What would you consider passing the pendulum test.
Hang the machine from a rope let it hang dead center.
The machine wants to counter rotate so you put a track on both sides of it to stop it from rotating. You mark the center point on the track and center point on the machine. Line both points up and turn on the machine. It pulls to the right about 2 inches and will increase to 4 inches if I turn the machine up. When the machine it stopped it moves back to center. I can do this over and over, let it spin slow and it moves just a little to the right of center spin it up faster and moves many inches and keeps trying to move that way until turned off. It doesn't oscillate it pulls in that one direction until turned off. And the faster it spins the harder it pulls.
What does this mean.
C.
Hopper, can you make a small drawing of your setup and upload it here?
It is not clear what you talk about.
I agree, it's hard to visualize what you're talking about.
Sounds good all right. Could be a pull or a push or a weight shift. From the description it's hard to tell. I see you are using a rope--that's important. (Edited some stuff about rigid pendulums out here)What's not good is a rigid pendulum pivoted only at the top with the device rigidly attached to the rod at the bottom.
Is the device sealed? I mean, you've ruled out air pushes from the fan effect of whirling parts, right?
So, if it's a centrifugal pull or something, that's pretty good, and would be something to get excited about.
I believe inertia engines have been proven? Those would perform similarly, I would think.
Perhaps you've manage to get free "extra" energy from a device which still does what it's supposed to do, yet making good use of otherwise wasted energy.
But it's all just guesswork now, a sketch of your setup would be most appreciated.
I will up load several pictures that will show the set up. However I will edit the pictures to blockout the machine. But you should be able to understand the set up.
C.
Here are some simple drawings to help understand the test.
C.
pic 2.
C.
Quote from: currenthopper on July 22, 2009, 02:26:27 PM
I will up load several pictures that will show the set up. However I will edit the pictures to blockout the machine. But you should be able to understand the set up.
C.
So this means you are not planning on disclosing the device as you wanted to censor it and ended up using an illustration. I guess I have no more reason to watch this thread.
It says open source in the top of this browser screeen. I hope you'll reconsider. What would make grandmother most proud? :-)
If credit is due, and you've got something great, a Swedish awardshow will want to have you. You'll a job anywhere, at any salary. But if you've got something, open source it please. It's what this place is all about. Take a good think.
I'm sorry my investors would not like that. It was their money that allowed me to build the device. I can't betray them like that. I wish I could show you the machine and how it works.
When the patents are issued then the world will know.
C.
In the mean time lets us look at the results and Annalise it the best we can.
You think you can beat this guy?;
http://pesn.com/2009/07/23/9501555_Keshe_space_exploration_energy/
Let us ignore the countless inventors that wanted to market their FE devices and failed big time for a bit.
You're talking about being years away from selling this. Research, PR, marketing, legal isseus... By the time you're lucky enough to bring your device out the world would be too f*ed up to give a damn or we would be flying around in keshe's spacecraft :p.
Open source is not about giving your work away, it's about having a realistic chance at success without dealing with a million things that try to bring you down.
But since you sold your work (and sole :p) this community cannot help you further.
I'm only here to get opinions of my test results and determine if there are any further tests that might help.
Because I have never witnessed a machine that when held from a single rope completely centered on a mark and when energized moves to one direction and stays there until turned off. And I don't mean it oscillates, I mean it just pulls in one direction constantly until turned off. And believe me or not that is precisely what my machine does. And the amount of pull is dictated by how fast I let it spin.
C.
I'm only here to get opinions of my test results and determine if there are any further tests that might help.
Because I have never witnessed a machine that when held from a single rope completely centered on a mark and when energized moves to one direction and stays there until turned off. And I don't mean it oscillates, I mean it just pulls in one direction constantly until turned off. And believe me or not that is precisely what my machine does. And the amount of pull is dictated by how fast I let it spin.
C.
Just out of curiosity how much have these investors payed you and what kind of contract have you signed?
Several hundred thousand. And the company holds the technology rights to this invention.
C.
