can see, no one in all the free energy videos on YouTube or anywhere else including all the F.E.S.S. Sites that I've been to, have ever put a transmission between the flywheel and the power source. Always been what goes in, must come out. Never seen anyone anywhere say "what goes in, hey, wait a minute, let's multiply that force with a transmission, then let's see what comes out"

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 24, 2016, 08:54:54 AM
To void and mile high:
Please go stand in front of a car that is standing still, now as the car starts moving see if you can slow it down by pushing. Probably not, but at least you could get out of the way. Now go stand in front of a car going 100 mph and show me all that friction and resistance that you are talking about. We'll then see who is right. Just as in this scenario once momentum takes over, you ain't slowly down too easy. That is the energy I'm talking about.

Hi MeGaFaRR. Your comment quoted above has absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote in my comment.
Please re-read my previous comment, and please don't confuse what I wrote with something someone else here may
have written. I stated that the only way you can truly see if your ideas that such a setup can run itself are
valid or not is to put it to a proper test. Otherwise all you have is ideas and talk.

If your purpose here is to get into hot air belief wars, then continue on as you have been doing here up till now.
If you ever want to have any hope of convincing anyone reasonable that your ideas have actual practical merit, then
simply connect an electric generator to the flywheel shaft on your contraption, and use a switch to switch the power wires from
the drive motor over from the mains to the electric generator output once the flywheel is up to full speed. You then won't have to
speculate any more. It will either work as you believe it will work, or it won't. No reasonable person will accept claims such as yours
without some hard proof as demonstrated with a working prototype, which people can examine up close. All else is just more speculative
claims and chatter to add to the endless mountains of claims and chatter about such things which can be found all over the internet these days.

So, are you just here to start arguments and insinuate that anyone who doesn't blindly accept your claims is an idiot, or do you
really want to put your ideas to a proper test to see if they have any merit in reality? I have explained in this comment and my previous
comment how you can do a simple test to see how it really works. So, why are you here? To argue, or to get to the truth? If you
really are interested in the truth, then your only choice is to put your ideas to a proper test and see what the results are.
All else is just talk... Nothing more. :)

To void:
I do apologize for being snippy but what I've built is just one of many designs I've tried to complete but if you read my statement this morning that I posted, I am claiming that, that version is an old concept but still proved to me that it is right in design but antiquated in practicality.

What I have put forward is something that at this moment I cannot fund or have the ability to complete at this time.

Power unit. Then transmission. Then flywheel. With momentum you have built a F.E.S.S. that is more than adequate to power itself. I do not like arguing with anyone, I just get frustrated when I get told you are wrong when everything I've done says I'm right and no one answers the simple physics questions I put forward. To bring arguments forward about wind and solar does not have anything to do about my proposal I have put forward.

Thanks and with all regards if you want to disprove what I have just stated about my theory then by all means, do so.
Frank

Ok, I will state all the facts today that I believe to be true. Now as I post them you are more then welcome to disprove any facts I put forward but please at anytime keep them relevant to the facts being stated.
Now with my old contraption I built, I've proven that with momentum and power source at full rpm's that I can always add with clutch approximately another 60% size flywheel to flywheel that is already in motion without barely losing any momentum from power source.
If there are any comments to argue this point please state them now.
Thanks
Frank

Until you measure very carefully AND know how to interpret your measurements, you have speculation, nothing more.
Adding a transmission is nothing new and won't make a difference.
Using Phi or any other other ratio won't make a difference.
If you are not getting more energy out than in, what is the purpose of this?

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 24, 2016, 09:53:10 AM
What I have put forward is something that at this moment I cannot fund or have the ability to complete at this time.

Hi Frank. Ok, no worries. Then I guess your only option to see if your ideas will really work as you think
is if someone else is willing to build a prototype and put it to a proper test, to see if it will self run.

Some things that may interest you:

There is a guy in the USA named Jesse McQueen who filed for a patent in 2006 for a configuration in which
an electric motor drives and electric generator (without any flywheel used, I believe), and Mr. McQueen claims that
by using a modern high efficiency electric motor and a high efficiency generator, and with the proper gearing
between the motor and generator, that it will not only self run, but produce a fair bit of excess power as well.
Now just because he filed for a patent, it doesn't mean that it really works as he claims, but it does show that
Mr. McQueen was seemingly serious enough about his claims that he was willing to spend the money to
apply for a patent for his particular configuration. From what I recall, Mr. McQueen claimed in an interview that
he was working with someone from the UN in investigating his device, and I think he also said that some company
had bought the rights to his patent from him and that the company was going to develop the device. 
You can find Jesse McQueen's patent application here:
https://patents.google.com/patent/US7095126B2/en
PDF File:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/pdfs/US7095126.pdf


