Here's a "poorman patent" dating a while back of a device: lever (seesaw if you want) working on weight displacement. There have been subsequent developpments which have entailled another 4 "poorman patents". This not perpetual motion, but a means of producing substantially more energy (mechanical) than is required to initiate the movement. Useful runtimes of between 20 minutes and 6 hours have been obtained on a systematic basis using variants of this device. Energy produced was/is sufficient to dive a heavy bike wheel via a 3/8 in chain and run two "bottle" type friction dynamos.
The illustration apeears a little large for the forum, so heres where you can see full size http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2519/3976882366_c73a5f09aa_o.jpg
In the form shown here, the dificulty is in maintaining the wheel A vertical. This can be accomplished by many means, most of which detract from the energy of the machine. The most effective is a pantograph system. A cam and rod invertor are also ok. The 360° rotation of the balance shifting wheel atop the device is not ideal, as CG will not be changed brutally from one end og the beam to the other, as maximum efficiency would require. A "botch" fix is 180° back and forth.
Sliding weights and/or pendulum (including magnetics for holding the beam or weights in a given location for a given duration, modifying the power delivery via having a steel pendulum jump from one magnetic field to another, magnet attract or repel or sliding weight (s) are other options I have used. They are much simpler to implement.
Just don't forget that if you are using a wheel with say a 10 kg weight at each end and a 2 kg movable weight, at best your gain will be 2 kgs through part of the arc. Plus any energy gained from G. Other systems will allow for a 8 through 12 kg +/- G (and - friction/cx) with a 10 kg weight on one end only.
The reason I'm not playing paranoid and keeping all this "secret" (even if most guys will spend the rest of their lives objecting that it doesn't or won't work) ?
We need "free" energy. Urgently. My design "works", other people with different mindsets will be able to come up with alternatives. Or use "info" from this system to improve or make feasible their own designs. Could I make a billion from this ? No way, the issue is much too large. However, for a low mileage LHD Lotus Seven with 5 years prepaid maintenance and insurance, I'll give up all my designs :))
I am willing to submit a photo of the basic setup to the resident expert, whoever he may be.
I simulated the mobile with no air resistance, no electrostatics, normal gravity, no force fields. it comes to rest completely in about 1 minute.
Thx, nice to compare simulation to actual device.
What weight did you factor in as mass at periphery on the revolving wheel mounted vertically to right of fulcrum? I use 8 kgs at 25 rpm. The ballast weight at left end of lever is 10 kgs. When rotated the vertical wheel distributes the weight over 360°, the dia of the wheel is 28 inches, at nearest to fulcum the weight on wheel is displaced 1 inch to left of fulcrum.
A bit hard to simulate, guess I need to upload a pic and some precise measurements.
Oh, and you have to factor in an initial impetus to be horizontal wheel. And know what force the left end of the beam is acting against (it runs a freewheel flywheel, so only exerts force on the downstroke.
Quote from: nicbordeaux on October 04, 2009, 04:30:04 PM
Thx, nice to compare simulation to actual device.
What weight did you factor in as mass at periphery on the revolving wheel mounted vertically to right of fulcrum? I use 8 kgs at 25 rpm. The ballast weight at left end of lever is 10 kgs. When rotated the vertical wheel distributes the weight over 360°, the dia of the wheel is 28 inches, at nearest to fulcum the weight on wheel is displaced 1 inch to left of fulcrum.
A bit hard to simulate, guess I need to upload a pic and some precise measurements.
Oh, and you have to factor in an initial impetus to be horizontal wheel. And know what force the left end of the beam is acting against (it runs a freewheel flywheel, so only exerts force on the downstroke.
Sorry nicbordeaux, I deleted the model after I tested it, I would have to remodel it again later, I got tied up on another post and got diverted.
my apologies.
Jerry
Hello,
When i read your post i remain that's the Mann gravity mover principle.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Mann_Gravity_Mover
Isn't it ?
Obelix
Not sure of that, but the Mann Gravity Mover explanations are a little too complex for my small brain this morning. :D
Whatever, there are many ways of shifting weight to alter CG ot let weight fall on the end of a lever, then retrieve it.
Who gets there first with a working and sustainable and useful device which can be mass-produced, ist ganz egal.
I'm sorry but I don't understand how this device will generate any additional energy? As modeled, it might be an efficient user of energy input - but how would additional energy be created, or more energy extracted than what's put in?
The principle is rotating one offset mass located at the outer edge of a wheel mounted horizontally on a beam.
