Overunity.com Archives

A gravity motor that works? The following paper describes the development of the device and the rationale behind it. It has yet to be built. Will it run?

Make up your own mind.

Hans von Lieven


G’day all,

Today I want to present what I believe is the road to perpetual motion.

About two weeks ago I heard about a gravity wheel that was supposed to have run in America between 1909 and 1930.

The wheel was built by an American of German extraction who died in 1950 aged 91. By family request his name has not been made public.

He was known to have in his possession a book and a number of documents in German concerning perpetual motion. The whereabouts of these documents are unknown. Some of these documents are rumoured to have come from Bessler himself.

The wheel still exists though the control mechanism is missing. Someone nicknamed it the â€Ã...“Buzzsawâ€Ã, because the inner wheel resembles a circular saw blade. The wheel still exists though the control mechanism is missing. Someone nicknamed it the "Buzzsaw" because the inner wheel resembles a circular saw blade. This is what the recovered artifact looks like.


The description of the wheel, as well as more photographs of it, can be found at:

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:BuzzSaw_Gravity_Wheel

I recommend you read this article first to give you a clearer understanding of what follows.

I am giving you here a sequential account of my relevant posts in the Bessler Forum which you can also find at:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1164 from page 34 onwards.

It shows the development of my ideas from inspiration to my eventual conclusions.

Have fun

Hans von Lieven





Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 12:26 am    Post subject: re: new thoughts

@docfeelsgood,

G'day Doc,

I have only yesterday become aware of your wheel. It is a monumental discovery and in my view explains the missing bit of Bessler's system. I think I understand what the old man did and the rationale behind it.

I will share my thoughts on the matter freely, but before I write my thoughts up I would like to clarify a couple of things as they are crucial. Could you please confirm or elaborate on the following points.

1) the wheels fight each other

2) There must be some "slop" in the movement, too accurate a fit renders the device unworkable.

3) It has been observed that the two wheels spin in opposite directions.

Perhaps I am not putting it very well here, but you get the idea.

I applaud your generosity in sharing this with us. Thanks very much.

I don't know how you feel about this but I would like the old man to have a name. Not enough to identify him, perhaps just the Christian name he was known by or even a nickname, if he had one. I might be considered a sentimental fool for asking this, but a man of his calibre and ingenuity should at least have a name and not be thought of as an anonymous brick in a suburban wall. I think we owe him that much.

Greetings from Australia

Hans von Lieven


In a reply post I was told that the old man was known to his friends as Keenie.


Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:21 am    Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day Doc,

Thank you for your prompt answer. You needn't worry about me, controversy is not foreign to me and I can hold my own :-)

I remember reading in this thread somewhere that there was one part at least where an accurate fit was detrimental and that there had to be some movement. Am I wrong in this?

I hate having to go through all 36 pages of this thread to find the reference, if it is there. As to the counter spinning movement, I know that cannot happen. I do however have an explanation as to why someone would see this if my assumptions about the function of the wheel are right. That is why I asked, I kind of expected someone to remark on that.

Greetings from Kangarooland

BTW. Keenie is lovely. I shall refer to him from now on as "Pop Keenie" and to the wheel as "Pop Keenie's Wheel". I love it. I have a feeling the old man would have liked that too.

Hans von Lieven


Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 9:59 am    Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day Doc,

I wasn't testing your hard drive, I just wanted confirmation that I had understood it right.

As an explanation; say, you had two wheels running in the same direction, but there was a reciprocating motion between them, say over something like 15 - 20 degrees.

Seeing this running it would appear as though one wheel was running in the opposite direction at certain speeds because of a stroboscopic effect.

A bit like seeing the wheels of a stagecoach in an old western appearing to turn backwards at certain speeds.

Hans von Lieven


Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 11:26 am    Post subject: re: new thoughts

@Quartz

G'day Quartz,

I am writing up at the moment my analysis of the device and the rationale behind it. I am just clarifying a few points with Doc.

It will have to be a fairly lengthy paper so please be patient with me, it'll be a few days. There are a number of interesting things about this wheel that to my knowledge no-one has commented upon. Old Pop Keenie definitely knew what he was doing.

Hans von Lieven


Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:07 am    Post subject: re: new thoughts

G’day all,

Judging by the amount of E-mail I am receiving it would appear that I have set the cat amongst the pigeons with my statements. So, rather than completing my write-up before publication I will put my ideas forward as I am writing.

It’ll be a bit of a cliff hanger between chapters but that’s the price I’m afraid.

As some of you know I have been independently transcribing and translating Bessler’s handwritten comments in MT and comparing my work with Stewart’s.

In contrast to Bessler’s published works, MT is of an entirely different character. The manuscript is matter of fact, cold and analytical. Bessler at his best.

Rather than focussing on individual drawings I am looking at that manuscript as a whole. Starting with the simplest concepts Bessler shows in an organised and methodical manner the different approaches that have been taken to perpetual motion over a long period of time. The drawings are presented in groups, each group with a common central theme.

In other words his work is leading somewhere!

It is my contention that Bessler had meant this to be published as a complete treatise on perpetual motion. The notes themselves in my view were never meant to be published in this form. The final plates depicted Bessler’s solution. These he destroyed.

It has been my aim to take the general direction of his idea flow project it forward and hopefully arrive at Bessler’s secret in this fashion.

Bessler uses two terms that are central to the problem. I have been struggling with how best to interpret them. The terms are â€Ã...“Gewerbe punctumâ€Ã, and â€Ã...“Supperpondioâ€Ã,.

Stewart might disagree with me here but after prolonged contemplation I came to the conclusion that â€Ã...“Gewerbe punctumâ€Ã, is an old fashioned way to describe what in modern German is called â€Ã...“Drehpunktâ€Ã, ( point of rotation or pivot). â€Ã...“Supperpondioâ€Ã, is in modern German called â€Ã...“Schwerpunktâ€Ã, (literally translated heavy point, meaning centre of gravity).

Now we all know that the objective in an unbalanced wheel is to keep the centre of gravity to the left or right of the point of rotation. This is impossible to do in a closed system. That is why science says perpetual motion is impossible.

What goes up must come down, to paraphrase Newton and he is right!

Bessler knew this. He says somewhere that his system does not violate any laws of nature. Bessler was very much aware of Newton.

At this point it became clear to me that there must be a minimum of two systems battling each other for dominance. That means that they had, at least at times, to be able to act independently of each other. I set about to prove my theory and met eventually with partial success.

In an WM2D simulation I created a pendulum with an internal mechanism that re-distributed the centre of gravity relying on gravity alone. To my surprise the pendulum did a 700 degree turn from a standing start at 1 o’clock!

In other words it did almost two turns before it went haywire. Some of the forces I had unleashed prevented the interior mechanism from re-setting properly and it went apeshit after this.

Thinking I had made a major breakthrough I published the simulation some time back in Stewart’s forum.

In spite of the fact that no-one to my knowledge had ever managed to propel a pendulum 360 degrees or more from a standing start the response I received was rather disappointing. Little more than â€Ã...“interesting conceptâ€Ã,. I guess the â€Ã...“so what?â€Ã, was politely left out.

I have since tried a number of variations on the theme, each time with the same results. It seemed I had run into yet another dead end.

Three days ago I struck Pop Keenies wheel. I sat down and analysed his design. After some contemplation I saw that he had been thinking very much along the same lines and had come up with a fiendishly clever approach to the problem that left me stunned.

In spirit I saluted him as a kindred spirit with exceptional ability across the time that separates us. Perhaps you understand now why I needed a name to go with the man.

Enough of a lead up let us now have a look at Pop Keenie’s wheel

Next Chapter: Preliminary examination of Pop Keenie’s wheel.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:45 am    Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day all,

Since you are all getting impatient I have put the whole thing together in a hurry, there should be enough here to show what I am talking about.


When I first saw the wheel I did pretty much what Preston did. I made a crude model, nothing more than drawing the wheel on a sheet of paper and using 5 cent coins as â€Ã...“weightsâ€Ã, tried to picture the initial geometry of the device.

It became quite clear after some experimentation that all 12 weights were required. Theoretically it could work on 8 as 4 of the weights never go anywhere. I think they act as a kind of inertial dampener to smooth the system.

The next thing that became clear was that any transmission ratio other than 1:1was out of the question since the weights on the outer wheel cannot pass the weights on the inner wheel and the system would jam very quickly.

This created a dilemma.

If the transmission was 1:1 why was it there at all? You could just lock the wheels together with the same effect. This puzzled me until I remembered something from my childhood.

I come from a small town (6000 people) in rural Germany. It is mountainous country and the weather is often beastly.

The town had a hall where people could do indoor sports and exercise during bad weather. It was a popular spot.

One group that regularly trained there were trick cyclists. They had small bikes with a 1:1 straight transmission. No ratchet drive, you could ride these kikes backwards and forwards. I noticed that the riders were forever adjusting the tension of the chain. I asked why they did this. One of the riders showed me.

He drew a line on the floor and marked a spot on his tyre. He then put his bicycle on the line that the tyre mark was exactly above it. He mounted the bike and stood there on the pedals keeping his balance with his hands in the air. The bike did not move, only the rider did. He said the slack in the chain enabled him to keep his balance and move a little without it affecting the bike. He also said if there was too much slack it was no good either since it robbed him of complete control.

This had to be it!

The transmission in Pop Keenies wheel is simply there to restrict the relative movement between the wheels.

That still does not get us anywhere though.

Let us look at what happens when the weights transfer. In a CCW rotating system the weights transfer roughly at 11 o’clock and 5 o’clock simultaneously. (Remember Bessler saying that the weights operated in pairs?)

As the weights transfer the outer wheel gets a violent push in one direction and the inner wheel gets the same in the opposite direction. Since at this point the systems are independent they will move in opposite directions until the slack runs out at which point the forces will clash and cancel each other out. We are back to square one.

Well in Pop’s wheel not quite.

Because it is here in that tiny interval over the space of perhaps 20 degrees where he gets cagey. Remember at this point the systems are independent!

Through some sort of lever system he uses the push of the inner wheel to impart extra energy to the outer wheel so when the systems catch up there is less opposing force, since he has spent some of it, and more propelling force, since that is where it went.

A little like what Bedini is trying when he feeds spikes of back EMF into his motor.

It is my opinion that this bit extra makes all the difference and propels the system until the next weight gets into play starting the cycle afresh.

In the next chapter I will get into this in more detail and furnish some drawings, but for now you have it here in a nutshell.

Hans von Lieven


Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 1:30 am    Post subject: re: new thoughts

This is going to be a controversial essay, so get your flame throwers ready.


Bessler claimed that he had discovered what he calls his â€Ã...“motus perpetualisâ€Ã, which is commonly translated as perpetual motion. In the context of what Bessler is saying I would translate this as â€Ã...“principle of perpetual motionâ€Ã,.

Purists will balk at this, but then again, Medieval and Renaissance Latin is not exactly known for purity of language.

So what is this principle of perpetual motion that Bessler claims to have found and just how did he discover it?

What now follows is highly speculative, though plausible and logical.

It is my contention that Bessler discovered his â€Ã...“motus perpetualisâ€Ã, by observation!

We know that at some stage in his life Bessler was a soldier. I believe he discovered his principle by watching the recoil of a gun.

We also know that Bessler was the recipient of an extraordinary education, which at the time was considered second to none.

He was tutored by Christian Weise (1642-1708). Weise was an outstanding intellect in his time. His work on science, education and literature is considered of such importance that his collected works (25 volumes !) were re-published as recently as 1971!

He is almost unknown outside Germany.

Bessler’s knowledge of physics, mathematics and chemistry would have been state of the art.

Bessler was aware of two fundamental tenets of physics:

1) Energy cannot be created or destroyed, only channelled.

2) For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

[Some might argue here that the laws of conservation of energy were not formalised until about 100 years later by Helmholtz (1821-1894). This is correct, though the basic principles of conservation of energy were understood and accepted in Bessler’s time.]

Watching the recoil of a gun Bessler wondered if some of that opposing energy flow might not be diverted to contribute to movement. If that was possible here lay perpetual motion.

It is perhaps a sad comment on humanity that the only instance where this phenomenon is routinely exploited is in automatic and semi-automatic weapons where part of that energy is used to eject the spent cartridge, put another one in the breach and cock the firing mechanism.

Bessler had other ideas.

His thinking would have gone something like this:

Using the example of a gun, let us substitute the powder charge with a compressed spring, like in figure1.


Upon pulling the trigger the energy in the compressed spring gets released and the ball is ejected with force. We know this can be done.

Now we go one step further. We build a wheel that revolves around a shaft and attach a single vane to the wheel. We put our toy gun in position so that when the ball gets ejected it hits the vane and the wheel rotates., like in figure 2.


We know that the energy imparted to the wheel is not enough to re-cock the spring and put the ball back to the starting position. Because of losses in the system this is not possible. There is nothing new here.