An electrical engineer in the UK named Harold Aspden (now passed on), claimed that he noticed in some informal tests he did with running
a machine with a spinning rotor on it, that after an initial run to bring the machine up to full speed and letting it run for a few
minutes at full speed, and then bringing the machine to a stop, that subsequent tests of bringing the machine up to full
rotational speed would take less energy consumption from the driving electric motor, than the first run.  Mr. Aspden theorized that the machine
may be drawing in energy from 'the vacuum' which was was causing this anomaly. However, Mr. Aspden apparently never followed
up on those original informal tests in which he observed the unusual effect that he reported, and so I don't know
if there are much more details about his exact setup than that available.
You can read a little about Mr. Aspden's description of the effect he claimed to have seen here:
http://www.haroldaspden.com/lectures/30.htm
If there is really something to the effect that Mr. Aspden claimed to have noticed by accident when conducting some
other tests, then it might explain how it could be possible that a motor/generator arrangement could bring
in more energy than is being supplied through the driving motor alone.

One forum member here attempted to put this concept to a test using an electric motor to drive a large flywheel, but
I don't know if Grum tested much beyond the quick test he showed in the following youtube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m85GS5APXfk

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 23, 2016, 11:15:29 PM
The Fibonacci Sequence - God's Mathematical Design of the Universe

http://youtu.be/8Vajq-UK2aE

yes now see how big a computer program would be to produce that out put for 8 bits on a stand alown micro chip !
from a look up table, unless you know how to do it with out screw up glitches  ;)

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 24, 2016, 10:13:57 AM
Ok, I will state all the facts today that I believe to be true. Now as I post them you are more then welcome to disprove any facts I put forward but please at anytime keep them relevant to the facts being stated.
Now with my old contraption I built, I've proven that with momentum and power source at full rpm's that I can always add with clutch approximately another 60% size flywheel to flywheel that is already in motion without barely losing any momentum from power source.
If there are any comments to argue this point please state them now.
Thanks
Frank

You have stated virtually NONE of the pertinent facts that are needed so as to figure out if you got more power out than power in.

Frank, you are looking like you are a joker. Or, you can't figure out what is your dream versus what is your waking reality.

If you are lucid and sincere, then give us ALL the pertinent facts we need to believe you.

Your move.


CANGAS 209

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 24, 2016, 10:13:57 AM
Ok, I will state all the facts today that I believe to be true. Now as I post them you are more then welcome to disprove any facts I put forward but please at anytime keep them relevant to the facts being stated.
Now with my old contraption I built, I've proven that with momentum and power source at full rpm's that I can always add with clutch approximately another 60% size flywheel to flywheel that is already in motion without barely losing any momentum from power source.
If there are any comments to argue this point please state them now.
Thanks
Frank

the first thing to consider is the ratio of gearing.
whether it be belt drive pulley diameter to diameter
or chain pulley diameter to diameter
gear tooth per rotation, etc.

once determining the ratio of rotation compared to the drive mechanism,
one can then determine the torque ratio available, from the prime motive force to the moved object.

from this perspective, one can determine how much energy is transferred from one wheel to the next.

this does not account for friction at the pulley bearings/bushings, or friction on the chain or gear teeth, etc.

when you state that you can "clutch to another sized gear without barely losing momentum in first flywheel"
how much momentum is actually lost? this is important, because it relates directly to the "energy" available from one flywheel to the next.

Quote from: Dog-One on February 24, 2016, 07:27:20 AM
Your enthusiasm is infectious Frank.  I too have been thinking about this even though I'm trying to concentrate on another project.

Got an idea how to completely eliminate the clutch...

Radius.

We need a mechanism having bars of mass that are held close-in to the shaft.  These bars would be pinned on one end and attached to serious heavy springs on the other end--maybe even some sort of hydraulic dampener.  As RPM increases, the centrifugal force causes the unpinned end of the heavy masses to begin to swing outward from the shaft.  The springs/dampener need to be calibrated in such a way where the RPM is controlled so the mass doesn't just swing out too rapidly decreasing the flywheel RPM.  What we want is a nice smooth expansion of the masses outward while RPM is increasing.  I'm sure if we ran the numbers through some force equations we could determine the proper size springs for the mass they will be supporting.

Hopefully you can picture in your mind what I'm talking about.  Think of the spinning ballerina when she drops or raises her arms.

The interesting side effect we would see with such a mechanism is that when RPM is reduced, the springs would pull the masses back in creating a feedback that would speed the rotation back up without any help from the prime mover.  You would end up with a self recovering flywheel that within a particular range would always attempt to hold the same RPM.

What's ya think 'bout that?