The beam is mounted centrally on a BB/axle.
The beam has a weight on the left end.
The wheel is mounted (free to spin on BB) on the right side of the beam.
When the wheel is placed so that the weight sat upon it is farthest away from fulcrum, the device is (to keep things very simple) in balance. It will stay "level".
When the wheel with weight is rotated (which takes one heck of a lot less energy than lifting equivalent weight vertically), the weight upon this wheel will approach the fulcrum, or axis of the beam. As it does so, weight is displaced so that it weighs less against the right hand side of the beam.
The weight or mass at left of beam will drop with G. The bigger the swing, the bigger the "hit".
As horizontal wheel continues to rotate, it will return to initial position, and lift right hand weight back to initial position. In simpler terms, the seesaw will be back to where it started out.
Problems encountered are in maintaining the horizontal wheel supporting assembly without removing too much from the energy produced by G. Also making the transfer of weight quicker, more brutal. Within the scope of the rotary horizontal mass distribution, this can be accomplished by restraint of appropriate end of beam, restraint of constant force, eg it will let go when a given amount of force (or mass, whatever) is applied. Problems were also encountered in the area of applyying weight constantly (or where required) to beam from horizontal wheel, as maintaining the assembly vertical entails moving in several planes. To stay simple, it has to be able to slide lengthwise, and also vertically.
For those who are still with me, cam and rod push or pull, and/or wire restraint can be configured so that the vertical assembly will move from vertical to one side then the other by a few degrees, inducing a self rotate of the wheel. Timing of course is of the essence, but auto-timing (mechanical) has been achieved (luckily, because with weights in the order of 8 - 10 kg individually, serious damage would occur if things got out of sych).
Whatever, you can modelize this with computer programs 'till the end of time and be nowhere near reality, the parameters are too numerous and not all immediately obvious. You might, if you could with this explanation, make a working device (I hope not ;D), be able to identify the parameters, measure all energy loss/gain, and obtain enough data to simulate this device.
For those who aren't still with me, you can have some serious fun and validate the very basic principle by building the following device : one piece of steel bar say 1.5 meters long with at central point a pivot (say a bicycle hub ?). At one end of this beam, fix a weight of 1 kg, 2 if you want to. To other end (right) of beam affix a weight of approx 1/2 of the weight attached to left end of beam. Now take a length of solid string (say 30 cm)? with a weight fixed on one end and fix it to beam on righthand side of pivot so that at rest the device is more or less horizontal. Now swing pendulum and watch lever swing up and down. Erratically because length of pendulum needs to tuned, and even if in perfect tune, decay of pendulum movement occurs, and you get funny behavior. You could improve no end by using a rigid pendumum rotating freely on a BB (how about a bicycle pedal ?) This can be improved upon, I mean by that that the pendular form of device can made to have a quite long runtime and produce energy. More than was required to intiate the swing of the pendulum. If you are having too much trouble maintaining the beam swing up and down within a given radius of an arc, you might want to suspend the "dropping" end by a spring, or strong elastic. It'll upset the behavior pattern of course. If you are using a string, your beam assembly must be quite far forward from table, eiffel tower or whatever you are using as a support, because firstly there is this guy Foucault who is quite right about pendulum swing plane rotating, and secondly, but more important, strings on pendulums tend not to travel peacefully back and forth in a perfectly constant linear plane when they are being bounced all over the place by a silly swinging beam they are attached to.
The leverage means that the weight of the pendulum can be varied a lot, you just need to compensate by moving fixation point of pendul to beal longitudinally to attain balance. This will also greatly influence the behavior, and power delivery. At best, your available power in this config will be left weight + G minus right hand weight and restraining forces associated. Occasionally, there will be a moment when the pendulum weight will add to this. However, this is totally unpredictable. Power should be taken only on downstroke to left IMO.
This simple device however could be computer modelized, just don't forget to factor in moment of intertia, and weight of beam plus rod if rod is used for pendulum.
Hope that answers your question Mr Spoondini (Yes, this device will produce more than enough energy to bend a teaspoon haha)
Good luck then :)
Oh, by the way, if I haven't stated this already on this forum in particular, if I am "outing" this info on this particular version of device it is because I think that many minds working together will improve it. Unfortunately, a lot of minds spend their time taking other peoples designs apart rather than inventing anything themselves, luckily not all.
Furthermore, I am now into devices of a different sort which show more potential in that they are much less costly to make, require less maintenance having fewer moving parts, and are easy for everyone (myself included) to explain and understand.
