well here it goes
my idea stemmed from the magnetic disk rolling down an incline, lined with stators inducing electricity
i wanted a way to "perpetually" keep it rolling down the incline without having to deal with lenz law (but aren't we all)
anyway, the idea is having the incline being a larger distance away from the fulcrum. the mass above the fulcrum (magnet disk, incline material, stators [possibly not]) is equal to the counterweight, but the counterweight being twice as close to the fulcrum
ok so we have a system that is perfectly balanced, so it takes minimal effort to make it oscillate
now with this in mind, if we moved the counterweight x amount of inches, it makes the center of the incline move 2x, meaning we can make the magnetic disc induce electricity and lenz law is interpreted into the disc fighting angular momentum and not affecting the amount of energy to make the system oscillate
theoretically we could have multiple sets of magnetic discs as the counterweight would just need be adjusted
in addition we could also theoretically increase the distance between the incline and the fulcrum, making the movement exponentially larger
here's a couple drawings, let me know what you think
Hi Mr bojangles.
I demonstrated in a video in the past how to steer a balance point to allow a weighted object to rotate down hill towards the pivot.
I use no other force to get it going other than steering the path for the pivot point throwing it off center constantly, the weight does the rest.
I am not even fighting the counter weight if I keep it timed right. very little effort is being applied.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TM1hxvkf9A
Jerry
put a magnet on the end and let it spin in front of a stator
create a mechanical set up and try using a weight so you know exactly how much force it takes
what applications do you see for that
can anyone tell me why this wouldnt work?
the only thing i can see is that the magnet wouldnt induce enough electricity, but the distance of the incline can be increased to infinity
plus the system is balanced throughout the whole process
it seems with a specific amount of mass and strength of the magnet this would work
anything?
Interesting. I think the lever won't actually magnify amount of work performed. Stators will create drag on the magnet and require more vigorous work to be performed on lever. That being said, it just might work. I'm really digging many of the ideas combining mechanical, gravitational, and magnetic properties.
the stators do not have to be on the incline, they would be free standing, and only affect the magnet while it was rolling, so it would always require the exact same amount of force every time, no matter how many stators are used
distance only means mass which would mean more counterweight, were basically moving a balanced lever x amount of inches, so were almost only using force to overcome the friction of the axle because time is also irrelevant
unless you were thinking a different issue or this wouldnt overcome it
if so i would be very interested to hear it
and the lever system only amplifies distance in the sense that distance is now looked at as mass
if you take a lever that is balanced with one side twice as long as the other, and you apply a force to the smaller side, the larger side will move twice the distance
the only way this can be exploited is if the mass doesn't shift, basically if no mass is added to the system, because the second you do it becomes off balance and you are now moving the difference in mass
weight on a lever system is all about the difference in weight, this is a system where it always stays balanced, therefore we can exploit this reverse lever application
the incline is now looked at as mass, and the longer we make the track the more mass it is, which we use as a counterweight
because it is a further distance, it moves twice as far, but because it is the same mass, it is balanced, therefore a system where we do not have to account for lorentz force, as well as having a system that moves twice the distance we move it
provided that the mass of the lever/counterweight is much greater than the mass of the rolling magnet, i think this sort of system may have potential.
the one problem i see having to account for is the mass of the magnet off-setting the balance. as long as the lever and counterweight are much greater than that, it shouldn't matter too much.
Quote from: sm0ky2 on October 20, 2009, 07:10:44 PM
as long as the lever and counterweight are much greater than that, it shouldn't matter too much.
originally i thought of making both sides of the lever be the same weight, but when you said that it made me think of it more as a pendulum
i dont no which would be more efficient now, because it seems if the mass was identical we would only have to account for the friction of the axle, but if its heavier we could gain momentum from it and only have to pulse power on its return to starting position
does that make any sense?
i dont have the material or mathematical skills to figure this one out
i havent found any real reason why it shouldnt work
Quote from: spoondini on October 15, 2009, 07:31:22 PM
Stators will create drag on the magnet and require more vigorous work to be performed on lever.