But it does not miss the repeat cycle by much. A little more energy and you could do it. But that little bit of energy required is not there. In an ideal system without losses caused by friction, gravity etc, so science tells us, it is theoretically possible to have perpetual movement but you could not extract any energy from it.

But is this true?

Let us now consider the following scenario. The same arrangement, but this time we mount our toy cannon on a second wheel that is also capable of spinning. Like in figure 3.


When we now fire the gun both wheels spin in opposite directions with equal velocity. One wheel is driven by the impact, the other by recoil. We have just doubled our available energy output without further expenditure. More than enough combined energy to re-set the system and do some work!

So the energy is there!!!!!

The trick is to design a mechanism that takes advantage of the phenomenon. Bessler achieved just this.

This is all there is to Bessler’s secret. It is really quite simple.

He told us so!

Hans von Lieven


Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:14 am    Post subject: re: new thoughts

Thanks for your comments Fletcher, Bill and Walter,

I was in the armed forces once. I have seen guns in action. It is true that in gas re-loaders a small part of the expanding gas is diverted before the bullet leaves the muzzle. You still get massive kick back though and that does not come from the robbed gas. Similarly with cannons, have you ever seen how they jump in their mounts when they are fired?

Besides, according to Newton the energy is there. Has to be there, otherwise there could not be an equal and opposite reaction.

The question whether this energy can be tapped is perhaps still open.

Hans von Lieven


Posted: Thu Aug 28, 2008 12:16 am    Post subject: re: new thoughts

G’day all,


I know it must be frustrating and at times confusing to follow my train of thought as I struggle to come to grips with the new insights I believe I have gained, courtesy of that magnificent old man Pop Keenie.

Pop says that the wheels have to fight each other.

That means both wheels must be allowed at times to act independently.

It also means that a straight transmission of whatever ratio is out of the question. There must be a degree of movement between the wheels.

Now we know that if we let the wheels act independently without interference that these â€Ã...“punchesâ€Ã, are of equal and opposing ferocity. There is no gain here!

What follows logically from this is that we must limit the ability of one of the wheels to trade punches as it were, so that the other wheel can gain dominance. In other words we have to handicap one of the wheels.

The following design is one such approach. It is not what Pop Keenie did, though it is in the same spirit. The mechanism relies on the â€Ã...“recoil effectâ€Ã,.

The approach taken here is not my preferred option but it does illustrate in a simple and straightforward manner what I am talking about.

It is not an engineering design for a device. For instance, one would never design a ratchet drive in this way, but the way I have depicted it here shows clearly what its function is. Bearing this in mind let us now have a look at it.


Figure A shows the wheel at the point where the weights transfer. (I have left the weights out of the drawing because this is not what I am trying to show, I merely want to show the relative movement between the wheels). At this point both wheels are synchronous and move in the overall direction of travel.

Upon transfer of the weights the outer wheel receives an imbalance in favour of the direction of travel. Simultaneously the inner wheel receives an equal imbalance in the opposite direction. This is the recoil effect I have been talking about.

The inner wheel now goes retrograde.

This retrograde motion engages the ratchet.

The inner wheel now has to lift the weighted lever.

Since both systems are acting on their own, because of the play allowed by the transmission, it is able to do so. It keeps doing this until the play runs out. See Figure B.

The amount of allowable play is critical and needs yet to be determined.

Assuming that the ratio between the weighted lever and the total retrograde force is say 90:100 in favour of the inner wheel the amount of resistance to the forward motion of the outer wheel is now only 10% of what it would have been otherwise.

As the wheels synchronise again the weighted lever starts to contribute to the overall forward motion. We have turned some of the antagonistic energy flow into a contributing force until it hits the stop, disengaging the ratchet.

At this moment the full retrograde force hits again.

There is now a also a discrepancy in the spacing of the slots between wheels.

It would seem necessary to bring the new weights into play before or shortly after impact to start the cycle afresh.

At the point of writing I am still having difficulty in reconciling this new element in the equation with the overall geometry of the wheel using 12 weights.

It seems to work better with 8.

But then again, this is what Bessler said. Isn’t it?

Hans von Lieven



G’day all,

Posted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 9:21 pm    Post subject: re: new thoughts

Here is the next instalment on the progress of my ongoing research.



The more I study the geometry of Pop Keenie’s wheel The more I am in awe of how fiendishly clever the design is.

There is yet another element that has to be brought into the equation.

In any imbalanced wheel there are two points of equilibrium, one of which is stable, the other one is not. The system seeks the stable point of equilibrium; it has to move in order to do so. This is what we call propulsion.

Let me show you what I mean:





In this illustration we see two wheels. They are identical. Both wheels have two weights attached to them causing the imbalance. Wheel A is in a stable equilibrium.
The gravitational pull is to the left and to the right of the point of rotation in equal proportions. The wheel is at rest and stable. Wheel B is also at rest but it is unstable. Here we have the same gravitational pull, the forces balance each other out.

It is easy to see that the slightest amount of push will imbalance the unstable position whereas a disproportionately larger force is required to cause an imbalance in the stable position.

Since we are trying to disturb the equilibrium with as small a force as possible it is easy to see where we must hook in.

But how do you do this and where is the benefit?

I leave you to ponder this one for a bit while I am continuing with my experiments.

In spite of its seeming simplicity there are complex forces at work in Pop Keenie’s wheel which need to be brought into delicate balance. It is a tight-walk with many pitfalls which have to be overcome one by one.

After many experiments I have now resolved the overall geometry of the wheel.

At the risk of having overlooked something I am now making the following statements which I believe to be true.

The wheel is a perpetual motion machine of the first order, something which science says is impossible! I understand the physics behind it, the wheel works, must work in fact. It is self starting from ANY position. There is no violation of any laws of physics. The wheel produces work, albeit very little in the present (Pop Keenie’s) configuration. It is possible by using the same principles to build a wheel with many times the power. The only problem that remains is the configuration of the control mechanism. There are a number of ways to do this. The trick is to come up with a design that is precise, reliable and capable of receiving a lot of punishment without affecting the accuracy. This is what I am working on at present.

As the enormity of what I have discovered is starting to hit home I find myself in a quandary.

Should I publish my findings now as things stand, or do I wait until I have built it, which will be some time considering my available resources at present. Perhaps some of you might offer some suggestions here.

Hans von Lieven


Posted: Wed Sep 03, 2008 9:13 pm    Post subject: re: new thoughts

Oops Gentlemen,

It would appear I spoke a little too soon.

As a result of my latest experiments a flaw has shown up in my design that yet needs to be resolved. I don't believe at this stage that the flaw is fatal, but you never know.

There are very complex forces at work here and things aren't always what they seem. But such is the nature of development work. I'll keep you posted on my progress. The control mechanism is a real beast.

Sorry guys, but it's not as cut and dried as I thought.  >:(          At least I am honest.  :D

Wish me luck

Hans von Lieven



Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 12:37 am    Post subject: re: new thoughts

G'day Gentlemen,

Perhaps not as bad as I first thought.

It is difficult at times to balance enthusiasm with level headedness. Nevertheless I seem to be making progress again.

To give you an idea of what I am struggling with.

From what I have determined so far there must be three forces in play for the wheel to work. (Incidentally, Keely talks about this.)

These three systems must be at times allowed to act independently. During that time a re-configuration occurs that alters the overall geometry of the wheel. ie. the relationship of the three systems to each other.

This has to occur in such a fashion that the remaining forward momentum, after the three systems are locked together again, is sufficient to bring the next set of weights into play, adding to the forward momentum and keeping the wheel in motion.

One of the problems is that there is no mathematical model available that is capable of describing the system as a whole.

Sure, each independent system by itself can be calculated.

But when it comes to the overall picture mathematics as I know it is of little use.

I mean, how do you set up an equation that, when resolved, winds up with more on one side than the other without breaking every rule in the book and rendering the result meaningless?

And yet this is precisely what we are after in practice.

I am still confident that I am on the right track. The reason why I am documenting my efforts, win lose or draw, is that if anything should happen to me there will be others that are at least aware of how I am approaching the problem and hopefully learn something useful in the process.

Hans von Lieven


Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 6:32 pm    Post subject: re: new thoughts

G’day all,

Sometimes a major snag in the system is a blessing in disguise.

You see, in my design I stuck with Pop Keenie’s original configuration. The problem with this is that Pop, when he had his wheel cast, made a mistake which caused him, and me, no end of trouble.

I think that Pop in his earlier models experimented with eight weights. He then sought to make the design more powerful and added another four weights making it a total of twelve. For it to work he needed 16 slots on the inner wheel and 8 on the outer. This works fine - on paper. In practice it doesn’t, for a number of reasons.

He had to return to his eight weights to get the wheel going. This gave him eight slots in the inner wheel that had no purpose. Rather than having a new inner wheel cast he decided to use every second slot, so did I. That is when he, and I, got into strife.

Pop says that you must stop thinking of a circle as 360 degrees. It is a bit of an enigmatic way of putting it, but he is right. Pop’s circle is 337.5 degrees (for a wheel with 8 weights). This gives us a â€Ã...“Black Holeâ€Ã, of 22.5 degrees. This black hole must more or less remain in the same spot. It is an essential part of the system, go without it and it does not work. This is, in a sense, where all the action occurs.

In a wheel with eight weights, equally spaced, the distance between weights is 45 degrees. His inner wheel however had sixteen slots, which are 22.5 degrees apart. It is these unused slots that interfere with the black hole. Weights drop into slots where they are not supposed to go. Pop got his wheel running by using an elaborate system of springs and levers, even a â€Ã...“hammerâ€Ã, to force the weights into their correct spaces. This cost him energy and made the wheel unruly. I can see why people said the house shook when his wheel ran. Bessler had no such problem, or we would have heard about it.

The elimination of the superfluous slots gives a much smoother action and the extra mechanisms are not required anymore.

I am back on track, all my previous statements regarding the functioning of the wheel stand.

I will meet with Damian on Sunday and show him what I have.  All the drawings and the animation I was working on will now have to be revised. I hope I will have it finished by then.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 2:32 am    Post subject: re: new thoughts

Ralph said:

I stick to my original concept of the outside wheel with the additional leverage radius to be the driving wheel. It is obvious what the blank 22.5 degrees can accomplish, which brings me back to my very first hypothesis. The lessor number of weights and spacing allows the inner wheel to achieve an almost balanced state, as one weight leaves another is added.



G'day Ralph.

I totally agree with the above statement You are also correct in stating it is a gearing problem. Say, you allow the small wheel to go retrograde against the big wheel by 22.5 degrees and against the datum line 11.5 degrees and store that energy in for instance a spring. Getting the 11.25 degrees back is therefor not a problem the other 11.5 degrees cost. The problem is the distance between the wheels has to be restored. There is enough power to do it with since the new weights have come into play. but the small wheel has to move faster. in other words when the big wheel moves 45 degrees the small one must move 67.5 degrees. Or, while the large wheel travels 4 segments the small one must travel 6. There must be some clutch and gear system. Actually you could get a more favourable equation by adjusting the counterweight but that is not something you can forecast. I am working on worst case scenario.

It appears to me that the outer wheel must be the driver, I cannot see it working any other way.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 8:17 pm    Post subject: Re: re: new thoughts

rlortie wrote:

As for the gearing problem, I have often thought of a geared up mechanism that would catch and speed up the inner not unlike a clock escapement catching the inner wheel for so many degrees and then releasing. Quote:
while the large wheel travels 4 segments the small one must travel 6. There must be some clutch and gear system.
And here lies the crutch of the problem that requires a clutch with some type of make and break system, you cannot run the outer at four gullets with the inner running six without an eventual collision as the weights cannot pass one another under the present gullet design. It reminds me of John Collins AP where Bessler speaks of the dog reaching out to the end of his chain. Ralph


G'day Ralph,

To the first of your statements above, you are absolutely correct.

The second statement is not on the mark. There is a way to accommodate reciprocal and geared movements without the weights clashing.

I am sorry in appearing as though I am stringing you along, nothing could be further from the truth.

Truth is that I am preparing a set of drawings that describes the wheel as I see it and create an animation that shows the movement between the system and the interaction. This is a massive job.

As there are only 24 hours in the day.........  ;D

The second hurdle I have is that I see two solutions to the problem, one requiring gearing, the other one only a clutch.

Sometimes I have difficulty in keeping the two systems apart. This I believe is causing some confusion as I seem to be making contradictory statements at times. I apologise for this.

I am going as fast as I can and hopefully by next week I'll be able to present at least one of my systems in detail.

Hans von Lieven.


Posted: Fri Sep 05, 2008 10:48 pm    Post subject:

DrWhat wrote:

There were some comments by eyewitnesses that when a load was placed "on" a Bessler wheel that it did not appear to slow down. Other comments that it did. This could be due to a leverage effect of a narrow axle pulling a load. In my mind this related to the fact that as the wheel was slowed down, it was being released to some extent from the detrimental CF forces that were limiting the wheel's speed. This gave the wheel more power directed towards pulling the load (rather than fighting CF), so the slowdown of the lift was less than expected.