Quote from: nicbordeaux on October 05, 2009, 12:13:23 PM
The principle is rotating one offset mass located at the outer edge of a wheel mounted horizontally on a beam.
The beam is mounted centrally on a BB/axle.
The beam has a weight on the left end.
The wheel is mounted (free to spin on BB) on the right side of the beam.
When the wheel is placed so that the weight sat upon it is farthest away from fulcrum, the device is (to keep things very simple) in balance. It will stay "level".
When the wheel with weight is rotated (which takes one heck of a lot less energy than lifting equivalent weight vertically), the weight upon this wheel will approach the fulcrum, or axis of the beam. As it does so, weight is displaced so that it weighs less against the right hand side of the beam.
The weight or mass at left of beam will drop with G. The bigger the swing, the bigger the "hit".
As horizontal wheel continues to rotate, it will return to initial position, and lift right hand weight back to initial position. In simpler terms, the seesaw will be back to where it started out.
Problems encountered are in maintaining the horizontal wheel supporting assembly without removing too much from the energy produced by G. Also making the transfer of weight quicker, more brutal. Within the scope of the rotary horizontal mass distribution, this can be accomplished by restraint of appropriate end of beam, restraint of constant force, eg it will let go when a given amount of force (or mass, whatever) is applied. Problems were also encountered in the area of applyying weight constantly (or where required) to beam from horizontal wheel, as maintaining the assembly vertical entails moving in several planes. To stay simple, it has to be able to slide lengthwise, and also vertically.
For those who are still with me, cam and rod push or pull, and/or wire restraint can be configured so that the vertical assembly will move from vertical to one side then the other by a few degrees, inducing a self rotate of the wheel. Timing of course is of the essence, but auto-timing (mechanical) has been achieved (luckily, because with weights in the order of 8 - 10 kg individually, serious damage would occur if things got out of sych).
Whatever, you can modelize this with computer programs 'till the end of time and be nowhere near reality, the parameters are too numerous and not all immediately obvious. You might, if you could with this explanation, make a working device (I hope not ;D), be able to identify the parameters, measure all energy loss/gain, and obtain enough data to simulate this device.
For those who aren't still with me, you can have some serious fun and validate the very basic principle by building the following device : one piece of steel bar say 1.5 meters long with at central point a pivot (say a bicycle hub ?). At one end of this beam, fix a weight of 1 kg, 2 if you want to. To other end (right) of beam affix a weight of approx 1/2 of the weight attached to left end of beam. Now take a length of solid string (say 30 cm)? with a weight fixed on one end and fix it to beam on righthand side of pivot so that at rest the device is more or less horizontal. Now swing pendulum and watch lever swing up and down. Erratically because length of pendulum needs to tuned, and even if in perfect tune, decay of pendulum movement occurs, and you get funny behavior. You could improve no end by using a rigid pendumum rotating freely on a BB (how about a bicycle pedal ?) This can be improved upon, I mean by that that the pendular form of device can made to have a quite long runtime and produce energy. More than was required to intiate the swing of the pendulum. If you are having too much trouble maintaining the beam swing up and down within a given radius of an arc, you might want to suspend the "dropping" end by a spring, or strong elastic. It'll upset the behavior pattern of course. If you are using a string, your beam assembly must be quite far forward from table, eiffel tower or whatever you are using as a support, because firstly there is this guy Foucault who is quite right about pendulum swing plane rotating, and secondly, but more important, strings on pendulums tend not to travel peacefully back and forth in a perfectly constant linear plane when they are being bounced all over the place by a silly swinging beam they are attached to.
The leverage means that the weight of the pendulum can be varied a lot, you just need to compensate by moving fixation point of pendul to beal longitudinally to attain balance. This will also greatly influence the behavior, and power delivery. At best, your available power in this config will be left weight + G minus right hand weight and restraining forces associated. Occasionally, there will be a moment when the pendulum weight will add to this. However, this is totally unpredictable. Power should be taken only on downstroke to left IMO.
This simple device however could be computer modelized, just don't forget to factor in moment of intertia, and weight of beam plus rod if rod is used for pendulum.
Hope that answers your question Mr Spoondini (Yes, this device will produce more than enough energy to bend a teaspoon haha)
Good luck then :)
Oh, by the way, if I haven't stated this already on this forum in particular, if I am "outing" this info on this particular version of device it is because I think that many minds working together will improve it. Unfortunately, a lot of minds spend their time taking other peoples designs apart rather than inventing anything themselves, luckily not all.