the magnet will start at one end of the incline, at the "bottom"
system locks in place, disk released
disk only comes into contact with stator while rotating down the incline, stators will not be used while the incline is rotated, raising the magnet back into position, therefore lorentz force will be interpreted as a negative rotational inertia towards the disk
this means that we never have to combat lorentz force
gravity is fighting with the force, and as long as the angle is correct, it will be enough to overcome it and produce more energy than required to move a balanced system
because the movement of the disk and the incline are offset, it always stays balanced and gravity does the work for us, except instead of using it to try and collect kinetic energy, our mass is actually generating electricity
most people use gravity wheels to try and make an unbalanced wheel
they fail because kinetic energy takes as much as you put in, this is different because we dont want it to be unbalanced, the exact opposite, and our moving mass in this gravity wheel our weights directly generate electricity
basically, stators will create drag on the disk, but that only means the incline will need a larger angle
it will take the exact same amount of energy every single oscillation, every time
effectively overcoming lorentz and lenz law
Can you draw a series of diagrams showing how this is supposed to work, and label the forces involved in each state? I'm just not grokking this device from the descriptions.
ok heres a couple quick drawings that may be used to express this further
total length of incline = 14'
the distance between the incline and the fulcrum = 4'
distance between fulcrum and counterweight = 2'
mass of everything above fulcrum = (x)
with the mass of our counterweight being a tiny bit >(x)
well say starting position is the second drawing, consider the disc, and fulcrum to be locked in place for now
1. release mechanism (fulcrum)
- counterweight swings
- pendulum action occurs, bringing it nearly back to the starting point on the opposite side,
2. energy is first used in combination with momentum from swinging, using a force equal to the difference in weight (the closer they are in weight, the more efficient it will be), going an extremely small distance back to the same degree as starting position
3. the disc is released, rolling 14' down the incline, on both sides are free standing stators, lorentz force is now fighting the angular momentum (the disk actually rolling down the incline)
- disc reaches other side and locks
4. repeat
by moving the difference in weight less than a foot results in the disc moving 14'
no lorentz or lenz law is ever combated with directly
incline can be infinitely long, infinite mass
disc can be infinite mass, as long as counterweight is slightly heavier than both
if the distance from the fulcrum to the incline is twice as much as the distance from the fulcrum to the counterweight, it results in twice as much distance for the incline, which as well can be increased to near infinity
i dont no what else to say that i havent already said before
hope this helped
until next time...
Okay, I see why it wouldn't work.
In step 2, the energy you need to use increases by the length of the apparatus, because you need to apply more force to lift the disc up the further away it is from the fulcrum (leverage is working against you here). The energy used in step 2 isn't likely to be fully regained from step 3.
As you place a weight (the rolling magnet) on the low end of the device for every cycle, the device needs to do more work when it swings to lift that weight upwards - in short, the energy used in step 2 needs to compensate for not only the distance shifted, but also for moving a greater distance than you are anticipating, because shifting the weight has shifted the center of gravity of the device - and shifted it so that it is not in your favor.
that's why the bottom must be slightly heavier
your looking at it as if they were equal in weight
if the bottom as a whole weighs more than the top, no matter the position of the roller or distance from fulcrum, it will still create a pendulum effect and not have the negative effects that a normal lever would
we are not trying to do work on the disc, we are doing work on the incline and allowing gravity to move the disc for us, in a controlled fashion
the reason distance matter is due to the weight of the lever which is considered to be uniform
obviously if you take a lever, of uniform weight, and make one side closer to the fulcrum it will unbalance
however if one side is twice as long, yet half as thick, you will have a balanced lever, and placing the same amount of weight on both sides would allow it to stay balanced as well, yet one is twice as far from the fulcrum
this is the same concept, the counterweight is slightly larger than the combined mass and torque of the incline and the mass
the counterweight is the easiest part because all we need to do is add more weight, and we have as much as we want for any system
basically any torque the magnet could put on it will still be less than the weight of the counterweight, and the pendulum effect can be exploited
Quote from: mr_bojangles on November 03, 2009, 01:49:20 PM
that's why the bottom must be slightly heavier
your looking at it as if they were equal in weight
if the bottom as a whole weighs more than the top, no matter the position of the roller or distance from fulcrum, it will still create a pendulum effect and not have the negative effects that a normal lever would
You must still deal with leverage. Your counterweight is going to be very close to the fulcrum, and won't exert a great deal of torque compared to the magnet all the way out at the end. Unless your counterweight is significantly heavier (perhaps 10x heavier) than the rolling magnet, you won't get much of a pendulum effect. Of course, the heavier you make the counterweight, the more energy you must use in step 2 to try to get to your mirrored position where you can roll the magnet down the incline.