G'day Damian and all,

The trouble with centrifugal forces (centripetal forces for the purist) is that as the speed increases the centrifugal forces grow exponentially. Since the torque remains the same more and more energy has to be expended to keep the CF under control, which bites into the available energy resource.

It would follow from there that in a gravity wheel (assuming such a thing can be built) the speed has to be kept low to keep the CF within acceptable limits. The device must be built for torque, not for speed.

The above observations describe this phenomenon, therefore they should be regarded as authentic. Now, obviously as you increase the load you will initially make more torque available, to a point. If you then continue adding load it will slow down the device. So both observations are correct.

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Sat Sep 06, 2008 9:52 pm    Post subject: re: new thoughts


G'day Gentlemen,

I have just finished putting the final touches on my drawings and the animation is done. Now all I need to do is to write up the action of the wheel and I will be ready to present my ideas. This is the system that requires gearing. I am still working on the other version.

In a few hours I will be meeting Damian (Dr-What) and discuss the concept with him.

I am prepared to work with anyone on this, as long as I am kept out of the pissing competitions. I am an engineer, not a politician. :-)

What I will be presenting is the concept in the way a physicist might see it. There are still a number of engineering issues to be resolved, so don't expect a finished set of engineering drawings from which you can build.

Other than that everything is right on track.

Hans von Lieven


Sun Sep 07, 2008 6:51 pm    Post subject: re: new thoughts


G'day all,

Having spent a pleasant afternoon with Damian (Dr-What) and showing him my work in regard to Pop Keenie's wheel I am now working furiously to complete my presentation. Barring major annoyances I should get it finished sometime today.

Not bad going actually since I only heard about Pop's wheel on the 24th August 2008 :-)

Hans von Lieven

Posted: Sun Sep 07, 2008 11:29 pm    Post subject: re: new thoughts

G’day all,

I am publishing this paper under copyright. Feel free to use the information to build any device you wish. When it comes to commercial exploitation I reserve whatever rights are given to my by law.



Copyright Hans von Lieven 2008





The drawing shows the wheel at a time when the clutch is about to be disengaged from the 1.5 : 1 transmission (not shown for the sake of clarity) making the two wheels independent of each other.

Since the wheel will self start in any position there is no starting position as such. Nevertheless, this position is of importance. It shows the geometry that has to be restored every time the wheel travels 45 degrees. Let us call it the reference position.

So what is so special about the reference position?



The inner wheel is offset to the outer wheel by 22.5 degrees, (Figure 1) giving us a concentration of weights in roughly the 9 o’clock position and a â€Ã...“black holeâ€Ã, in roughly the 4 o’clock position.

This creates an imbalance in the wheel in favour of the direction of travel.

If we were to lock the wheels together and let them go it would move forwards until it finds its stable point of equilibrium (Figure 2) go a little further, then stop and reverse direction. Then it would go backwards and forwards for a while until eventually coming to a standstill. In relation to the reference position this gives us a forward motion under diminishing torque of some 50 degrees. This is the total amount of energy we have to play with. It is clearly insufficient to induce rotation.

What we now need to do is to introduce additional energy into the system to keep going.

But from where?

Here is where the separation of the wheels come into play.

When we consider the two wheels as independent systems a different picture emerges.



The outer wheel shows a clear bias in favour of the direction of travel. The inner wheel is biased also, but in the opposite direction.. In other words it starts spinning backwards. If we allow the inner wheel to move unchecked this energy is lost to the system.

What is now required is to store that energy somehow and feed it back into the system on a reverse vector when the time comes.

In this demonstration this is achieved with a counter weight.

Let me say here that a counterweight is not a good solution. A spring would be much better. The reason why I am using a counter weight is that it illustrates the forces at play much clearer than a spring arrangement would.

The disadvantage of a counter weight is that we can only allow it to store part of the retrograde energy since we must maintain movement in the opposite direction. A spring however could absorb and store all the available energy, minus friction losses of course.

The inner wheel is allowed to go backwards for 11.5 degrees. During that time the outer wheel moves forwards unimpeded by the same amount, gathering momentum.

The wheels must meet and lock in a position that enables the transfer of the weights.



At this point the â€Ã...“black hole has disappeared, leaving the wheels in sync.

This must be reset.

In other words the inner wheel must move faster than the outer wheel until the original relationship is restored. It requires gearing of some sort.

Most of the energy required to do so is still available to the system, partially stored in the weighted lever and partially in the increased momentum of the outer wheel. We must of course pay for the friction losses.

But what have we gained, if anything?

We have gained the torque differential between the two weights that have just transferred.

Since the transfer of the weights occurs some 30 degrees above the reference position of the top weight we have also gained 30 degrees of travel in favour of forward motion in the most advantageous spot there is.

This is more than enough to pay for the losses we have incurred and leaves something over to do work.

And this Gentlemen, unless I am severely mistaken, is the road to perpetual motion.

The rest is simply an engineering challenge.

See for yourself in the animation.

Hans von Lieven



Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:19 pm    Post subject: re: new thoughts


G’day Gentlemen,

Whilst I believe that the principles of the device as shown are sound, translating this into a working machine is quite another matter.

There are some formidable engineering problems that have to be overcome before it can function as intended.

To illustrate what I mean let me point out three areas of major concern.

1)  The weight in the 10 o’clock position of the inner wheel is a problem.




As you can see at this point the transfer gradient is very steep. Exacerbated by centrifugal forces and aided by gravity the weight will slam forward lodging itself against the outer wheel jamming the action. It must be somehow prevented from doing this.

2)  The inner wheel in order to restore the black hole must move at 1.5 times the speed of the outer wheel for a while. During this time it gathers a lot of momentum which is detrimental to the necessary retrograde motion as LustInBlack has correctly pointed out. This energy has to be captured and fed back into the system (again using the â€Ã...“recoil effectâ€Ã,).

3) Whereas the centrifugal forces aid the transfer of the weights as far as the top weight is concerned they are to our detriment when transferring the weight from the outer to the inner wheel in the bottom position.


As I said earlier, this can be partially overcome by keeping the operating speed low. If that is enough only experiment will show. My guess is that it is not.

The transfers have to happen quite quickly and I have a feeling this might require a little bit of help along the way

In an earlier post I mentioned that the control mechanism is a beast.

To design a simple, rugged, reliable and precise control device that can meet all the necessary criteria is difficult, though in my view not impossible.

This is what I am working on at present.


Hope this helps

Hans von Lieven

Hey Vans, I like your concept. A clutch bearing would be good for your leverage arm. I'm gonna run this on the software i have ( which is pretty damn good). It's a shame we didn't have any hi def close up stills of the 1909 original. And I mean close up!! For forensic wear and tear (from a machinist point of view). Any decent Machinist can look at a piece of worn steel from a machine and tell you how it worked and wore. I did notice the "battered and dented" long nub pic of the weight. I have one question tho, The Guy who built this was a German Citizen. No? I feel as tho he would have built this thing in metric. This concerns myself ( in the event of a rebuild , seeing that the descriptions given now are in inches and pounds). This process is called reverse snoball effect. 100 years later, alot has been lost in translation ( including a couple million dollars give or take to this translation(( metric to english)). We need to roll the snoball backwards removing all the crap including the quotes from friends and family, and we need to see the steel. It's that simple. The 'Bessler Wheel Group" needs to step up and convince this "family " to present the metal for all to see.  And what about the papers from Bessler this guy may have had? Worth millions. No? I'm always up 4 a build, with this I'm skepting. Thnx13

Sorry x00013,

It's no good examining the wheel, it had rusted very badly, lying in  dismantled state in a yard and had to be sandblasted to clean it up. Even though Pop Keenie was of German extraction, he lived in America, he might even have been born there for all I know. It's irrelevant though, he would have had to furnish the drawings and measurements to the foundry in imperial units. Whenever I do work for countries that still use imperial units I design whatever it is in imperial so whoever is doing the job is on familiar territory, and I am German and I am used to metric. In fact we use the metric system in Australia.

He would have done the same.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 12, 2008, 06:43:37 PM
Sorry x00013,

It's no good examining the wheel, it had rusted very badly, lying in  dismantled state in a yard and had to be sandblasted to clean it up. Even though Pop Keenie was of German extraction, he lived in America, he might even have been born there for all I know. It's irrelevant though, he would have had to furnish the drawings and measurements to the foundry in imperial units. Whenever I do work for countries that still use imperial units I design whatever it is in imperial so whoever is doing the job is on familiar territory, and I am German and I am used to metric. In fact we use the metric system in Australia.

He would have done the same.

Hans von Lieven

Hello Again Vans Sir, Hold Your Horses and I'll Hold Mine.  Please let me explain, It is important to inspect the wheel, Metal degrades in a certain known scientific path. Early american machinist were masters of there discipline. if Pop Keenie came too them to machine a wheel that is 130mm wheel, that would be 5.1180 inches. and they would make it so. and as you may know, from 1850 to 1909 was a very tubulent time in America. And so our mordern "shit house " measurement would be  5 inches. I truly belive this for this device. Thnx13
. And this is my point, in order 4 a moody machine to work, measurements must be consise!

G'day X00013,

You don't seem to understand what I am saying. Pop Keenie would haver NEVER specified a 130 mm wheel. The reasons are simple. In all probability the workers at the foundry or the machine shop would have had no facility to measure 130 mm. So they have to convert. If you were a designer would you allow vagaries like converting values by someone who might or might not understand it or who would be liable to make a mistake to enter into it? You would not. You would specify inches, knowing he can cope with that. I do the same. Besides, it is irrelevant as the actual measurements are meaningless. 5 inches, 5 meters, five Kalathumpian feet, it means nothing. Only the relationship between the parts is of any importance. If you read the original thread in the Bessler wheel forum, all 45 or so pages of it, you will find all the measurements you are looking for. I doubt you can gain access to the wheel as the owner is ill and has himself not seen it since last Christmas because he finds it difficult to move around. I was told the wheel was only in his own basement.

I was never interested in the measurements, all I was aiming for was to understand its action..

Hans von Lieven

Hans and X00013

The deterioration of the wheel would be at a minimum for it was in the desert. But I agree with Hans the concept is what is important of course unless, you are trying to restore the original.   

I think it is true that half the energy is wasted on the cannon recoil. Change the shape of the cannon into a rim mass wheel. Then throw the cannon ball away from the spinning wheel on the end of a string. Now all the motion is in the cannon ball and none in the wheel (cannon). The energy increases are huge and this is far less complex than Keenies wheels. 

G'day all,

For those of you who want a copy of my paper I have put the entire article, graphics and all, on my website. You can copy it from there.

The URL is:  http://keelytech.com/bessler/pop/perpetual.html

Have fun

Hans von Lieven

Incredible opening-post Hans!  I was not familiar with this 'working' design either, and your post does a great job in explaining it.

btw, for some reason, the link to your site displays in a massive font in the Opera browser - pretty much unreadable...

Quote from: Sprocket on September 13, 2008, 11:27:38 PM

btw, for some reason, the link to your site displays in a massive font in the Opera browser - pretty much unreadable...

G'day Sprocket,

I have no idea what could be causing this. The html is written in very basic standard html format without bells and whistles, as is the whole site.  No-one has ever told me there is a problem with it. It displays OK in Firefox and in Explorer.

Thanks, I will look into it. Do me a favour please. Pull up http://keelytech.com  and see if it has the same problems in Opera. Thanks

Hans von Lieven

The driving mechanisim the weighted arm spins the wheel and is bounced up with a spring.

So with that said a bouncing ball shall come to rest just as a spring will what will keep this arm moving aside from the spring ...

I need to look more I guess I may not understand it all by looking at pics and skimming over the article.

But explanation of mechanics I see how rachet is a one way gravitational switch but ...  errr what will keep it prepetual.

Interesting thought but even with all the fancy pics and stuff I would like a laymens short explanation of mechanical operation all in one ..

G'day Infringer,

The thing that keeps the thing perpetual is the creation and maintenance of what I called the "black hole". It is the key element in the whole design, everything else is contributing to that end, nothing more.

In spite of its seeming simplicity, there are complex forces interacting here, it requires intensive study to understand the rationale of how it all hangs together.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 14, 2008, 03:13:37 AM
The thing that keeps the thing perpetual is the creation and maintenance of what I called the "black hole". It is the key element in the whole design, everything else is contributing to that end, nothing more.

In spite of its seeming simplicity, there are complex forces interacting here, it requires intensive study to understand the rationale of how it all hangs together.

Hans von Lieven

well that's definitely layman's terms and short. it somehow missed the mark on an explanation of mechanical operation...  ::)
you might as well have just said, "black hole" = Lee-Tseung Pulls

@ WilbyInebriated

No idiotic Lee-Tseung pull involved here.

There is nothing esoteric about what I called the "black hole". In an unbalanced wheel there are two conditions present that have to be maintained if rotation is to ensue. One is the concentration or weights hopefully high up to the left or the right of the axle. That is what everybody is concentrating on, the creation of a high density area in the right spot.