Furthermore, I am now into devices of a different sort which show more potential in that they are much less costly to make, require less maintenance having fewer moving parts, and are easy for everyone (myself included) to explain and understand.
please post drawings of this or any videos you might have. thank you.
Quote from: nicbordeaux on October 05, 2009, 12:13:23 PM
...
When the wheel with weight is rotated (which takes one heck of a lot less energy than lifting equivalent weight vertically), the weight upon this wheel will approach the fulcrum, or axis of the beam. As it does so, weight is displaced so that it weighs less against the right hand side of the beam.
...
It's not exact. The rotating weight of the wheel is not equivalent to a sliding weight along the beam. The force due to the weight is always applied to the beam at the same point: the point where the axle of the wheel is connected to the beam.
What is happening is that when the wheel is rotating, there is a torque onto its axle acting in the vertical plane including the weight and the wheel axle. It is this torque that applies to the beam. In order to keep the axle perfectly vertical, you have to exert an opposing torque so no useable work can be expected and the axle of the wheel would not slide. And if the axle was not kept perfectly vertical, then the height of the weight will be decreasing with the beam tilt due to the torque from the wheel axle, and you will just be able to recover the potential energy that the weight lost.
If the axle is kept perfectly horizontal,
@ nicbordeaux.
This is an interesting topic. First, in your reply number 6, you describe a simple proof of concept device with a pendulum and lever [ see-saw or teeter- totter] . Your description resembles the two stage oscillator of Milkovitch. {google it] .In your first post on this topic you describe a machine that will drive 2 bicycle dynamos for up to six hours. To me this is the Holy Grail, because, if it will work for 6 hours, with development and optimisation, it will run forever. I find it really hard to believe that you built this device and did not make photos or video. If you really believe that the world needs free energy, you need to share with us all that you have, so that we can help you develop it. If, like me; your computer skills are limited, get some help. I do not mean to sound unkind, but we all have limited time and resources, and unless you help us here, we cannot help each other, or the planet. Kind Regards, Neptune.
QuoteIf you really believe that the world needs free energy, you need to share with us all that you have, so that we can help you develop it.
Please expound on your reasoning that the world needs free energy. It has been my observation that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Free energy in the hands of man as he exists today, considering the deplorable state of absolute relativism he has largely allowed himself to sink to.....
Perhaps it would be akin to teaching monkeys how to make fire?
"Now you must go, Bonzo, take this bow drill and show the others, so that you all may be free and stay warm in your 'jungle' habitat." Oh, and be creative, for you will eventually power lightbulbs and electric typewriters so that you may one day reproduce the collective works of Shakespeare!
TS
If apes can be taught sign language then they can be taught the fire bow.
Koko the Gorilla, it is to bad she passed away, I think she of all could of used the fire bow. she knew over a 1000 different sign language symbols and converse this way with Humans, she also invented new signs to add to the language.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCMc9IEFoMY
Jerry 8)
@ TechStuf If you are against Free Energy, perhaps you have made a bad decision on your choice of website.
Quote@ TechStuf If you are against Free Energy, perhaps you have made a bad decision on your choice of website.
Are you kidding? ME against free energy??! We're all made of free energy! I don't know how our electrons got started spinning, and I don't know how to stop them.....
Do you?
Perhaps you missed the essence of my illustration. Which is basically.....Let us not forget that everything 'Free' comes with a price.
QuoteOurs is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. If we continue to develop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our executioner. Omar Bradley (1893 - 1981)
TS
Quote from: neptune on October 06, 2009, 05:18:09 AM
@ nicbordeaux.
This is an interesting topic. First, in your reply number 6, you describe a simple proof of concept device with a pendulum and lever [ see-saw or teeter- totter] . Your description resembles the two stage oscillator of Milkovitch. {google it] .In your first post on this topic you describe a machine that will drive 2 bicycle dynamos for up to six hours. To me this is the Holy Grail, because, if it will work for 6 hours, with development and optimisation, it will run forever. I find it really hard to believe that you built this device and did not make photos or video. If you really believe that the world needs free energy, you need to share with us all that you have, so that we can help you develop it. If, like me; your computer skills are limited, get some help. I do not mean to sound unkind, but we all have limited time and resources, and unless you help us here, we cannot help each other, or the planet. Kind Regards, Neptune.