Hello again D-O,

Nice to read your idea as you are not wrong about the pulling the arms in to reduce the radius and what will happen. Unfortunately such a design quickly becomes beyond the build abilities of many people (more like most) and is loaded with moving wearing parts, giving rise to serious balancing issues, friction, windage losses and structural issues. Beyond those is the fact that (TTBOM"K") there is  no "known" way around the increased INERTIA that will rise/increase as the arms are moved out to increase the radius of variable radius flywheel which as you are probably aware requires more input FORCE/TORQUE to bring the device back up to whatever the design speed is set to be, which means more POWER is required. Not all that efficient from the beginning and certainly not "over efficient".

Essentially you have described a flyweight governor using multiple levers (lots of little parts) which will not be a practical way to go but one you can be sure of that could be demonstrated to act as a variable radius flywheel without using a clutch.

How do I "know"? = This is ancient technology. In my designs it is one of many that have been passed over for others, much more practical designs that have since already been BUILT and PROVEN to WORK. Some with clutches, some without and accomplish the ultimate goal: a practical method of generating energy. PERIOD! (:Gen-E-Sys II. - Generated ENERGY Systems)

You wrote; "What's ya think 'bout that?"

Here is what I think, it is pleasing to read that (a) you could visualize what you have, (b) shared your thoughts, and (c) might even be infected. (d) It is a great starting point, a step in the right direction on a long journey to discover what "energy" truly is and is not "in reality".

I ask: Wanna learn about doing far better using a one piece part? : a Lever of the Fourth Class.
http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/contact.html

Quote from: Temporal Visitor on February 25, 2016, 07:39:24 AM
Hello again D-O,



Here is what I think, it is pleasing to read that (a) you could visualize what you have, (b) shared your thoughts, and (c) might even be infected. (d) It is a great starting point, a step in the right direction on a long journey to discover what "energy" truly is and is not "in reality".

I ask: Wanna learn about doing far better using a one piece part? : a Lever of the Fourth Class.
http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/contact.html

What are you talking about? your link goes to a data base witch link are you talking about ?

Quote from: AlienGrey on February 25, 2016, 09:01:04 AM
What are you talking about? your link goes to a data base witch link are you talking about ?

The one provided of course to make CONTACT, if you so choose.

Quote from: Temporal Visitor on February 25, 2016, 07:39:24 AM
Hello again D-O,

I ask: Wanna learn about doing far better using a one piece part? : a Lever of the Fourth Class.
http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/contact.html

Thank you for the invitation Michael.  I will probably be making contact sometime in the foreseeable future.  Have a few rough edges to polish off first.

Quote from: Dog-One on February 25, 2016, 09:58:02 AM
Thank you for the invitation Michael.  I will probably be making contact sometime in the foreseeable future.  Have a few rough edges to polish off first.

You are most welcome to do so.

Quote from: sm0ky2 on February 25, 2016, 05:30:29 AM
the first thing to consider is the ratio of gearing.
whether it be belt drive pulley diameter to diameter
or chain pulley diameter to diameter
gear tooth per rotation, etc.

once determining the ratio of rotation compared to the drive mechanism,
one can then determine the torque ratio available, from the prime motive force to the moved object.

from this perspective, one can determine how much energy is transferred from one wheel to the next.

this does not account for friction at the pulley bearings/bushings, or friction on the chain or gear teeth, etc.

when you state that you can "clutch to another sized gear without barely losing momentum in first flywheel"
how much momentum is actually lost? this is important, because it relates directly to the "energy" available from one flywheel to the next.

Thanks for the reply sm0key2:
You are probably the first one ever to respond to any question I have put forward. I really appreciate it. Now as I have stated in my paper all flywheels and ratios are connected with (1:1 pulleys and belts when using centrifugal clutches and sprockets and chains if clutch not required). I am not ever looking for excact answers as I realize there are way too many variables in any situation put forward.
My questions are meant to be general in nature so as to get a general answer, if I did say as you quote up above that I said "gear" as opposed to "flywheel", I apologize for that, I am always trying to transfer energy from one flywheel to the next. The diameters of sprockets or pulleys are of little concern if ratio 1:1.
Thanks

Frank,   
So glad you reached out to Michael and that you are looking for like minded people that might know just a little more.  I see in your comparison to a car transmission that you are heading on the right track.  Michael's work uses transmission like qualities & setups in the most interesting of ways.  I actually visited him several months back and he has quite a progression of devices over the many years that told me he has learned a very very lot along the way and continues to perfect his designs.  I look forward to your videos and the progression you will make as things "come to mind" and the acceptance of ideas that came before you (as you come to understand them).  I call them "AH HA" moments. Keep up the good work.