What everybody seem to be forgetting is that this creates by necessity an area of low density in the opposing segment. It is this area that I dubbed the "black hole". It is also the area I am addressing.

Sure, it is just another way of looking at the same thing, but there are advantages in visualising the wheel in terms of a low density area. By concentrating on the creation of a low density area the mind operates along a different track and avoids the well grooved track that keeps coming up again and again showing approaches that have been seen a hundred times before and are known not to work.

Hans von Lieven

Excuse the delay.  The rest of your site displays fine, just a problem with that article it seems!  Still, probably Opera's fault (see pic.)

Wow, Nice Hompage, My Compliments To You. It would be cool if Stef had a "members" homepage list. There are so many memberes here with great homepages like yours,  explaining all there personal work/ builds and passions. It would be like a "great big reading cookie jar" for myself and alot of others I believe.  Right now I'm on Neos and saltwater. When I get sick of that I'm looking into this device, Thanks Again 13

Quote from: X00013 on September 15, 2008, 04:26:12 PM
Wow, Nice Hompage, My Compliments To You. It would be cool if Stef had a "members" homepage list. There are so many memberes here with great homepages like yours,  explaining all there personal work/ builds and passions. It would be like a "great big reading cookie jar" for myself and alot of others I believe.  Right now I'm on Neos and saltwater. When I get sick of that I'm looking into this device, Thanks Again 13

Its funny, allmost in an instant when I looked on this wheel I could see that it did something spesial.
I see the whole key to unlocking the power directly from gravity.
The key is, it costs energy to move a weight up and down on the wheel because of gravity, but costs allmost nothing to move it sideways (as long as the wheel is not turning and so there is no centrifugal pull). Still, if you can for allmost no energy move a weight sideways on a wheel, you can create potensial energy allmost out of nothing (allthough I insists on calling gravity a force, which is the suplier of energy).
In my eyes (allthough I might be wrong) it would be easy to create an increasing momentum on the inner wheel while the outer wheel sends the weights back to allmost the same height but with more momentum, which can be fed back to the inner wheel by some mechanical power transfer (a rubber band for instance).

Have I completely lost touch with reality or is there something into this?

@ Sprocket,

The Opera browser does not seem to be recognising the </h1> tag at the end of the headline. Download the page as is. Go into the saved version of the html with notepad. At the beginning of the headline change <h1> to <h3> then go to the end of the headline and delete </h1><h3> Next, save and reload the saved page into the browser. Should work now.

@ X00013

Member's web sites are linked with an icon under the member's avatar on the left hand side.

@ Nabo00o

You are correct in saying that the separation of the systems makes additional energy available, but this energy must be reversed and fed back into the system. Good boy, you seem to be grasping what I am trying to say.

Hans von Lieven

Hans,
Excellent work. This is very interesting. I still do not see the need for the lever arm. I think the 'slop' could  be in the transfer weight slots. The output from each rotating wheel could be directed to two independent shafts that could be geared 1:1 together and provide continuous torque without jumping. I will have to give this some more thought. Thank you for the great presentation.

I think if you make the transfer slots more triangle shaped for both counter rotating wheels you could get the left side to release the weight slight sooner than the right side and this would add to the torque. The slots need to be more like the relic pictures. Wish I had more free time as this would be easy to make out of some cheap cutting board plastic material for a proof of concept design. So many projects. So little time.

Hi Hans,

I like the way you are examining this design in detail. Very nice.

This looks like it is going to be a complex build.Thanks for sharing your ideas.

You are probably dreaming about it in your sleep.

G'day Hans....
If you want a hand with a build let me know.
Cheers mate
Scotty

G'day all,

In order of sequence, no favouritism here  ;D

@ Hydrocontrol,

The lever arm and the counterweight is a poor engineering solution. I said so in my paper. I only used it as it illustrates the forces at work. At the moment I am working on a much more elegant way to accommodate the design's requirements. The slot arrangements are tentative. It was easy to draw and shows the concept, that's all. I will give your ideas some thought.

@ResinRat2,

Btw. Who is ResinRat1  ???  The wife I hope  ;D

G'day Dave.

Yes mate you are right I am eating, sleeping, drinking, dreaming, and #@%%$^& this project. In a way I am no different to you, get stuck into it, tell the world at the risk of getting egg on your face and push to get this *##$&^#@ sorted out.

It is good to hear from you, thanks for your comments.

@scotty,

G'day mate,

I am honoured to have you on board if you wish Scotty. The quality of your work is exemplary and speaks for itself. I will get in touch via E-mail and we can discuss how we can make this thing real.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 15, 2008, 07:37:57 PM
@ Nabo00o

You are correct in saying that the separation of the systems makes additional energy available, but this energy must be reversed and fed back into the system. Good boy, you seem to be grasping what I am trying to say.

Hans von Lieven

Exactly! You need to reverse the direction in which the outer wheel turn's before it is transferred to the inner wheel, this can be done by twisting a rubber band, so that it pulls in the opposite direction.
The other problem I see is that you only want the inner wheel to steadly turn and even accelerate, but without the outer wheel to follow the same pattern. This can be done by using a simple bicycle-chain setup which only transferres power in one dircetion and moves freely in the other.
This way the outer wheel can do its stop- and pull action while the inner wheel continiusly turns and collects more and more power.
What'd you think? Is this achievable?

G'day Nabo00o,

A bicycle wheel employs simply a ratchet drive, If you look closely at the drawing you can see a ratchet drive incorporated in the design.

Hans von Lieven

I have followed the posts of Hans for a long time. He has always appeared to me as a skilled knowlegeable man, who speaks his mind and does not tolerate any Bullshine. so to me it is interesting that he feels the need to put a name to the originator of this device. This to me suggests that Hans also has a poetic or artistic side, which to me makes him more human. More power to your elbow, Hans.

@ Hans:

This is wonderful!  I wondered what you had been up to lately.  Once again, your research and your attention to detail have payed off.  This opens up an entire new line of thinking for me, and probably many others.  I have sketches of my original attempt at a "gravity" wheel from back in high school. (long, long time ago)  After much research, I found I had only been trying what others had for many years and failed to make work.

This approach is elegant in its basic simplicity.  Building it will obviously not be simple but the way you clearly explained its proposed operation is easily understood.  I wish I still owned my machine shop.

Just a quick thought on the torque restrictions you mentioned.  Obviously, for proof of concept a fairly small device would be manufactured to keep initial costs down but, and correct me if I am wrong, wouldn't increasing the basic OD (outside diameter) of the wheels give an inherent increase in torque?  Similar to a lever being twice as long as another lever?

With the permission you gave, I will go to your site an download all of this information.  If I can be of any help, just ask and I will see what I can do.

Thanks for sharing all of this.  These are the kinds of projects that are worth staying up all night pondering.

I wish you the best of luck with this idea.  Excellent!

Bill

G'day Bill,

Good to hear from you.

You are right, a longer travel of the weights would increase torque. In my animation and diagrams I stuck more or less with Pop Keenies dimensions. The short travel was, I imagine, decided upon for speed.

As I said earlier, a device of this nature should be built for torque, not speed.

I will in the prototype go way beyond Pop's layout. Higher speed brings enormous problems with centrifugal forces with it that I can do without. In order to increase torque we must lengthen the travel of the weights. What the optimum travel is I have yet to determine.

Keep well Bill,
Hans

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 16, 2008, 06:26:51 PM
As I said earlier, a device of this nature should be built for torque, not speed.
Hans

Seems that if you get one to unit work then simply adding additional units to the same output shaft would increase torque. Increasing weights should increase torque as well. If this ever works then I think a good apllication would be to run a generator because of the size involved but I bet it will create a lot of noise with all those weight clunking around..

@ hydrocontrol,

I don't know about the noise. Most of the noise emitted by machinery is caused by the controlled explosions that power it, The actual mechanical noise is very small by comparison. As to driving a generator, why does everybody always think of generators? Apart from a few applications, like computers and such, most electricity consumed is converted to mechanical motion. If you have a motor already, why would you convert the mechanical output to electricity (with all its attendant losses) and then convert back to mechanical energy with even more losses when you can drive the thing directly?

Take air conditioning, there you have an electric motor driving a compressor. So why not drive the compressor directly? It is the same with pumps. If the wheel can be built, and I think now that it can, much of existing technology will require a re-think.

Hans von Lieven

@ Hans:

I just got back from reading the peswiki link that you gave earlier.  There are some pretty nice replication attempts there.  Thanks for posting it along with the information.

Interesting idea you have there for cutting out the middleman (electricity) in performing work directly.  The old machine shops ran this way. (Think Wright brothers machine shop)  They used mechanical energy as mechanical energy.  With this line of thinking, I can envision a central "power plant" in a modern home where generating electricity is but one of its many functions.

I just hope Lawrence does not see your topic or he will be telling us how you are "leading out" gravitational energy as he has predicted all along.  Hey, do you think this device might one day power a flying saucer? (Just kidding)

Seriously, I believe this device to be the most promising thing I have seen here on OU. com, or any other site.  I would wish you luck but I know that engineers do not depend on luck.

Please keep this topic going even if it gets bombarded by naysayers and the like.  As I said before, this will be difficult to replicate but the concept is so perfect.  This device must get built.

Anyway, take care and I will raise a glass of beer to your success.

Be well my friend.

Bill

Hans,
I think the reason that everyone thinks 'generator' is that electricity is the most 'portable' and efficient form of energy with distribution by  relatively fine wires as compared to bulky cables, pulleys and belts. The user base of mass produced items is driven by 'electricity' so why change the base. It looks easier to me to change the source of power hence the generator line of thinking. Looking at the comments of the 'witnesses' of the actual working unit indicates that the unit had very little torque for the size and it would appear the only way to compensate for this would be to 'scale it up'. The picture in my mind is a unit that is about half (or more) the size of a standard car in order to do usable work that would run a standard household even if it is only for heating and cooling. A unit with the bulk half the size of a car or bigger would not be very portable or practical for powering a mode of transportation so more of a 'fixed' mode of operation came to mind hence 'generator'. I am sure you are correct that if a unit does get built that works then a 'rethink' of applications is in order.

Cool design  !!!
But is someone building this ? or is it only on papers ?

@Omega_0 and all

There have been several attempts at building this wheel from the original, so far with no runner. Now Hans has put it to a newer direction as well. I have also done different direction as well  which I have sent Hans copies of these designs so that Hans and I will discus. I have also posted them on BesslerWheel.com  Also others have posted there ideas on this wheel and Hans has stated you can reed all before there.

This is Hans string so I will not post my ideas here unless Hans thinks I should.

Here is other views of the original.

Quote from: Omega_0 on September 17, 2008, 04:37:32 AM
Cool design  !!!
But is someone building this ? or is it only on papers ?

A good collection of replication attempts is shown here :
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:BuzzSaw_Gravity_Wheel
As stated by AB Hammer there are no runners yet but it looks like some of the attempts could be modified with the information Hans has created that at least would try out his approach.

Hi All,
this looks similar to an Idea i had when the Archer Quinn thr3ead just started up.... :D

Anyway the light blue is a heavy wheel. The dark blue gear is like on a bike, you can crank it forward then spin it backwards. The hammer weight should be able to be lifted with minimum effort do to lever action. Its not really shown on the picture but the yellow end of the lever  will retract so on the down swing of the weight it does not hit any of the pegs attached to the outside of the wheel. When back to starting positing the lever will extend and another peg will lift the weight back up ans so on.... the animation got a little squirrelly on me while I was making it thats why the dark blue gear starts to float around..Its not meant to look like that.  :P I would imagine the heavy wheel would need a good spin to get it going then like riding a bike it takes less effort to (or so it seems) to maintain the same speed. I think the wheel in reality would need to be bigger as opposed to the lever mechanism but to show the concept it is what it is here.
Cheers  ;D

originally posted here
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg97020.html#msg97020

Sorry if this detracts from this thread in any way.

& I have never perused this idea other than making an animation.  :)

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fhome.epix.net%2F%7Eamiller%2Fopenwheel.gif&hash=b3639c0533696d643fdf16d629cb8efda322d77a)

@ AB Hammer,

Go for your life Alan. This is not my thread it belongs to us all. Any comments or designs are welcome, the more the merrier.

@ Omega_0,

Yes we are preparing to build. I am still having a few problems to get the control mechanism sorted out. There are a number of options, what I am still looking for is a simple rugged and precise mechanism that does the job. Progress is being made though. The engineering drawings are being prepared right now for the wheel itself which is much modified from Pop Keenie's layout. This can then be built already and the control mechanism can be added later.

@ am1ll3r,

I can see what you are trying to do here but where is the power coming from to drive the mechanism?

@ Bill,

Yes I can see how Lawrence is going to try to get the credit for this.  :D :D :D

Hans von Lieven

Hello, Hans!
One of the best presentations I've seen so far! Hat off to You!