Neptune, thx for your kind answer. My computer skills are a little limited, very true. The world needs "free energy" ? Yes. But let us define free energy. Free energy is mechanical energy produced by a device which delivers more mechanical output than is required to start it. (Zero point energy, hocus pocus, I don't understand). That energy will to most people signify energy to be used to produce electricity. If people have free energy, they will be happy because they can run their household without paying electricity bills. It won't make them use less energy, just a lot more (they won't bother to turn the electric heating off, the light bulbs will be left lit all day...).
That concept is dangerous in general, but also to individuals or groups who would produce the device. The esssence of control by central power is energy. If people are independant for their energy needs, reliance decreases, profits for state monopolies or "private" companies funding states disapear. Tax revenue disapears and something else has to be taxed. Not easy :)
This isn't the case with a device which will run two bicycle dynamos, but general implication of knowledgeable people with imagination could no doubt perect the device. I am now a long way away from revolving bicycle wheels, much simpler systems exist.
A small example : Imagine a lever. On one end is a weight. At some point of the other side of axis or pivot is a weight sliding in a telescopic device or a curtain rail (tough curtain rail ;D ). Curtain rail is mounted on pivot or axis to lever at other side of axis, but nearest to fixed weight. Device is in balance at start of movement. Lift curtain rail a bit and weight will slide towards fixed weight, past fulcrum. Force is fixed weight + (when it reaches end of travel) a part of sliding weight. A part because weight is not sliding to end of lever where fixed weight is. At some point before fixed weight reaches end of travel, a rope attached to wall is bought under tension as it is fixed to curtain rail too at other end. As fixed weight continues to rotate on lever, rail is "pulled" or moved relatively so that weight slides other way. One complete cycle.
It is slightly more complex than that in that that a profiled cam is necessary, but there you have another example of mechanical OU. It is much more complex than that if you want the cycle to start again. It can be done. It has been done.
So, I have devices (not designs) which do things on the principle of moving weight(s) shifting CG. ButI am not a genius. I think with what I have said here and in previous posts, people can, if they want, understand what I am saying and build better devices than mine. See things in theory that I don't, and test those things.
oh, BTW Neptune, I didn't say anywhere that I don't have photos or videos of the "device" . But think of this : I put a video online, the result is the same, a load of people are going to scream it's faked.
Some guys on this forum are beginning to get the idea, and some will actually try working on models, and come up with working devices.
Somebody else posted "can it be turned upsd ? My answer is it weighs 30 kgs with support bench, so no. To the question will it work if turned upsd or in any other plane ? Anwer to any other plane than upsd is NO. Answer to upsd is yes, but you'd need to reverse a load of things, if only because power is delivered only on the "downstroke" to a bicycle wheel via chain and freewheel (the freewheel means drive in one direction only, and resistance to return is limited to beam and weight, not also a 700 c steel bike wheel with two of those awful bike dybamos on it).
nicbordeaux,
Have you actually checked energy input vs energy output? I have a hard time believing that sliding weights on levers will actually 'generate' energy. If it actually was overunity in excess of friction, we should see these devices continuously accelerate.
we need free energy to lesson our oil dependence. The likely poor power to weight ratio of gravity engines will probably limit their use in transport. people forget that modern agriculture would be impossible without oil-based fertilisers. That's right, we EAT OIL. Therefore we need to develop alternative energy. Those of us who have been on this forum for many years have spent untold hours on dollars on devices that turned out to be hoaxes . So forgive those of us who are just a bit cynical. Gravity engines, if they ever become a marketable reality, will see service in villages in the third world, powering a few LEDs or a small radio. Half a loaf is better than no bread., and two, or even one of those awful bike dynamos is a lot better than nothing.
Again I would urge you to share at least some of what you have. The aim of this forum as I understand it, is to take care of the tech stuff. Let others worry about the Social Engineering. I have built more machines than I care to remember. Usually to other peoples designs. I now have yet another Idea of my own. I shall build it when time allows. On the one-in -a million chance it should work, I will of course open source it ,hiding nothing.Regards Neptune.
Quote from: neptune on October 07, 2009, 03:11:40 PM
we need free energy to lesson our oil dependence. The likely poor power to weight ratio of gravity engines will probably limit their use in transport. people forget that modern agriculture would be impossible without oil-based fertilisers. That's right, we EAT OIL. Therefore we need to develop alternative energy. Those of us who have been on this forum for many years have spent untold hours on dollars on devices that turned out to be hoaxes . So forgive those of us who are just a bit cynical. Gravity engines, if they ever become a marketable reality, will see service in villages in the third world, powering a few LEDs or a small radio. Half a loaf is better than no bread., and two, or even one of those awful bike dynamos is a lot better than nothing.