Ehm, that figure is high. Are you saying your working device is made out of clockwork and/or gold? I assume it's completly mechanical and you had to run through some prototypes to get it running. Let's say the device is made out of 10 custom parts and each would cost 200$, that would be about 2000$ per custom build prototype. My estimate would be a boundary of 40.000$ on prototypes. Meaning you went through 40 different designs.
So what makes the investment so high?
Now will you give a opinion of my test and results. Is there something I'm missing.
The electric motor is mounted to the outershell of the device. This whole device is hung from a rope. Like in "side view pic". If I started the motor it would just go crazy the outside of the motor would spin opposite to the inside. It would not pull left or right in would just hang there in the center and spin.
Now place two rails on both sides of the device to stop it from counter rotating. "top view" It's still free to swing back and forth between the rails, they hardly touch it.
Now turn it on. It pulls to the right about 3 inches from top center.
Turn the machine around and it pulls 3 inches left of center.
And i can do this over and over. It doesn't oscillate at all it keeps pulling until turned off.
At low rpm it pulls just a little maybe 1/2 inch from center mark and at high rpm it pulls the full 3 inches.
Now if i mated two of these devices together so they counter balance one another I would have a force propels you in one direction only.
Can you see anything I have done wrong, or some other problem.
C.
What the hell are you talking about? A investment is made determined by the value of the company and it's idea and how well it can be secured by intellectual properties. It has nothing to do with what a prototype is going to cost. You obviously have never invested in a company.
C.
Anyway! Way off topic!!!!
There is more to a company than what the prototype costs.
Legal fee
Patent work
salaries
insurance
etc...
Get my point.
C.
There are certain people here who will tell you have done a million things wrong and never be satisfied. Others will believe you have done nothing wrong. But the point is to share your findings and ideas. Basically you're teasing people and trying to use them for your self interests. I don't quite see the point if you are not willing to share or open source your invention. I may not understand corporate crap but you don't understand what this forum and the general FE cause is about.
Well, regardless of the political issues, I see a problem with those side rails--the anti-rotation rails.
The device clearly must push against the rails to see their effect--otherwise they would not be needed, after all--so it must be shown that the interaction between the rails and the device cannot be the cause of the displacement thrust.
This might be hard to do. First I would try rollers or bearings, to minimize the friction with the rails, so that the anti-torque effect could be separated from any friction thrust in the direction of the displacement.
But it really would be better if there aren't any rails. Can a counterrotating "twin" be made that would still push in the same direction? Then the two paired devices could cancel each other's torque and the rails would not be needed.
Yes a counter rotating mate would be the answer and eliminate the need for rails. I'm working on it.
However,
There is no bouncing on the rails. The device holds to the wall of the rail and slides forward. So I believe the rail is simply stopping the rotation.
C.
Further study is needed.
On further study,
I see the device slowly moves along the rail. It doesn't bounce or vibrate forward. I can even hold the forward corner of the device just enough to stop the rotation and it pulls to the right like when in the trak. This shows me that by holding only one corner just to stop the counter rotation it still gives a thrust in one direction.
C.
Quote from: TinselKoala on July 22, 2009, 09:27:44 PM
Can a counterrotating "twin" be made that would still push in the same direction? Then the two paired devices could cancel each other's torque and the rails would not be needed.
Or, if it would be quicker and/or cheaper, could a powered gyroscope (simple electric motor powered flywheel) be added to the device and have the same torque cancelling effect?
I believe touching the device in any way influences this system such that you cannot claim to have successfuly passed the pendulum test. Any contact will cause a force. That force can be translated into sideways deflection of the pendulum.
I guess an alternative way to look at it would be to measure how much force is acting on the system at the contact point(s) of the device and rails. If that force was measured, it might be equal to the force necessary to hold the pendulum off center by the amount you are witnessing. And since measurement and calculations methods are always questioned, it is best to eliminate the need for the rails by some method.
M.
For a simple device which has some tendency to spin to it, would a cart that rolls up an incline from standstill, wheels with 2-ways bearings, also be accepted? The "rail" are not pushed off against, they're dragged up the same incline.
You could connect a long thin rod out one side and to a stationary point to stop the rotation. If it still climbs in one direction then it would be worth building a twin counter rotating device to continue testing further.