Although my view on the setup is - it has an everlasting,  "keeling" problem....
Sorry!
But this is just IMHO... Keenie's/Doc's/Your's device is rather simple to reproduce (at least as a PoC device), so, I hope to see some good news soon..
Cheers!

I hate you Hans,  ;)  You are causing my mind to work overtime  ;D ;D Or at least what is left of it..  :o
Pretty soon I am going to think about this morning, noon and night.  ;D ;D ;D

As I am trying to understanding how this might work I am grasping the net gain in the systems is the difference in the leverage points between the inner weight and the outer weight.
I think I have an idea of how to make this work without the lever arm and without a lot of additional mechanics. I really stink at drawing so let me verbally explain using your drawing.
Take a copy of your drawing and remove the level arm and spring system.
1. Now take the view of the inner rotor being allowed to continuously rotate clockwise and the outer one was rotating counterclockwise continuously. There would have to be some 1:1 gearing on the output shaft so lets say the inner rotor is fixed to the output shaft and the outer rotor rides on a bearing over the output shaft. This outer rotor has a gear attached to it that drives another 2 gears that interface to the inner rotor. The purpose of the gearing is so when the outer rotor goes down the inner rotor goes up an equal amount. Should be simple enough.
2. Now make your outer rotor twice as wide.
3. Now make the slots deeper into both the inner and outer rotors so that 2 weights will be able to be side by side. In fact make it extra wide. Put one weight on the outer rotor and one weight on the inner rotor with about on weight width between the two weights..
4. Now what would happen if you just bolt one equal weight on the outer rotor and bolt one on the inner rotor at the 9:00 o'clock positions across from each other ? ??? ??? ???.

The question that I need an answer for before I continue is if the outer weight will go down while the inner weight will go up because of the difference in lever arm length from the common shaft to the weight positions ? My mind thinks the outer weight will go down to the 8:00 position and the inner
one will go to the 10:00 position or until the weights line up with each other on the left side. Is there a software program to test this out ?

5. If this works then all you need to do is to leave the lever arm off. Instead insert an solid blocking bar from the 5:00 oclock position to the 10:00 oclock position so that when the weight shifts from the outer to inner rotor it is trapped in the inner rotor until the it reaches the 10:00 position. Have the slot more like to buzzsaw tooth so at the 10:00 position it releases slightly sooner than the 5:00 oclock position to give in a slight edge.

What do you think ?

G'day Spinner,

It's supposed to have an everlasting keeling problem, if it keeps on keeling it will rotate  :D :D

Hans von Lieven

@ hydrocontrol

I'll give your ideas some thought.

One of the things though you must remember that fixed gearing ratios don't work. They do not alter the relationship between the geometry of the inner wheel in relation to the geometry of the outer wheel. That is why a reciprocal movement is paramount.

Hans von Lieven

Here is the same posting I did on Bessler Wheel, with a minor corrections of credit for Doc.


It is looking like I'm the last design holdout LOL . I can't be that especially since I have achieved 1lb lifting 6lbs in my wheel device (without CF lock up like my earlier version did). So I will go ahead and post my ideas for this type of wheel as well and showing my slide counter weight device (tested 1.5 second shift). On mine I am using outside ramp and bearings to ride the ramps. Here is what I sent to Hans to see if any of this might help.

heathenab01

This is the first design to start working on the wheel that Doc posted and what changes I felt at the time to make it work. It was designed to run a different speeds but that would be impossible without counter weights. It also employed ramp shifting. It was my first thoughts.

heathenab02 and 03

This is the second device again using ramp shifting as well as bearings to ride the ramps and spring holding devises in all four center slots. Ramp in and ramp out. the heathenab3 is the center with counter balances employed. These are weighted slide tubes using expansion cables to move it back and forth also triggered by the weight riding up the short shift ramp.
This system can also work on a comparable same speed system, the counter weights becoming very important to create an equilibrium in the center wheel. A very easy spin.


Just a little more fuel to the fire. And thanks to Doc for the name heathen but since these are my versions I call them heathenab.

Also like Hans I retain the Copyright due to the differences applied.
I am publishing these designs under copyright. Feel free to use the information to build any of these devices you wish. When it comes to commercial exploitation I reserve whatever rights are given to my by law.

Copyright Alan Floyd Bauldree 2008 all these designs posted heathenab01, heathenab02, and heathenab03


(heathenab03  is the center of heathenab02)

Quote from: hansvonlieven on September 17, 2008, 05:19:37 PM
@ Omega_0,

Yes we are preparing to build. I am still having a few problems to get the control mechanism sorted out. There are a number of options, what I am still looking for is a simple rugged and precise mechanism that does the job. Progress is being made though. The engineering drawings are being prepared right now for the wheel itself which is much modified from Pop Keenie's layout. This can then be built already and the control mechanism can be added later.

Hans von Lieven

Good luck to you !!
And please keep us updated.

That old rusted model looks interesting and I wonder why someone would build such heavy wheel. My advice is to start from a small model and go upwards in scale later.

.....awful quiet....

That's the sound of progress......

Bill

Sorry Gentlemen,

There isn't much to tell at the moment. The control mechanism is designed, I am still trying to simplify it a bit more, but more or less it's ready. We are sourcing the parts needed to build the whole thing so construction should begin in about a week or so.

I'll keep you informed.

Hans von Lieven

G'day all,

I have been rather busy with my research into the fundamental principles of perpetual motion. Here is part 1 of my latest set of thoughts and experiments.

Part 2 should be ready shortly.

Have fun

Hans von Lieven



In an effort to track down Besslerââ,¬â,,¢s ââ,¬Å"motus perpetualisââ,¬Â, which I translated as principle of perpetual motion, because that is what Bessler meant when he used the term, I came across what I dubbed the ââ,¬Å"recoil effectââ,¬Â.

I reasoned that it was possible to separate under certain conditions action from equal and opposite reaction, and that one of these forces could be turned around and fed back into the system providing additional energy over and above the energy input.

My paper so far dealt with this phenomenon as a key element in a proposed design of a perpetual motion machine.

I reasoned further that, if my theory held true, it would apply across the spectrum and not just be confined to guns, rocket engines and so forth.

We talk about conservation of energy. This so called law forbids the existence of a perpetual motion machine that can do work.

The theory was formalised by Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-1894) in his seminal paper ââ,¬Å"Ueber die Erhaltung der Kraftââ,¬Â (Concerning the conservation of force).

Now Helmholtz was no idiot, quite the opposite. He was one of the most eminent scientists of his time. His discoveries were fundamental in many fields of science and are still in all the textbooks. To my knowledge he was never proved wrong. Helmholtz certainly knew what energy was, so why didnââ,¬â,,¢t he use this term? Why did he call it conservation of force?

This is where science made a fundamental error. By substituting the word energy for force they missed much of what Helmholtz was saying because the two are not the same.

Take a simple example:

We have a ten kg weight lying on the ground. No potential energy there. We now lift the weight and place it on top of a post, say one meter high. Now we have potential energy. It only needs a small push and we can liberate it. The potential energy turns into kinetic energy as the weight falls until it hits the ground. That energy is the exact equivalent to the energy we had to expend to lift the weight to that height.

CoE proved    QED

But is that all there is?

No, it is not!

Our ten kg weight exerts a downward pressure on the ground as well as on the post when it is stationary. This pressure is still there after the weight has fallen off the post and all the potential energy is spent. Nevertheless it is a real force though there is no energy available.

There is one paragraph in Helmholtzââ,¬â,,¢ paper that was taken out by science and is no longer taught. In that paragraph Helmholtz shows the possibility of perpetual motion. To my knowledge Helmholtz never published the reason why he said: Force can be gained and lost ad infinitum.






He would not have said it lightly though, since it appears to contradict the entirety of his paper. But it only does so if you equate energy with force. If you make a distinction between the two terms there is no contradiction.

Helmholtz was no theoretical physicist. He arrived at his results mainly through experimentation and observation. So just where did he observe the gaining and losing of force ad infinitum?

This has puzzled me for many years.

I finally found the proof to what he was saying in the simplest machine there is, the pendulum. We have actually known about it all along but its significance has escaped us because we equate force with energy.

So what is so special about a pendulum?

Let us observe its action. Say, we have a pendulum and we lift the pendulum bob to point  A.





Since the pendulum bob cannot go lower than point C because of the string, the vertical distance between point A and point C is the potential energy we have at our disposal, governed by gravity. If we now let go of the pendulum bob it will descend along the arc governed by the string and is propelled by gravity to point C. It accelerates as it is doing so. After it passes point C it is now adversely affected by gravity decelerating as it approaches point B at which time the momentum is exhausted and it will reverse.

In an ideal system (i.e. No friction, air resistance and any other force) point A and point B are on the same horizontal level. The potential energy at point B is exactly the same as it was at point A and the pendulum will oscillate forever.

This is conservation of energy in its simplest form, so science tells us.

Wrong!

The moment we let go of the pendulum bob we have converted potential energy into force. In other words we are observing conservation of force. It is important to remember this.

But is that all that happens?

No, it is not!

As a result of the movement centripetal and its equal and opposite centrifugal force develop with the square of velocity.

In rough and ready terms at velocity one the centripetal force is one, at velocity two it becomes four, at velocity three it becomes nine and so forth. This is well known.

These forces appear seemingly out of nowhere, since they do not consume any of the input energy but they are real nevertheless as the increasing tautness of the string shows. These forces develop independently and have no effect on the action of the pendulum whatsoever.

From the point of release, when centripetal and centrifugal force are zero, their strength increases as the bob increases in velocity and decreases accordingly on the upswing until the bob arrives at point B where after a short stop, at which time they become zero  again, the pendulum reverses, the cycle starts afresh and the forces reassert themselves all over.


As every Olympic hammer thrower knows this additional energy can be used to do work. For this to happen there has to be a separation of systems..

This was my line of thought up to that point. What now needed to be done was to set up a simple and easily repeatable experiment that proved the validity of my statements. Part 2 shows the experiments where I tested just that. WM2D simulations of my experiments are attached.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on October 02, 2008, 12:46:10 PM

These forces appear seemingly out of nowhere, since they do not consume any of the input energy but they are real nevertheless as the increasing tautness of the string shows. These forces develop independently and have no effect on the action of the pendulum whatsoever.

From the point of release, when centripetal and centrifugal force are zero, their strength increases as the bob increases in velocity and decreases accordingly on the upswing until the bob arrives at point B where after a short stop, at which time they become zero  again, the pendulum reverses, the cycle starts afresh and the forces reassert themselves all over.

I am not sure what you mean by the forces appearing out of nowhere.  The forces are a result of gravity.  The only reason the bob had any potential energy when lifted to its height is due to gravity, and that is the clear source of the other forces. 

The exponential increase in the centripetal force with time is no surprise, since the strength of a force is essentially defined as the rate of acceleration of an object under the influence of such a force.

Quote from: utilitarian on October 02, 2008, 01:39:15 PM


The exponential increase in the centripetal force with time is no surprise, since the strength of a force is essentially defined as the rate of acceleration of an object under the influence of such a force.

Correct, but they do not consume any of the potential energy. That is why science goes to extreme lengths to obscure the fact that they come from somewhere they cannot determine. They get around it by saying "Centripetal force is a kinematic force requirement deduced from an observed trajectory, not a kinetic force like gravity or electrical forces." Source wikipedia, centripetal force.

Hans von Lieven

@Hans:  Why would you post this in the middle of another thread???  I see you've also posted this in the middle of another thread at besslerwheel.com...???  Do you have a problem starting new threads?

You seem to be drawing some very naive conclusions from the simple effects of enertia.  I'd say more wishful thinking than viable theory...

But I'll reserve a full opinion until you've posted the full series in it's own dedicated thread.

The effects on centrifugal force can do some obvious strange and unormal things compared with our general used linear motion, which we use in most of our machines and generators. The pendulum is the perfect example of this. We know that when the pendulum falls down it creates or recives a strong centrifugal pull out and away from the center axis which it rotates on. However, if we then would try to use that mechanical pressure in a machine to capture it you would soon realize that the pendulum would loose its momentum, and so in a way it is after all connected with the motion of the pendulum. But, in total opposite to any nomal motor/generator or other mechanical function, in which the loss of energy allways is proportional to the ammont of resistance in its system, in the pendulum case, the more resistance you add to the movment of its center axis, the less energy will be lost by the pendulum, which can be said in another way:
The more load you put on the mechanical ouput from the center axis of a oscillating pendulum, the lesser will the loss of energy from the moving pendulum be. Still the pendulum will be able to put out a mechanical force, and many times longer than if the resistance on the central axis were to be lowered.

A bit messy written pehaps, but I think that most of you will agree that this is indeed the way a pendulum works, and really any other mechanical process which uses centrifugal movment of a common axis as its source of power. The relationship between resistance and power has actually been reversed. And also, from there we can begin to enter the realm of "perpetual motion", but not in the true sence of course,  as the energy or potential must come from somewhere...