Again I would urge you to share at least some of what you have. The aim of this forum as I understand it, is to take care of the tech stuff. Let others worry about the Social Engineering. I have built more machines than I care to remember. Usually to other peoples designs. I now have yet another Idea of my own. I shall build it when time allows. On the one-in -a million chance it should work, I will of course open source it ,hiding nothing.Regards Neptune.
Neptune,
you are quite right about power to weight ratio with the design I'm showing. After that, it's a question of speed of oscillation, which is dependant on distance of travel of "falling" weight and mechanism used to displace counter weight. It won't power a car ;) at least as it stands.
If as you say this forum is a place to chuck concepts (let's call it that) and have other people develop them really fast, then here is the best I am currently willing to do. This a cc of a post to another forum:
"So, only one or two people seem to have grasped the concept. ******** has it, for example, but please, don't think just rotary.
A video is up at http://www.dailymotion.com/user/nicbordeaux/video/xaqicm_mechanical-overunity-for-beginners_tech (http://www.dailymotion.com/user/nicbordeaux/video/xaqicm_mechanical-overunity-for-beginners_tech)
Those who understand this, please do me favour and explain to the others, make your working models and we'll see the number of variants which arise.
The sound seems "off" at dailymotion tonight, and youtube doesn't like the video for some reason, maybe too long. And without the sound, the video isn't much use.
I don't ask you to understand my motivations, just to grasp that mechanical overunity, or to be more precise, gravity motor exists. And that the potential is very big.
Spoondini : The "output" has been checked by seeing how long I can get a bike wheel with a dynamo rubbing on the tire to spin by using any amount of force or speed of arm, and comparing to how long I can get that wheel to spin by using the lever/beam device in the video actuated by manual actuation force/speed. The result of having the device spun by the machine under self-sustain mode is 4/5 th of my best "weakling human effort" using either manual mode described. I predict but haven't bothered trying that if you were to add a load of ballast to the wheel with the dynamo on it, the results or proportions could change quite a bit, in favour of the human being of course. The number of rotations performed my the device would also improve. As long as enough residual is left in the system, as explained in the vid, I fail to see how even a hydrocephalic monkey could fail to build this very simple thing and surprise itself monstrously. As we are not hydrocephalic monkies, and if a lot of clever people work on this...
Excellent video nichobordeaux. Thanks for posting. This gives all more clarity of the type of devices you are encouraging others to experiment with.
@Nicbordeaux. Many thanks for the video, which I found interesting. As you say, you show principles rather than working devices. Then you say words to the effect "I could show you working devices, BELIEVE ME." Please do not take offence, but with the best will in the world, I find it difficult to believe you.
I want you to imagine the second coming of Christ. He beams himself down in your local market place. He walks across to you and says,"I am the son of God, believe me." Would you believe him? You are unconvinced. He claims supernatural abilities, such as levitation. You mutter something about David Blaine and David Copperfield, and walk away. The next guy he approaches might Bel;ieve because he has a deep need to believe. Throughout my life, I have been far to gullible for my own good. However. having spent hundreds of pounds on building Trawoegers pyramid, Mylows wheel, Archer Quins wheel, etc, I am starting to see the light. It has been said that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.
Now its my turn to ask you to believe me. I would LOVE to believe you, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. It is not in my nature to be offensive to anyone ,particularly a "hands on" person such as yourself. But please try to see my point of view. Regards, Neptune.
Deleted / already posted
Quote from: neptune on October 08, 2009, 03:04:05 PM
@Nicbordeaux. Many thanks for the video, which I found interesting. As you say, you show principles rather than working devices. Then you say words to the effect "I could show you working devices, BELIEVE ME." Please do not take offence, but with the best will in the world, I find it difficult to believe you.
I want you to imagine the second coming of Christ. He beams himself down in your local market place. He walks across to you and says,"I am the son of God, believe me." Would you believe him? You are unconvinced. He claims supernatural abilities, such as levitation. You mutter something about David Blaine and David Copperfield, and walk away. The next guy he approaches might Bel;ieve because he has a deep need to believe. Throughout my life, I have been far to gullible for my own good. However. having spent hundreds of pounds on building Trawoegers pyramid, Mylows wheel, Archer Quins wheel, etc, I am starting to see the light. It has been said that extraordinary claims need extraordinary proof.
