Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity

[norman6538]

This group seems dead. I have something to post if anyone is there to read it.

Norman

[tim123]

Hi Folks,
  I think it's very likely that centrifugal force is an avenue to OU. I've done some research & calcs.

These are Industrial Vibration Motors, designed to provide large centrifugal forces. They're used in vibration testing, moving stuff around, lots of uses:
http://www.venanzettivibrazioni.it/cataloghi/manuale_uso_standard.pdf

For example, model code V2017 from the above pdf:
- 3000 PM (50 RPS) @ 50Hz
- Centrifugal Force: 520Kg
- Power Rating: 430Watts

The attached diagram (sorry it's badly drawn), shows two of the above motors, facing each other - to give a purely up & down motion. They're mounted on a base plate, which is attached to springs suspending it from something - not shown. Below the base is a big magnet, and a coil. As the motors rotate the magnet goes in and out of the coil - generating electricity.

- The input power is 2 x 430 Watts - i.e. 860 Watts.
- The output force is 1040Kg max.

The coil, under load, reacts against the magnet producing an opposing field - as per Faraday's law. This means you have to push the magnet hard into the coil. The force required can be (roughly) calculated from the simple solenoid equation:
  Force in Newtons = AmpTurns * CoreFaceArea / CoilLength

I've done some rough calcs for a generator coil - aiming to produce over 10,000 Watts from this arrangement - and this is what I came up with. It is totally impractical - as the current would burn out the wire on the first swing, (it'd need to be broken up into many smaller coils) but I think it's true to say that it's a fair indication of how much power you could get out - for how much force in:

- Coil Length: 50mm
- Inside Diam: 75mm
- 1650 Turns of 2mm copper
- 4.8 Ohms DC resistance

Moving a 1 Tesla permanent magnet in and out (i.e. 50mm movement), at 50 cycles per second, gives the following values, by Faraday's law:
- 364 Volts
- 75 Amps
- 27,000 Watts

The max force required, by the solenoid equation above, is 560Kg. About half of what our two motors can produce.

So, by these figures, this setup would have a COP of about 30. A more practical arrangement might be to connect the sprung motors / baseplate directly to a standard generator via a crank... Also, the spring tension would really need to be tuned to the running frequency. Maybe springs aren't even necessary...

Calculating output power a slightly more standard / obvious way:

If we assume an average force of 500Kg from the 2 motors, and a crank of 25mm, the Torque is:
500 * GRAVITY * 0.025
= 122 Newton / Meter

Power at 50 Hz = TORQUE * TWOPI * 50
= 38,000 Watts

The big assumption here is that the motor can provide 50mm of movement. I'm guessing that 50mm is at the outside range of what it might do at 50Hz - and it'd depend on how it was attached I guess. Maybe the springs (tuned for resonance), would give us any extra throw required.

Maybe - to make it really easy - you could just mount the motor(s) on the crank itself? If the motor was attached so it stayed horizontal, I think the forces on the crank would be the same as if it was connected via a con-rod. But I'm not sure... Also - the rotary motion of the eccentrics in the motors is exactly the same as the crank - so the power transfer should be close to 100%?

Update: Here's a design which I think should work. Attached below. The eccentric motor is mounted on a plate, attached to a connecting rod - connected to the generator crank. The con-rod can move up & down & side to side - and it transmits the power from the eccentric to the crank.

Note - I drew the eccentric mass in the wrong position - it should be down in that position. The eccentric leads the crank by 90 degrees - thus providing force tangentially to the crank - which is just what you want to maximise power transfer.

It's more fun than watching telly.

[Kator01]

Hello,

when I follow this discussion it remembers me of Alan Cresswells ( England) work,  ending 2011. Unfortunately his website is abandoned but still can be found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120825132748/http://unifiedtheory.org.uk/

Pay attention to the similarity of the planetary drive of Alan and TechnoKontrols device here:
http://www.technokontrol.com/en/products/orion.php

and than the work of pequaide which ended in 2009. I had long participated in the discussion of his setup:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120825132748/http://unifiedtheory.org.uk/

Study of these two threads might help to aquire additional viewpoints.

Regards

Kator01

[tim123]

Hi Kator,
  I'd not seen Alan Cresswell's stuff before. I tried to replicate his 'PERPETUALLY RESONANT DAMPED AND FORCED SPRING' today, using meccano, springs and string - but could not get it to oscillate for more than a few seconds. I can't see how it would be OU TBH, but thought it worth a go... It's not a centrifugal device though, and that's where the interest lies.

His water-turbine - similar to Shauberger's Trout Turbine, or the CEACU has some interesting features, but none of it's well explained. I can't, for example, see how the 'stationary impact vanes' would increase the reaction force from the wheel... Shauberger had vanes, but they were designed to direct the water back at the wheel, ahead of the nozzle - thus pushing it forward - I believe.

I can't understand how his 'STEEL INERTIA QUANTUM DRIVE' is designed to work at all.

Pequaide's work is interesting, I had a read. I am a bit confused about kinetic energy TBH... Wikipedia says this:

"Since the kinetic energy increases with the square of the speed, an object doubling its speed has four times as much kinetic energy. For example, a car traveling twice as fast as another requires four times as much distance to stop, assuming a constant braking force. As a consequence of this quadrupling, it takes four times the work to double the speed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

...and here's my confusion. What Wiki says above isn't true: "it takes four times the work to double the speed".

Ignoring friction, it takes twice the work to double the speed.

- If I provide a force of 1 Newton, on a 1Kg mass - it gives it an acceleration of 1 m/s
- If that force is applied for 1 second - the mass's velocity is 1 m/s
- To double the speed to 2 m/s, we have to apply the force for 1 more second. Not three.

Is Wikipedia just trying to pull the old Jedi mind-trick here? Or am I missing the point?

I guess that is the basis of Pequaide's work - that there is an anomaly there - and trying the extract that extra. It's difficult to imagine how to do it so the motor keeps spinning - unless you're using an eccentric mass - and harvesting the centrifugal force

[MileHigh]

You are missing the point.  Work is force times displacement.  Think about it.