Hello Hans,

this is exactly what pequaide is doing in his experiment.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1995.200 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1995.200)

momentum is conserved p = m x v ( german : Impulserhaltung ) but not energy an so is force because

F = dp/dt


One has to release ( seperate)  part of a rotating mass ( steel-spheres)  and at the same time transfer momentum of the left-behind rotating mass via a steel-string to the spheres trying to escape in a tangential way.

These two topics fit together.

Here is an intersting collection of physics for all formulas - very good tutorial
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html)

@utilitarian : force is a result of the mass-inertia ( and not the gravitation) of a rotating mass (in this example )  , trying to stay on its straigth forward-pasage while it is contantly  forced ( beeing attached to a  string ) to come back to the circling path.
When a mass is in free fall within a graviation-field there is no force present - only in the above case of rotation -
force then appears because the mass tries to stay on a translatory path.


Regards

Kator

@ Kator,

You are absolutely right, this is what Pequaide is on about though I approach it from a more general direction.

@ Marctwo

This is not the middle of another thread. I have been on about the separation of systems as a key ingredient from day one. This is just another instance.

Just bear with me guys, I am not here to confuse anyone. It is just a lot of work to get it all together bit by bit.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on October 03, 2008, 02:42:05 AM
...This is not the middle of another thread. I have been on about the separation of systems as a key ingredient from day one. This is just another instance.

Up to the introduction of this new tangent, this thread has been about a very specific mechanical design... not general ideas on why PM should work.  The two may be related in broader terms and belong in this forum, but they do not relate specifically so should be in different threads.

Now, I was going to try to explain the benefits of organizing different subjects into different threads;  Not only for those of us that see them as they are created,  but for those that will be browsing these forums in the future and have no memory of all the off-topic lines of discussion tucked away inside various threads.

But I seem to be the only one concerned with this.  So if you and everyone else are happy to have your general theories of PM lost in the middle of arbitrary threads across the forums,  who am I to advise otherwise.

Marctwo:

I see what you are saying but look at the title of this topic: The Road To Perpetual Motion.  Hans started out outlining his thinking and approach to not only to a specific device, but to the path traveled by others that came before that led to this device.  I think this is essential not only for Hans' understanding of how a working device may be made, but to ours as well.  With his mention of Helmholtz, I believe he was trying to illustrate for us that the "conventional" thinking that this is impossible may be wrong, and why.  To me, this is very important and very related.  Just my thoughts.

Hans:

Looking forward to seeing your future posts.  If anyone can make this work, it is you.

Bill

@ Martwo,

Bill is right. Any designs that you may come across in this thread are only possible applications of my ideas. The main thrust of the thread is to lay a scientific basis to perpetual motion as such.

The idea of perpetual motion has been discredited by science for a very long time.

What I am trying to show is that perpetual motion is possible within the framework of contemporary scientific thinking and accepted laws of physics. No re-writing of Newton's laws or of Conservation of Energy laws is required. All the prerequisites are already there and known to science. These posts of mine are not for casual reading. They have to be studied to be understood. I am trying to put the subject matter in as plain a language as I can so most people can understand what I am talking about. Only time will tell if I can succeed in this.

Hans von Lieven

Well, with ~40 posts specifically geared toward the Keenie device, I'm probably not the only one who got the wrong idea of what this thread was about.

Still, if you say this thread isn't about the Keenie device then I guess I should leave you to get it back on topic...

When I first struck the Pop Keenie's device I said very clearly that I saw in it the principle of perpetual motion that up to that time had escaped me.

Using his device as a model I began formulating what these principles are. If we want to build a gravity wheel we must understand how it may operate. 300 years of wild experimentation have brought no-one closer to re-creating what Bessler and Pop Keenie did.

Bessler said that his wheel does not violate any laws of physics. The corollary to this is that Bessler's system can be understood by anyone versed in traditional physics. This is what I am trying to do, nothing more.

Hopefully by the time I am finished many of you will be building wheels of various designs that work. I believe I know WHAT Bessler and Pop Keeny did, I do not know HOW they did it as there are any number of engineering solutions once the operating principles are understood.

This is a project under development. It leads to wherever it leads to as new insights come to hand and what you started off with is not necessarily what you have at the end. Such is the nature of the beast.

Hans von Lieven

Dear Hans:

I am following with utmost interest this thread. As I am a "Steorn junkie" I wanted to ask if you visualize your current line of exploration of the perpetual motion to be valid or extrapolable to magnetic fields.

I think you are on the right trail, and I wanted to thank you for your efforts on sharing it with the world.

My Best Regards!

G'day ChileanOne,

Yes, I believe what I am working on has repercussions right across the spectrum. When I have concluded my current set of experiments I will turn my attention to magnetism and see if and how it might apply there. Thanks for your interest.

Hans von Lieven

Perhaps at this point it is prudent to have a look at what science has to say about centripetal and centrifugal forces and other related phenomena. Of centripetal force science says:

The centripetal force is the external force required to make a body follow a curved path. Hence centripetal force is a kinematic force requirement, not a particular kind of force, like gravity or electromagnetic force.

This does not tell us anything about the nature or origin of that force. It strikes me as a glib answer to an unexplained phenomenon. It just states that it is there, but not really there, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Perhaps if we examine its equal and opposite the centrifugal force we will get some meaningful answer. Apparently not, for science says about centrifugal force:

In classical mechanics, when the motion of an object is described in terms of a reference frame that is rotating about a fixed axis, the expression for the absolute acceleration of the object includes terms involving the rotation rate of the frame. These frame-dependent terms are sometimes brought over to the force side of the equations of motion (with reversed signs), and treated as fictitious forces (also called pseudo-forces or inertial forces). One of these fictitious forces points directly outward from the axis of rotation, with magnitude proportional to the square of the rotation rate of the frame.  In much of the literature on classical dynamics, this term is called centrifugal force, although it is not actually a force in the Newtonian sense.

Some authors object to the use of the word "force" to refer to these acceleration terms.  Unlike real forces such as electromagnetic forces, fictitious forces do not originate from physical interactions between objects.

So, according to science thatââ,¬â,,¢s not really there either, itââ,¬â,,¢s fictitious!

It is interesting here to note that under ââ,¬Å"Analysis using fictitious forcesââ,¬Â in the same monograph Wikipedia inserts the following disclaimer:
This article or section may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favour of certain viewpoints.

Funny that, because in essence what is says is ââ,¬Å"The following statements may or may not be more than opinionated bullshit!ââ,¬Â Very scientific that.

So just for completeness let us have a look at what they have to say about ficticious forces.

A fictitious force, also called a pseudo force. d'Alembert force or inertial force is an apparent force that acts on all masses in a non-inertial frame of reference, such as a rotating reference frame. The force F does not arise from any physical interaction but rather from the acceleration a of the non-inertial reference frame itself. As stated by Iro:

An additional force due to nonuniform relative motion of two reference frames is called a pseudo-force.
ââ,¬â€œ H Iro in A Modern Approach to Classical Mechanics p. 180
It says further:

Fictitious forces and work
Fictitious forces can be considered to do work, provided that they move an object on a trajectory that changes its energy from potential to kinetic.

All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity. This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to formulate a theory with gravity as a fictitious force; attributing the apparent acceleration of gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein's theory of general relativity.

What this says is fascinating. On one hand they say itââ,¬â,,¢s not really there and on the other hand they admit that is also a very real additional  force that emerges independently of the forces involved that brought the prerequisite conditions about and can do work!

In other words FREE ENERGY!

So, why is science obscuring this fact with convoluted concepts and obscure language?

Simply put, the acceptance of these forces as real rattles the very foundation on which current scientific thinking is based.

If the forces are real that means either that the Conservation of Energy laws are wrong, because these forces manifest out of nowhere, which is believed impossible. This is not a premise science is prepared to accept and quite rightly so in my view.

The only remaining alternative is equally impalatable to science. It would mean that there is an underlying energy field that can exchange energy with the observable ââ,¬Å"realityââ,¬Â. In other words an ether (aether for the purist) of sorts.

So they are caught between a rock and a hard place and have to resort to this sort of crap because the existence of these forces is undeniable whether science can explain them or not.

Just to reiterate, science says:

The force F does not arise from any physical interaction but rather from the acceleration a of the non-inertial reference frame itself.
and
Fictitious forces can be considered to do work, provided that they move an object on a trajectory that changes its energy from potential to kinetic.

This is exactly what I have been saying all along and what this thread is all about. It is also the scientific explanation why perpetual motion is possible whether science likes it or not. In order to use this energy one must move an object out of its reference frame. This is what I call in my paper splitting the systems. It is the key to free energy. A secondary system captures this energy and feeds it back into the primary system. That is all there is to it.

Well, this is all very nice, I hear you say, but can you prove by experiment what you are saying?

Yes, I can !

The experimental set-up is simplicity itself and used here in a WM2D simulation.



Wheel A revolves freely around axis B. Attached to the wheel is a virtually mass-less holder C, that acts as receptacle for a steel sphere of 6.28 kg D. E is the centre of gravity of said sphere which is used as a reference point throughout the experiments.

x denotes the distance between the centre of gravity of the sphere at the starting point to the lowest position achievable while still attached to the wheel, therefore it is the amount of potential energy available to the system with only gravity as input.

The holder C is designed to let the sphere fall free at this point.

In the first simulation the mass of the wheel is very large (800 kg). The reason for the large mass is to ensure that the wheel turns slowly because of the comparatively small mass of the sphere. At this speed there are no significant centripetal and centrifugal forces making themselves felt since these forces depend on velocity.

As the sphere drops under the influence of gravity the potential energy x is converted into kinetic energy manifesting itself by rotating the wheel. At the lowest point the potential energy imparted by the sphere is exhausted and the sphere disengages from the wheel. All the potential energy x is now conserved in the momentum of the wheel, which in absence of any force to the contrary keeps spinning. The sphere rolls down a short incline and drops into a pit G to allow the wheel to keep spinning by preventing the holder C from bumping into the sphere which would otherwise just lie there.

And that is all experiment 1 shows. There is no gain in the system, just a simple conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy.

In the second simulation (experiment 2) things get interesting.

Here the mass of the wheel is reduced to 8 kg, that is one hundredth of what it was in experiment 1. As the sphere drops the potential energy x is still imparted to the wheel which now, because of its reduced mass shows a much higher velocity. This higher velocity generates centripetal and centrifugal forces in addition to the potential energy x, as science is prepared to admit.

At the point of disengagement the potential energy we started off with is again conserved in the momentum of the wheel.

But this time the sphere does not drop as it did before. Being freed of its centripetal fetter it now still has the energy of the centrifugal force which is sufficient to propel the sphere up an inclined plane F until that energy is exhausted and the sphere comes to rest. Meanwhile the wheel is still spinning with the kinetic equivalent of x.

This is gained energy, in this case about 35 % over and above what we started with.

The gained energy is shown in the diagram as y.

In the first experiment it would take the same amount of energy as we started with to bring the sphere back to the starting position.

Since in the second experiment it needs considerably less because of the sphereââ,¬â,,¢s elevated position, in fact it needs x ââ,¬â€œ y or z as I called it in the drawing, we have more than enough to start the cycle afresh with some energy left over to do work!

I would like to point out here that this is a worst case scenario. The wheel in both simulations is at standstill at the start, requiring far more energy than if the wheel was already in motion, as it would be if a second sphere would come into the picture. Unfortunately WM2D does not lend itself to such a simulation.

It nevertheless shows an impressive gain which would be many times that at higher velocities.

These demonstrations show clearly that perpetual motion is indeed possible. The energy is there.

Comments are welcome.

Perhaps some of you mathematical geniuses could do the maths on this. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Hans von Lieven

Source for the science quotes;    Wikipedia    centripetal force,    centrifugal force,    fictitious force

Experiment 2 is too large for here. You can download it from http://keelytech.com/bessler/pop/experiment2.wm2d

@Hans:  Instead of the little ramp (F), make a circular track that will guide the ball (D) back up over the wheel and see how far it gets.

CF is inertial;  It doesn't magically appear, it comes from momentum.

No-one knows where it comes from, the fact is it is there and it is additional energy that can be used. That is enough.

As to the circular track, this could easily be achieved if the velocity is high enough, I doubt though it could be done using gravity as energy input. Besides, if it comes purely from momentum why does it go up by the square of velocity?

Hans von Lieven

Thanks for the second part Hans! I was going to ask, in behalf of those of us that have not been able to purchase (or hack the demo) of WM2d, if you (or any other wm3d owner with a bit of spare time) could make an avi video of both your simulations running?

You definitely are going to get the attention of many people with your current line of thinking!!!

Regards!

This research is to better humanity,
WM2d is on torrentz  ;) ;D

G'day ChileanOne,

I'll see if I can get an AVI version together

Greetings

Hans

QuoteNo-one knows where it comes from, the fact is it is there and it is additional energy that can be used. That is enough...
...Besides, if it comes purely from momentum why does it go up by the square of velocity?