Now its my turn to ask you to believe me. I would LOVE to believe you, the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. It is not in my nature to be offensive to anyone ,particularly a "hands on" person such as yourself. But please try to see my point of view. Regards, Neptune.
Neptune,
Thx a lot for that one, this is the most nicely formulated intelligent response I've had so far. I am in total agreement with you. I am a non-believer. But not an atheist. My critical sense is too strong for my own good (who was it who said something like "The only thing I believe in is belief, unfortunately I don't believe". Statistics to which I give some credence (because I have a telescope) lead me to think that life has most certainly evolved elsewhere in the universe. Which doesn't mean I expect aliens to land in my garden, or that I join any UFO forums or bother unduly about the things. I might if there were a quick buck to made out o' aliens, but that guy Von Daniken pretty much spoiled the market.
You ask me what I'll do when the second coming happens and I'm at the market, a guy beams himself down, walks up and claims to be Jesus ? Would I ask him for a passport or a driving licence? No, it might be a fake. I'd ask this lad to transmute something heavy into gold. Then if he did, I'd believe him. After having done a touch test and a density check on the gold, you never know, could be a can of spray. I'd let him sleep under the hedge, give him a lump of cheese and a 5 liter cannister of cheapo red plonk a day. Or let him use my computer. Or I might ask him to explain himself about the state of the world, 'tis all very well turning up every 2000 odd years for a hol, then going off and letting things get into the state they've been in for the past two millenium.
So, let's move on to saint Thomas, who if I'm not mistaken only believed what he saw (how he got a sainthood with that attitude I prefer not to imagine). Let's say you, Neptune, are this St Thomas person and you've dropped a message onto my computer by some means which is a little beyond my full comprehension, although I do grasp the concept.
So Saint Thomas, I've shown you a drawing first with quite a bit of writing. Then in spite of the fact that I had initially no intention doing so at this point in time I've shown you a video which illustrates the concept quite admirably, I must say. You could put 2 and 2 together if you had this actual simple device in your garden shed, simply by feeling it's balance shift, by having a weight properly fixed atop the revolving balance distribution wheel, not a free-resting couple of lengths of lead pipe I nabbed from the dump, and a massive file I can't remember where I got. And why would I use this kind o' lousy setup ? 'Coz I dismantled the contraption long ago to experiment other better gizmos, and had to throw it back together in a fashion to show ye how it works. At least try, anyway.
Let us move a step further : in the vid I point out that the wheel system is imperfect. Two reasons : too gradual a shift in weight; a necesisty to keep vertical without detracting from the potential impetus of the whopping great stone affixed to the other end. Let me adress the first issue (and completely forget about the second one 'coz there's a way around it even if it's nor very good): you want magnets. "oh no, not another magnet freak" do I hear you groan ? Nah, on yer bike with the mags, their only use is for fixing things. In this particular instance, a metal plate is affixed (not by magic, by a decent sized bolt) below the right end of the device, that upon which the horizontal wheel resteth. To this metal plate, by means of wire round many times through cunningly drilled holes, I affix 2 neo mags of a nominal 28 kg force. Better safe than sorry. By means of experimentation, I determine at what distance plates of lead fixed to the metal plate (atop the mags, right ?) should stop the magnets, eg determine their hold power. Once this tuning done, once I've found out what thickness of lead I need for the mags to stick to a metal plate on the frame (wood thing in video), the revolving wheel end of lever can be bought down to kiss the said chassis plate and stay fixed. This of course with the weight on horizontal at maximum distance, eg it slightly overbalances the lever donwards (you could rightly argue that the lead and mags should be on the wood box thing, not the lever, but 'twas all trial and error, so that's how it emerged). The horizontal wheel is then set in motion by the pressure of a finger push. It will revolve almost 180° before the mags let go, and the whole contraption smacks downwards producing energy. Debunkers have objected that the weight of the horizontal wheel subtracts from the total potential of the system. Of course it does, it's bluidy obvious innit, Thomas? But not enough to render the device unimpressive (substitue "unuseful" or any other adj).