Quote from: Here2njoy on February 25, 2016, 03:52:52 PM
Frank,   
So glad you reached out to Michael and that you are looking for like minded people that might know just a little more.  I see in your comparison to a car transmission that you are heading on the right track.  Michael's work uses transmission like qualities & setups in the most interesting of ways.  I actually visited him several months back and he has quite a progression of devices over the many years that told me he has learned a very very lot along the way and continues to perfect his designs.  I look forward to your videos and the progression you will make as things "come to mind" and the acceptance of ideas that came before you (as you come to understand them).  I call them "AH HA" moments. Keep up the good work.

Thank you very much for that connection, as Michael and I have spoken to each other on numerous occasions and have a lot more in common than just flywheels. This is the main reason why I started that thread just to start the conversation with like-minded people. To see how passionate people are about their knowledge and how guarded they can be. If nothing else, no matter how you get to any conversation and what you get out of it will always be what really amuses me. I love the fact that some will always be helpful, some who say nothing, some, who are there to learn, some to teach, some friendly, some not so much, but almost all will have a very deverse opinion of what is being discussed and all will take away different views of what was said.
I really appreciate all the opinions that have been posted, naysayers as well, as they are the usually the most humorous, sarcastic and enjoyable especially after I had requested that they not bother posting them. Please do continue the conversation on my behalf as I will be pursuing other problems in this wonderful world of ours that maybe "I can solve and save the world".
I bid you ADIEU
Frank

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on February 25, 2016, 11:17:57 AM
Thanks for the reply sm0key2:
You are probably the first one ever to respond to any question I have put forward. I really appreciate it. Now as I have stated in my paper all flywheels and ratios are connected with (1:1 pulleys and belts when using centrifugal clutches and sprockets and chains if clutch not required). I am not ever looking for excact answers as I realize there are way too many variables in any situation put forward.
My questions are meant to be general in nature so as to get a general answer, if I did say as you quote up above that I said "gear" as opposed to "flywheel", I apologize for that, I am always trying to transfer energy from one flywheel to the next. The diameters of sprockets or pulleys are of little concern if ratio 1:1.
Thanks

Assuming all the drive mechanisms are, as you say, 1:1 ratio - meaning system RPM is a singular value.
Then the variables of concern, are: Mass (and associated moment of inertia), and diameter of the wheels.
From these two variables alone, we can mathematically track the energy as it transfers from one wheel to the next.

Quote from: MileHigh on February 24, 2016, 08:07:05 AM
Well I skimmed through this thread.   It's kind of amusing with respect to YouTube because you can see all the other flywheel free energy plays in the YouTube related clips section, there are so many of them.  Even good old Chas Campbell made an appearance!

Alas, Frank's box o' flywheels is just your typical flywheel zero sum game.  You can only get as much out as you put in less friction.

The Cadillac solution for a single home would probably work, but of course it is simply way too expensive:  Below your basement floor a high-tech vacuum-bearing composite carbon flywheel is entombed in the ground.  Your entire roof is a solar array.  You might even have a windmill on your property.

Presumably, the energy that you can collect from solar and wind can keep your flywheel spinning such that you could power everything in your house with it, including the electric kitchen range.   If you had an extended period of weather with overcast days and no sunshine, you might have too dip into the grid once in a while.  Note however, that that might be offset by days where your flywheel is topped off such that you sell power back to the grid for a "net zero grid" usage.

It sounds wonderful, but it just costs too damn much.

MileHigh

This has to be the most ridiculous comment I've ever read. If anything proves to be overunity, then the cost would be irrelevant to anyone investing in this. Overunity would be the most precious gift anyone could produce for the world. So to say that this machine is too expensive is absolutely ridiculous.

Quote from: MeGaFaRR on March 04, 2016, 01:05:33 PM
This has to be the most ridiculous comment I've ever read. If anything proves to be overunity, then the cost would be irrelevant to anyone investing in this. Overunity would be the most precious gift anyone could produce for the world. So to say that this machine is too expensive is absolutely ridiculous.

Well to be perfectly honest (what's the mile high club about then ) nod, nod, wink, wink, know what you mean dot com ;)
anyway as I was saying 'honest' yeah, MeGaFar can you tell us where we can get the bits to play with? and is that the 70 squid motor of E-Bay you got from Germany ?

AG

Quote from: AlienGrey on March 04, 2016, 01:28:41 PM
Well to be perfectly honest (what's the mile high club about then ) nod, nod, wink, wink, know what you mean dot com ;)
anyway as I was saying 'honest' yeah, MeGaFar can you tell us where we can get the bits to play with? and is that the 70 squid motor of E-Bay you got from Germany ?

AG

To be perfectly honest, I've never gotten anything of E-Bay. But I have gotten a few things off E-Bay, but not from Germany.