Quote from: MoRo on April 30, 2010, 01:02:28 AM
I neither argue for nor against Milkovic's device, as I have my own proposed device that I believe would be superior to the pendulum device for energy production. My device would work even in a gravityless environment by utilising centrifugal forces from a full rotational input mass, for both positive and negative amplitudal energy on stage 2. See my videos on youtube channel: MagnaMoRo.

Which is nothing new. Sorry but that was suggested long ago, its just that Rhead has to show what the basic idea can do. In no doubt, if this this is to be commercial and compact we need stronger forces than gravity to aid its operation, and centrifugal force solely depends on rotational speed...

But........ energy input increases with the square of velocity, which has led me to doubt whether that approach can actually compete with a pendulum or spring pushed at the 'nodes', where the velocity is zero.

Julian

Quote from: Nabo00o on May 20, 2010, 09:30:24 PM
Which is nothing new. Sorry but that was suggested long ago, its just that Rhead has to show what the basic idea can do. In no doubt, if this this is to be commercial and compact we need stronger forces than gravity to aid its operation, and centrifugal force solely depends on rotational speed...

But........ energy input increases with the square of velocity, which has led me to doubt whether that approach can actually compete with a pendulum or spring pushed at the 'nodes', where the velocity is zero.

Julian

To address your concerns about energy increase with velocity. It isn't like were talking about having to obtain very high velocity here. In fact, the energy increase with velocity, that you mention, comes from air friction, which can be virtually eliminated by placing the devices in a vacuum or low pressure chamber.  Once the rotating mass has reached the desired rate of rotation, particularly in a vacuum, it would take very little effort to maintain that desired  rate.

Quote from: MoRo on May 21, 2010, 12:31:03 AM
To address your concerns about energy increase with velocity. It isn't like were talking about having to obtain very high velocity here. In fact, the energy increase with velocity, that you mention, comes from air friction, which can be virtually eliminated by placing the devices in a vacuum or low pressure chamber.  Once the rotating mass has reached the desired rate of rotation, particularly in a vacuum, it would take very little effort to maintain that desired  rate.

No sorry, maybe I didn't explain it correctly. What I am talking about is really acceleration.

When you increase the speed or velocity of something you must expend energy. That's because you have given the mass kinetic energy, which you can see with the formula is always the square of the velocity. And this energy increase is based on the fact that as the velocity of an object increases, be it small or large, it will take more energy for each unit of time to accelerate it another m/s, because; as the meters per second increases, this means that you have to push on it for a longer distance, which is more work.

Btw just to mention it, this seems to kill of a lot of my previous ideas about velocity and gears.
Just thought you'd like to know....
Julian

Quote from: Nabo00o on May 21, 2010, 06:05:36 AM
No sorry, maybe I didn't explain it correctly. What I am talking about is really .

When you increase the speed or velocity of something you must expend energy. That's because you have given the  kinetic energy, which you can see with the formula is always the square of the velocity. And this energy increase is based on the fact that as the velocity of an object increases, be it small or large, it will take more energy for each unit of time to accelerate it another m/s, because; as the meters per second increases, this means that you have to push on it for a longer distance, which is more work.

just to mention it, this seems to kill of a lot of my previous ideas about velocity and gears.
Just thought you'd like to know....
Julian

I guess I realy don't understand the point your trying to make, because in either machine (Milkovic's or mine), the machine will have to be "accelerated", so to speak, to the "starting point". For Milkovic's, you will have to move the pendulum from 6:00 O'clock (zero potential energy) to starting point of 3:00 O'clock or 9:00 O'clock (maximum potential). Once the Starting point is obtained, gravity is used to do the acceleration and at 6:00 O'clock you have maximum speed of curviture for maximum centrifugal force.

Under the same operating conditions, the "starting point" of my machine would be 12:00 O'clock high. As such, gravity would accelerate it to a much greater speed of curviture by the time it got to 6:00 O'clock. And similar to the pendulum device, only a very small amount of energy added at the 12:00 O'clock position would be enough to bring it right back around to the 12:00 O'clock position again. Furthermore, the potential energy can be stored between runs by stopping and starting the machine with the input mass in the 12:00 O'clock position.

Quote from: MoRo on April 22, 2010, 04:56:40 PM
Anything that changes direction of travel requires energy to change it's direction.

Sort of. I you run past a traffic sign pole, and let your extended hand engage it, you'll change direction without losing speed. And possibly strain your arm. The pole doesn't care, it wants to be left alone. In theory, EARTH is brought a bit out of alignment due to the change of direction. Would we take energy from Earth this way, or merely send it in a slightly different direction?
If two identical bouncing balls hit each other head-on at equal speed, they continue in opposite directions, same speeds again.

A brain teaser might be this one:
Two wheels are found to be of identical build, spinning at identical rpm, just an inverse of each other without slowing down. The nice thing about frictionless wheels...
This is such a unique find, it's decided to bring them together. The wheels engage side-to-side like lost soulmates, and...stop turning instantly. Was Energy used to slow them down? Was KE killed? Or was there never real movement?
Each wheel could have run a load before coming to a halt, but now both came to a halt and we didn't use the energy!
The more Milkovic demonstrations I see, the more it comes across like gospel. Experiments are inconclusive due to disadvantaging traditional energy transtions with angles and overhead weight.

I hope Rhead managed something. From his latest video's I don't se what his plan exactly is.