Now then, what about the return, 'tis all very well smacking a rock on the end o' a lever into a piece o' wood Paddy, but ya won't be growing any potatoes that way" ? The return, Saint Thomas, is devastatingly simple. Ye have a length o' rope with a wee slack in it affixed at t'one end to a wall or a rock, or the wife, at 'other end o' your piece o' string you tie a knot to one of them spoke nipples on the bike wheel, so that a mite before the whopping rock smacks into the wood, said wheel with weight gets pulled 180° (I did mention either in the vid or the pic with writing that 180° was a good idea didn't I ?), and then of it's own accord, the whole darned contraption balances back the other way after impact, and if it takes half a day it don't matter in the slightest you'd believe. Wrong, it does matter, otherwise the wheel would start rotating the wrong way before them mags got hold o' where they started out from. Or you'd need more mags to hold the wheel, and things would get pretty much outta control what with all that smacking the rock about and stuff called "variables" which is a cunning word for sod's law.
And then what hapens ? Absolutely nowt, unless you have a trained monkey to give the wheel a wee push to set the whole mess doin' another performance.
So, a more serious tone now to show that we're talking about a quite different matter. I wanted to gradually out this thing, because if people start running around buying bike wheels and 28 kg neos and great metal beams and whatnot, I don't want to be held responsable, because it's very likely that they'll not fully comprehend what I'm on about, or miss something, therefore doing their bank accounts and selves some damage. The description I've given you is perfectly true, it's what I've done, but it took a long while to work out where to mount the wheel, where to tie the string to the wall in relation to the device in both vertical and horizontal planes, what length of lever to use either side, the proportion of the weights to each other, and a whole load of other "variables" (see above).
Also, that's just the principle, and the device is a load evolved now, to the point I've lost interest in thinking about improving it, and I'd even say that given the ballyhoo and aggro on some other forum, I wish I'd just kept mum about the whole thing. A final word on this particular concept: the moving about o' the weight in relation to the lever is now very fast, and don't require wheels or nuffink o' the sort of nonesense like that.
So, Neptune, had you not been a nice person and polite with that, it'd have ended up about half an hour ago with me removing all references to this whole thing. Now it could well wait 'till tommorow, but maybe not, we'll see how I feel after a cuppa and a fag. My advice to you is download the vids on youtube and also the drawing on flickr, 'coz I'm pulling that too.
That way you'll either have the real mcoy, or have evidence of having exchanged involved correspondance with one of the greatest aggravated baloney artists ever.
Above all, before trying anything silly like building this contraption, spending money or else, please PM me, I'll give you an email address, and we can look at this right and proper.
@Nicbordeaux. Many thanks It is nice of you to reply. This is a brief response coz I am supposed to be working.[I am self employed]. It is nice to know that you have a similar sense of humour to myself. I will send you a PM this evening.
@nicbordeaux I have sent you a PM with my email. Let me know here if you have problems, Regards Neptune.
Quote from: P-Motion on October 10, 2009, 10:37:24 AM
Hi nicbordeaux,
Here is what I am working on.
I do believe it will demonstrate that Bessler was successful.
Of course, I am slowly working up to something close to his.
This allows me to understand what I am doing :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iXVwqYgeJE
Jim
Hi P-Motion, first of all, thanks a lot for sharing that. I grasp the idea, and am really pleased to correspond with somebody who realizes that you have to build things to see if you are right. And visualize things, observe events occur which shouldn't really be occuring in the mind or math model :)
This is probably a very supid idea but how about elastic from a bungee strap on those (or some) weights. it wouldn't be perfect, but as elastic modulus isn't linear, you might get a quick preview of similar effect to the what you are doing with the modification you are showing. I call it "ski-jump" effect (by ski jump I mean the ramps those Scandinavian kamikaze athletes leap off to sail into oblivion). Just a means of validation, or who knows, a whole new avenue of exploration (if that happens, you'll curse me heavily :))
All the best
Nick
Quote from: P-Motion on October 12, 2009, 07:08:27 AM
Hi Nick,
That's a great suggestion. Bessler did say he used springs, but not how.
He said his wheel worked without them. Of course, even if bungee's help (do believe they will) what I've built to work, it might raise more questions to how Bessler might have actually did it.
A weak spring might work too. I do have some very stretchable bungee chord's at home. Thought they were trash ;D
I am going to have to take a good look at your concept and see if I can return the favor.
I know what you mean about building. Before I built, I did a lot of math and considered different ways it might be used. I don't think it shows in the video, but the main wheel is like Swiss cheese, it's full of holes.
Jim
Hi Jim,
My thoughts on that would proceed from "logic" : "it works with springs. But it will work without springs."
That can only mean one thing: it works at a given speed without springs, the springs speed things up. It rotates faster with a spring assisted return of weights.
That sound reasonable ?
Nick