The way you work with CF on paper depends on which way you wish to interpret it but there's no net gain in diverting an objects inertial path.  There's a world of difference between physics and the physical world.

QuoteAs to the circular track, this could easily be achieved if the velocity is high enough, I doubt though it could be done using gravity as energy input.

Yes, that's the point Hans.  If you were gaining energy from this, you could project the ball higher than it's starting point.

G'day all,

Thanks for thinking of it Chilean1. It's done.


http://keelytech.com/bessler/pop/experiment1.avi

http://keelytech.com/bessler/pop/experiment2.avi

Have fun

Hans von Lieven

Hans! Fortunately your descriptions of the virtual experiments are rich enough to have a good level of understanding even without running the simulations (which, anyway, will surely help ;D).

Now I see that the magnetic equivalent is indeed more complex to explain, but I think you are providing a wonderfull starting point for developping the same concept.

I have to tell you, this has got to be history in the making.

:)

Quote from: Marctwo on October 03, 2008, 09:53:33 PM
The way you work with CF on paper depends on which way you wish to interpret it but there's no net gain in diverting an objects inertial path.  There's a world of difference between physics and the physical world.
Yes, that's the point Hans.  If you were gaining energy from this, you could project the ball higher than it's starting point.

You keep forgetting that the wheel is still spinning with the potential energy we started off with. That energy is still available to the system.

Hans von Lieven

@Hans:  The wheel takes energy from the ball.  The greater the wheel mass, the more energy it will take as your first experiment shows.

If you make the wheel very heavy then it will store most of the energy.  You could drop the first ball without losing much energy, pick up a second ball and lift it quite high.

If you make the wheel as light as possible then the ball will store the energy.  If you drop the first ball with all the energy, the wheel couldn't even pick up a second ball never mind raise it.

No,

The second, lighter wheel stores the energy just the same, you can see it in the vastly increased velocity.

Hans von Lieven

@Hans:  Velocity without mass is not worth much energy.

The steel ball weighs in at 6.28kg, it spins an 8kg wheel at a good velocity, hardly not worth much energy.

Hans von Lieven

@Hans:  Simple denial will not change the physical world for you.  Take some time to digest the information at your disposal before rushing into premature conclusions.

I am doing the experiments  and not only in simulation.

Have you?????

Hans von Lieven

@Hans:  Yes, I've done plenty of experiments on this.  It's the best way to learn.  However, you have to learn from the results you don't like as well as those you do.

Well, no one asked for my opinion but I feel compelled to respond.  The same science and physics that brought us supersonic planes and put us on the moon still says that a bumblebee can not fly.  According to the math, it cannot beat its wings fast enough to lift its mass.  Well, it does, I have seen it.

Hans has done more on this site to keep folks from going down dead-end streets, myself included, than anyone else on here.  So, when he publishes his own ideas about something "impossible", I listen.  Whoever said that this venture of Hans' could be historic, I agree.  I, for one, am glad to be able to be here to witness it.

Hans has never been one to go off "half cocked".  So, when he says this might be indeed possible, my money is bet on him.

@ Hans:

You have my complete attention.  If there is any way that I might be of help, please let me know.

Bill

Thanks Bill,

I feel honoured by your comments and by your confidence in me. Let us hope I can live up to it.

I value your support and your friendship.

Greetings

Hans

Hi Hans,

Thanks for sharing your ideas and efforts.

If the correct formulas describing every important phase of the total process are at hand (or in computer), then it boils down to "playing with numbers" until y = x (I can say this now that we have learned from your teachings of course  8) )

Then building the model could come with the calculated (and hopefully practical) masses and distances and speeding up the wheel by hand or an aux motor to test the sphere is able to reach height x again (in fact a bit higher than x to make gravity roll the sphere back to C).

Thanks again and keep up your excellent work.

rgds, Gyula

Aren't we looking for the truth here?

This isn't about taking sides with someone because they have a good rep.  Or taking sides against conventional science because of the bumble bees.  This is about CF magically producing extra energy out of thin air.

If you want to take a side in this then why not take the side of evidence.  Do your own experiments.  You could start by dropping a ball bearing down a u-bend and seeing how much extra energy it has when it pops up the other side.  If Hans is right then it should just keep going... popping up one side then the other with more energy each time.

Greetings Hans

Glad to see this string thumping. I looked at your wm2d s, I find them similar effects to one of mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhskB-0SjKI
With the weighted arm It ran twice as long with the weighted arm than without. This is just a little addition to the story.

@Alan:  With the arm adding more mass to the perimeter of the system, wouldn't you expect it to have more momentum and run for longer?

Can you test the rundown times, with and without the weighted arm, using a calibrated input spin?
I illustrate what I mean in my video of testing the Mondrasek magnet-assisted gravity wheel. This method imparts exactly the same input energy to a wheel each time, and allows run-down time comparisons to be made easily and meaningfully.
It's easy to do and will be much more informative and accurate than a video of "Mr. Hand" giving a wheel a good spin.
Please feel free to download my video and try the method outlined.
http://www.mediafire.com/?wuldel0syug (http://www.mediafire.com/?wuldel0syug)

Hi Hans,

This thing is not so easy. I had a hard time to get to the bottom of the problem.
I have done all the math already in pequaides thread here in December 2007.

Please read only these two posts of mine.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1995.80 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1995.80)

Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
Ã,« Reply #90 on: December 16, 2007, 09:52:33 PM Ã,»

The whole system including the mass of the sphere attached does not accelerate at 9.81 m exp2/sec as one is led to believe, but much slower. The potential energy present at the beginning of the process which is converted to kinetic energy  is split upon seperation of the two masses depending on the ratio of the masses.

I hope it helps to save time and effort  before you get frustrated by the results of planned experiments.

Please go to this Link and look for the Atwood-Machine-Simulation. This is of utmost importance.

I put it all in here:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1995.160 (http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=1995.160)

Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
Ã,« Reply #186 on: February 15, 2008, 11:13:14 PM Ã,»

Kator

Hans,

I forgot to mention in my last post that I made some calculation errors at that time and  I had stored in my mind a wrong formula of momentum.

But most important for your understanding  is the attwood-machine. Just only read this and test the simulation-software.

But the calculation-formulas are clear. Up to the point you will release the ball at the bottom-dead-point in your second simulation you will have two seperate systems with the energy split. No gain at that point.

This is the reason why pequaide then suggests that in a second step the left rotating mass must then be stopped by transfering all of its momentum to the ball ( of steel-spheres in his setup )

If this really works ? I do not know. There is a test-setup- I had in mind at that time, but he was reluctant to try it.

I mean I believe him that he has had succes to stop the rotating cylinder but I doubt the claim that there is an energy-gain with the spheres. It has to be tested

Regards

Kator

@ Marctwo:

"This isn't about taking sides with someone because they have a good rep.  Or taking sides against conventional science because of the bumble bees.  This is about CF magically producing extra energy out of thin air."

Your above statement shows you have either not been reading what Hans has posted thus far, or you don't/can't/refuse to understand it.  Hans has never mentioned "magically", this is your word.  He is an engineer and the last thing an engineer relies on is "magic".

The bee story was just an illustration to demonstrate how far we have gone without actually knowing what is possible, and not possible.  Even Stephen Hawking has only a theory about gravity, probably the best one out there, but he admits we don't "know" what it is.  With basic fundamental information like this lacking in our sciences, I find it hard to believe absolutes based upon this same incomplete science.  No magic here I assure you.

Bill

@ kator,

I have had a look at the atwood machine simulation and at your calculations. The big question is what happens at really high velocities. So what if the energies are split if the centrifugal force component is part of it and that grows EXPONENTIALLY.

@ Bill,

Don't worry about gravity, its not there. Einstein said it is a fictitious force. That's why falling out of an aeroplane does not hurt you until you hit the ground. It's the ground that kills you not gravity.  :D  :D  :D

Hans von Lieven

@Bill:  Yes, magically was my choice of word... and I think it fits well.  Things that can't be explained by science have often been described as magic.

It doesn't matter what Stephen Hawking thinks about gravity... Hans' experiments show no extra energy created by CF.

Hi, Hans!
I like your professional approach to the question. It's good to see a systematic, intelligent and persistent work, backed up with a plain explanations, experiments, drawings. Very good!

Still I think it's very bold to switch from the particular device (alleged PM as this particular "Keenie's gravity wheel" design) to a general claims as >Why Overunity and therefore Perpetual Motion is possible.< Mind you, science  is based on a hundreeds of years old foundations, like clearing up the centuries long quest for "Perpetuum Mobile".

Von Helmholtz, Meyer and  Joule are considered as fathers of (modern) Energy law. Two medicine doctors and an enthusiastic experimentor. Science recognised, accepted (and "cleared" up (!)) their work. "Joule" became a basic energy unit, and both doctors acchievements are a classical science history.
One of a most popular quotes from Helmholtz's original paper (at least used by the 'FE' researchers) talks about the impossibility of perpetual motion which must be a consequence of some natural law which prevents it (CoE). (A centuries long search for a Perpetual Motion was not successful, therefore it must be some natural obstacle which prevents this from happening... ).
Fascinating, but a modern version says: Because of the Law of Conservation of Energy, "Perpetual Motion" is impossible... Hmm...?
Von Helmholtz was a brilliant man, but he couldn't be better in his reasoning than thousands of people which continued the work later. One of a more obvious misunderstandings was that he mixed up the concepts of force and energy (which were still fresh at his time!) (this is the most frequent mistake which tinkerers make nowadays, too...OK, together with the concept of "Power"..)

Which brings us to the question of "fictitious" forces - the ones present only in a moving frame of reference, The ones which "pop's out of nowhere",  like with a combination of e.g. linear/rotational ones..  CP/CF,Coriolis,.. Take a pendulum, as you've suggested... A rigid string connecting a pendulum weight/bob and the axle of rotation, in a gravity field...

The mechanics is known. A 'fictitious' force bulds up in the (linear) frame of reference of a connecting string. This force is there, it's "pumping" while the pendulum swings. The (connecting string) material is stressed with this Force (i'm sitting on a chair and pressing it with the gravity induced force right now, but - obviosly - i'm still not doing any "real" work......).

In an ideal environment, a pendulum would swing forever... (no losses - air, mech.  friction,etc). But, according to (modern) definitions of Energy, no work (energy) is done (if you look at the "fictitius" Centripetal Force) if there is no a change of position (in any observable "frame of reference"). A basic A=Fd (Work equals to Force times Displacement). A book sitting on a shelf, a magnet sticking on the fridge door, ,.. - they all produce Force but they're not "providing" the Work (or expendng the Energy)....

Now, try to use a CF/CP force - replace a "rigid" string of a pendulum with an ellastic one (spring) - the behaviour of such pendulum would be very different... A conservation of momentum (and all other known mechanical stuff) would kick in...
Point is - if you try to tap the "fictitious" CP force, it will be payed off with a "Conservation of Momentum/Energy" budget. One way or the other.

Part 2:

Quote
...
So, according to science that’s not really there either, it’s fictitious!
....
Fictitious forces and work
Fictitious forces can be considered to do work, provided that they move an object on a trajectory that changes its energy from potential to kinetic.

All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity. This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to formulate a theory with gravity as a fictitious force; attributing the apparent acceleration of gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein's theory of general relativity.

What this says is fascinating. On one hand they say it’s not really there and on the other hand they admit that is also a very real additional force that emerges independently of the forces involved that brought the prerequisite conditions about and can do work!

In other words FREE ENERGY!

So, why is science obscuring this fact with convoluted concepts and obscure language?

Simply put, the acceptance of these forces as real rattles the very foundation on which current scientific thinking is based.

If the forces are real that means either that the Conservation of Energy laws are wrong, because these forces manifest out of nowhere, which is believed impossible. This is not a premise science is prepared to accept and quite rightly so in my view.

The only remaining alternative is equally impalatable to science. It would mean that there is an underlying energy field that can exchange energy with the observable “reality”. In other words an ether (aether for the purist) of sorts.

So they are caught between a rock and a hard place and have to resort to this sort of crap because the existence of these forces is undeniable whether science can explain them or not.

Hmm, why all the hard questioning about the "Science"? What kind of crap "they" produced? Where are the real  facts opposing the "orthodox" views? Any solid, verifyable proofs?

If you're so sure about the "free energy", just do the experiments. Marctwo expressed some very reasonable concerns. And Kator's evaluations are "a must read". Pequade's ideas are intrigueing, indeed... It seems that a physical, real proof is all that is missing at the moment.....

I've looked at your "WM2D" videos. I'm not convinced, sorry.... What makes you think that a ball (after the release from the wheel would roll (slide?) up the incline? Because of a "tangential" momentum? What makes you think that this action is not payed with the reduced wheel momentum/energy?
By the time the ball stops at the top of the incline, the wheel is left with less kinetic energy than it was originally imparted by the ball dropping for a height "Z".  I just see the classical "mgh" stuff... Sorry.