Quotewe are not trying to do work on the disc, we are doing work on the incline and allowing gravity to move the disc for us, in a controlled fashion
Because the incline is supporting the disc, any work you do on the incline will also move the disc. Therefore any work on the incline is also work on the disc (to move it upward to where gravity can start taking effect to roll said disc).
Quotethe reason distance matter is due to the weight of the lever which is considered to be uniform
But you must take into consideration the weight of your shifting magnet disc, which will make the weight of the lever non-uniform depending on which side it is currently on.
Quoteobviously if you take a lever, of uniform weight, and make one side closer to the fulcrum it will unbalance
however if one side is twice as long, yet half as thick, you will have a balanced lever, and placing the same amount of weight on both sides would allow it to stay balanced as well, yet one is twice as far from the fulcrum
But you have no means of doing this in your design. You're just placing (or allowing gravity to place) extra weight on the lower end of the apparatus, making the lower end the heavier one.
Quotethis is the same concept, the counterweight is slightly larger than the combined mass and torque of the incline and the mass
the counterweight is the easiest part because all we need to do is add more weight, and we have as much as we want for any system
The length of the counterweight from the fulcrum matters a great deal - just having more mass than the rest of the apparatus won't necessarily allow you to swing it like a pendulum.
Quotebasically any torque the magnet could put on it will still be less than the weight of the counterweight, and the pendulum effect can be exploited
Have you considered that the pendulum effect will take place around the (offset) center of gravity of the device, and not around the actual center? That's what I'm getting at - the pendulum won't swing out to anywhere near it's mirror image on the other side, and you'll have to make up for that by adding energy to the system.
i'd really like to see an animation of this
this seems more like an advancement of Yu oscillating Generator ( http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8051.0 ).
you're using purely mechanical means for your pendulum system adding leverage, an extra pendulum, and a rolling wheel that oscillates horizontally between the leverages. also no magnets here! pretty neat.
this idea isn't very hard to build in real life.
the way i see this system self start is when it reaches a certain speed, after that it will self run.
this is a great idea!
thanks for sharing.
P.S. let me know if i misunderstood your idea.
well the intention of the magnetic rolling wheel is to induce electricity into stators, which would be the energy used to further power the machine
the thing about magnets is that their strength and mass are not closely related necessarily
we could use extremely small (mass) magnets that are high in power to generate the electricity
even if we didn't attempt to use a pendulum type oscillation, could we not just equal the weight of the counterweight to that of the incline + disc + any torque resulting
this would balance the system and then we would be able to manipulate the incline with only the resistance of the friction of the fulcrum
what i am suggesting is to use a large amount of dense mass, weights, that will produce the exact same torque as the disc on the incline, while being twice as close, this is possible, and the system would balance out
my drawings are huge over exaggerations of what would be necessary for this machine to work, moving the bottom of the fulcrum only a couple degrees would put the incline at a sufficient angle for the disc to roll,
this is essentially a wheel on a ramp, theoretically it should be able to work at only a few degrees steep
the angle is important in the aspect it will be giving the disc angular momentum to combat the lorentz force induced by the stators
it does not need to move hardly at all to manipulate the angle of the incline, which is the only reason this could work
the beauty of the fully balanced system means that mass is basically irrelevent
this means we can have infinite length of incline, as well as infinite inclines and infinite discs to roll on them
@freeEnergy if it makes sense to you i doubt you misunderstood
@com i appreciate your input and thought provoking discussion
even if it doesnt work i hope someone can think of how to improve it or use it in another aspect
anyone willing to build this in working model 2d? would be nice.
Gravity and magnetism 'only transfer energy'. they have no direct working energy unless there is extra energy present working together to transfer it.
it is the simple truth.
all i am attempting to do is set up a situation where our generator does not have to combat Lorentz force
and i achieved that