You could make an incline in a spiral shape (to bring the ball back to the position near the wheel, where the ball could be picked up again)...
Or, a carefully "tuned" device consisting of two such wheels/balls/inclines, working in sinhronicity could work perpetually... With a little "luck", each ball would be picked up by opposite wheel, and lifted up and over into a new cycle... Or not...??

An undeniably Working Prototype would instantly clear all the misunderstandings...  Why the hell it never happens???

I hope you'll succede!
Cheers!

awful quiet in here, must be the sound of progress   ;)

listen to what spinner, marctwo, kator, etc. are saying, give up this "pissmobile" you are working on. listen to pirate and save yourself from going down this dead end street.

you might find this interesting though, a "believers" collectible, the souvenir of a delusion.
http://www.goantiques.com/detail,keely-motor-company,340306.html

G'day Spinner and all,

Let me say first of all that I like your reply to my propositions, it is well reasoned and eloquently put. This is the kind of response I was hoping for when I wrote my original paper.

I agree with you that my simulations are not as convincing as they could be. I am now working on a better experimental setup to prove my theorem. The limitations of WM2D are such that the programme is just about useless for a more convincing demo.

If my theories are correct and if there is a discrepancy between input and output energy this discrepancy should grow with increased speed.

Gravity as input energy is obviously out of the question as the maximum speed I can reach is limited by the laws that govern free fall.

To set up a proper experiment the wheel would need to rotate at about between 10,000 and 20,000 rpm. At these kind of velocities the CF is enormous and if there is any detrimental effect on the wheel this should show up dramatically.

I have a tentative design at the moment but I need to come up with a less complex approach since the building of that particular device is beyond my resources.

I am working on this right now and I shall keep you informed of any progress or failure as the case may be.

Unfortunately there are only 24 hours in a day and available time is limited.

Thanks for your input.

Hans von Lieven

Hans, why is it that you came to think that this extra energy is being produced in the first place?

Are you perhaps just overlooking the relative differences in the various reference frames used to describe these 'forces'?

G'day Mark,

One of the reasons is that I have worked with centrifugal casting machines that use centrifugal clamping devices to clamp the molds. There are huge pressures that these clamps generate without using any extra power.

Just one application

Hans von Lieven

Know and Understand Centrifugal Pumps

Very few industrial pumps come out of service and go into the maintenance shop because the volute casing or impeller split down the middle, or because the shaft fractured into four pieces. The majority of pumps go into the shop because the bearings or the mechanical seal failed. Most mechanics spend their time at work time greasing and changing bearings, changing pump packing, and mechanical seals. The mechanical engineers spend their time comparing the various claims of the pump manufacturers, trying desperately to relate the theory learned at the University with the reality of the industrial plant. Purchasing agents have to make costly decisions with inadequate information at their disposal. Process engineers and operators are charged with maintaining and increasing production. The focus of industrial plant maintenance has always been that the design is correct, and that the operation of the pumps in the system is as it should be. In this book, you will see that in the majority of occasions, this is not
true. Most of us in maintenance spend our valuable time, just changing parts, and in the best of cases, performing preventive maintenance, trying to diminish the time required to change those parts.
We almost never stop to consider what is causing the continual failure of this equipment. This book will help you to step away from the fireman approach, of putting out fires and chasing emergencies. This book is directed toward the understanding of industrial pumps and their systems. It won’t be a guide on how to correctly design pumps, nor how to rebuild and repair pumps. There are existing books and courses directed toward those themes. By understanding the real reasons for pump failure, analyzing those failures, and diagnosing pump behavior through interpretation of pressure gauges, you can achieve productive pump operation and contain maintenance costs. This book will serve as a guide to STOP repairing industrial pumps.

Download
http://depositfiles.com/files/8487276


;D

Quote from: hansvonlieven on October 03, 2008, 05:49:41 PM
G'day ChileanOne,

Yes, I believe what I am working on has repercussions right across the spectrum. When I have concluded my current set of experiments I will turn my attention to magnetism and see if and how it might apply there. Thanks for your interest.

Hans von Lieven

And I will watch this development holding my breath - when Hans turns to magnetism, I expect some spectacular advances - results of topmost importance. Let us watch that space.

laci

@ Ash,

Thanks for a terrific find. An excellent book and very apropos to this thread.

Hans von Lieven

G'day Hans/Guys, hopefully you guys will be re writing it with this device soon ;D
Am up the behind with sprak /hydroxy experiments and being distracted by this thread :D

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimgs.xkcd.com%2Fcomics%2Fcentrifugal_force.png&hash=17f57ecd8f2f01b581860010e754e308b48720f1)

(Thanks, www.xkcd.com)

 :D

Nice cartoon!

Unfortunately the humor is lost to me because most of these counter arguments are based upon a theory.

Even though that theory is normally a very good approximation it is failing to explain why Voyager is proceeding 5,000 km less than calculated - each year. Almost every slingshot procedure fails to hit expected acceleration (not off by much - but enough to make a difference on long voyages in space).

That theory is called 'gravitation'. Does anyone here know the difference between gravitation and acceleration? For that matter, is anyone here still looking for planet Vulcan?

Thanks for bringing in this classic cartoon, I used to have it as wall paper but I lost it in the last malwae attack that took over my pc.

Regards!

They left out the classical
"Good bye Mr Bond"

;D ;D

Quote from: BEP on October 12, 2008, 11:01:46 PM
For that matter, is anyone here still looking for planet Vulcan?

No mate, at the moment we are looking for the Galactic Federation of Light  ;D

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on October 13, 2008, 01:23:07 AM
No mate, at the moment we are looking for the Galactic Federation of Light  ;D

Hans von Lieven

Ah yes! The GFL. The numbers don't seem to make sense there. I like the earthquake prediction from several years ago. It made good sense. '2000, December third at 4:56 am' if I remember correctly. (0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6).
Even I could follow those numbers  :)

I think they should question their sources, as should we.

Get your federation of light Tshirts, 90$ each ;D

What does a roll of toilet paper and the Star Ship Enterprise have in common?


They both can hang around "Uranus" picking up "Clingons"...... ;D

BEP wrote:
"That theory is called 'gravitation'. Does anyone here know the difference between gravitation and acceleration?"

There is no difference between gravitation and acceleration. Gravity IS acceleration, nothing more, nothing less.

You prove this to yourself every day by vector mathematics.  You ride in or on vehicles that accelerate and decelerate on various vectors different from the local gravitational acceleration vector. Yet the accelerations from the vehicle and the acceleration from gravity combine together perfectly, according to the rules of vector calculus, with nothing left over or unaccounted for.
This could not happen if the "fields and forces" involved were of different natures.

The problem isn't what the acceleration due to gravity is, but rather, where it comes from. In the case of gravity, the acceleration comes from the curvature of space itself, and this curvature is apparently caused by the presence of mass, in some way that is yet imperfectly understood.

Quote from: TinselKoala on October 13, 2008, 01:04:44 PM
There is no difference between gravitation and acceleration. Gravity IS acceleration, nothing more, nothing less.

@TinselKoala

Exactly  ;D

At least I agree - for the moment. When I understand 'from where' and 'to where' and 'why' then my ideas of gravitation should be complete. The one thing I separate on is my concept of gravitation is it is an effect not an affect.

Another very wordy subject I'll avoid right now.

Kator01, Hans, others; I don’t know if you have seen the Laithwaite experiment fig. 7 in the threads, but it seems to back up the cylinder and spheres experiment. Any support and clues help.

See http://groups.yahoo.com/group/free_energy/ then go to files, then to pictures titled 9-27-08 Laithwaite’s figure 7.

3 photographs of Laithwaite’s Figure 7
From position one (photograph one) a small double lever is used to accelerate the pucks on the end of the string; one is accelerated north and one south (relative directions). The center puck is initially at rest and has a mass of 76g; the end pucks have a mass of about 32 grams each. That means the center of mass is closer to the center puck than to the end pucks.

As soon as the end pucks begin moving north and south the center puck begins moving right. When the center puck reaches the center of mass (which is about the center of the table) the end pucks are in the positions of photograph two, directly above and below the center puck. If the center of mass is to remain in position as Laithwaite stated then the velocity of the end pucks will be moving with half their original velocity, and the center puck will be moving with 64/76 *1/2 the original velocity of the end pucks. These velocities conserve linear Newtonian momentum, and the velocities also conserve the position of the center of mass. This is what the experimenter will observe upon doing the experiment.

All this motion is then returned to the end pucks upon moving from photograph 2 to photograph 3. In photograph three the center puck (now on the right side) is again at rest. The energy change from photograph 2 to photograph 3 is 217%. Start the motion in the center (photograph 2) and you can make energy.   

hans and a scale model of his pissmobile

LOL

But this isn't the pissmobile.

Hans von Lieven

yes, it is. PLEASE take your medication

This is the legendary piss mobile designed by Hans.

I think it is based upon the P Factor Vector Principle (P=Pee)

Bill

And this is the pissmobile in action in Hong Kong strictly in accordance with the Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory.

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkeelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Flee-tseungsaucer.gif&hash=cca8341f0f1126d86550d009738d428615f54be8)

Hans von Lieven

Dam you all, In Australia we call alcohol piss, i had my hopes up there, shows how scientific you all really are, ow me too before jumping to conclusions  ;D

Quote from: hansvonlieven on October 17, 2008, 01:15:34 AM
And this is the pissmobile in action in Hong Kong strictly in accordance with the Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory.

(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkeelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Flee-tseungsaucer.gif&hash=cca8341f0f1126d86550d009738d428615f54be8)

Hans von Lieven

LOL thats just a cartoon, a shitty one at that. the photograph i posted is clearly authentic :)

BUMP
how is this pissmobile of yours coming along?
i know you're really busy hans, what with your bullying on the ltseung thread and exercising your amazing penchant for making up schoolyard names for people (david dicke... you are sooo clever ::) )  but have you done anything with this yet?

Sorry WilbyInebriated,

There was no intention on my side with David Icke's name I simply misread it on the davidicke.com.

I have since corrected my post.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on January 06, 2009, 08:21:12 PM
Sorry WilbyInebriated,

There was no intention on my side with David Icke's name I simply misread it on the davidicke.com.

I have since corrected my post.

Hans von Lieven

question still stands, have you done anything with this yet?

With what? the pissmobile?


Of course not, the whole idea is demented and will never work. It was designed purely on the basis of the Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory.

Lawrence really thinks this will work, he said so when I posted it as a joke.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on January 06, 2009, 08:34:00 PM
With what? the pissmobile?


Of course not, the whole idea is demented and will never work. It was designed purely on the basis of the Lee-Tseung Lead Out Theory.

Lawrence really thinks this will work, he said so when I posted it as a joke.

Hans von Lieven

no shit sherlock? you know what i am talking about, not larry's pissmobile, yours. this 'pissmobile' that you have been talking about in this thread. what's up with it? did you give up on replicating the hoax or what?

It's not a hoax,

I am still doing tests with the control mechanism. This is not as easy as it sounds, I said so from day one and the whole system relies on it.

I regret to say that an elegant workable solution has so far escaped me but I am still working on it within the limited time I can devote to the project.

Hans von Lieven

Quote from: hansvonlieven on January 06, 2009, 08:57:34 PM
It's not a hoax,

I am still doing tests with the control mechanism. This is not as easy as it sounds, I said so from day one and the whole system relies on it.

I regret to say that an elegant workable solution has so far escaped me but I am still working on it within the limited time I can devote to the project.

Hans von Lieven

it's not a hoax... sure, just like keely's hoaxes weren't a "heterogeneous cominglement of absurdities"   ::)
i know you're busy with your bullying, that's why i bumped this thread, to get you back on track wasting your time with something productive  ;)

Quote from: hansvonlieven on January 06, 2009, 08:57:34 PM
It's not a hoax,

I am still doing tests with the control mechanism. This is not as easy as it sounds, I said so from day one and the whole system relies on it.

I regret to say that an elegant workable solution has so far escaped me but I am still working on it within the limited time I can devote to the project.

Hans von Lieven

It's clear that such a contraption could never fly stably without a control system, and conservation laws require such a system to eject reaction mass. Nothing comes for free and momentum is conserved  Clearly the pilot and crew must be fitted with collection devices so that flatulant emissions may be collected and stored for use by the reaction control system. But there's no free lunch, so plenty of pork and beans must be continually supplied to the crew.
Otherwise it's just another pipe dream.
:-X

QuoteNothing comes for free and momentum is conserved

Hah! You can kiss that good old momentum conservation law goodbye! It doesn't hold water, momentum and energy conservation relies on each other, and all you need to do to brake them is to accelerate a wheel. There you go, the entire universe has been upset and everything will collapse.

Well not really, because the entire universe makes use of this aspect of physical reality, everything spins......

This could of course be discussed in a seperate tread, and hansvonlieven's idea still works, but it is a complicated setup.
Julian