A three steps experiment...

[iacob alex]

.....at :  www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOukwgnHe5U  is intended to use a simple  idea  of unbalance ,using one way bearings and the kick out/kick in drive of weights.
Let's summarize the three steps .
The first step is to build a fulcrum/support.
The second step is to fix a rotating frame on bearing.
The third and last step is to "seed" your idea/inspiration/fancy on the rotating frame...then to test it again and again.
    All the best ! / Alex

[Enstenow]

Hi Alex

In all, this is the best idea in search of perpetual motion.
This is the solution against inertia.


Here, the wheel spins without manual pulse.
This is the first success and even better results

=> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgp6gcSaF2Y

=> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdNc-JVMgK4

damage
he abandoned the idea

However, this system is certainly true énergy future for the planet !

[AB Hammer]

Hi Alex

In all, this is the best idea in search of perpetual motion.
This is the solution against inertia.


Here, the wheel spins without manual pulse.
This is the first success and even better results

=> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgp6gcSaF2Y

=> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdNc-JVMgK4

damage
he abandoned the idea

However, this system is certainly true énergy future for the planet !

Enstenow

Sorry, but the reason he abandoned it is the wheel was out of round. The heavy side was up for the video. That is why he would stop it and pull it back up for the release. No energy future on this one.

[TinselKoala]

So now a "free energy wheel" doesn't even have to show a single full rotation before (some) people get all excited?

Lol. Mister Hand is the true energy future for the planet? Shades of Onan !


An "experiment" is a system where the researcher varies one variable under his control (the so-called "independent variable, IV") while keeping other things constant, and observes the effect on the system's other variables (the "dependent variables, DV"). The experiment should test some clear hypothesis, in such a manner that the hypothesis could possibly be falsified. A proper hypothesis is just an "if-then" statement, clearly specified in advance.

For example: one might compare the rotation time of the wheel (DV) , with the weights locked down so they cannot move as one condition, and the weights free to move as designed as the other condition (IV). The hypothesis under test would be "The wheel will spin longer if I make the weights free to move, given the same starting impulse" or something like that, and it could in principle be falsified by an observation that it doesn't spin longer with freely moving weights.

So at the very least, a wheel builder must have a system to apply a constant, repeatable, known starting impulse to the wheel. Mister Hand cannot do this, but it's very easy to do. A simple string, wrapped around the periphery or the axle, with a weight tied to the end, released from the same height each time, is easy enough to do, but there are many other ways.

Take a string, wrap it partway around the wheel and dangle the weight. The stored energy in the weight is (mass) x (height) x (acceleration due to gravity). When the weight is released, it will fall through a distance down to a second lower height before the string comes off the wheel. The energy imparted to the wheel in Joules is then just (mass of weight in kg) x ( difference in heights in meters) x (9.81 meters/second²). Right? It is very easy to do, but I can count on one finger the times I've seen any wheel builder do this.

So now you have a system to impart a known energy to the wheel, over and over. The rotation of the wheel can then be accurately timed easily enough, using frame counts in the video for example. So now you set up your experimental conditions. The wheel obviously weighs the same in total, whether or not the moving weights are locked down or are free to move, right? So you first lock the weights down so they cannot move, and you do a dozen trials, averaging the rundown times to get a good average figure. Call this the baseline condition. Then you free up the weights so that they can move as designed, and you do another dozen runs in this "experimental" condition to get an average figure in this condition. Compare, contrast, discuss.

How else are you going to be able to tell if your improvements, modifications, etc. are actually helping or hurting, without some comparison data? If your wheel doesn't spin all by itself already, that is.

(I've dug up and re-edited an ancient video of mine, illustrating the testing the Mondrasek magnet-gravity wheel in this manner, just in case the description above isn't clear enough. I'll post a link to the video when the processing and uploading is finished.)


It is my "guess" that the reason we so seldom see clearly stated hypotheses, baseline tests and careful comparisons to baseline, is that the researchers don't really want to see the results.

ETA: When the video is done uploading it will be viewable at
http://youtu.be/XMIsABzDkw0
Please excuse the lousy quality, this was made many years ago and I don't have the original files any more so this version has been through many transcoding conversions and edits. I also had to remove the clever musical soundtrack so that YouTube wouldn't flag me for copyright violations... you can imagine Dexter Gordon's jazz during the title sequences if you like.

[tinman]

So now a "free energy wheel" doesn't even have to show a single full rotation before (some) people get all excited?

Lol. Mister Hand is the true energy future for the planet? Shades of Onan !


An "experiment" is a system where the researcher varies one variable under his control (the so-called "independent variable, IV") while keeping other things constant, and observes the effect on the system's other variables (the "dependent variables, DV"). The experiment should test some clear hypothesis, in such a manner that the hypothesis could possibly be falsified. A proper hypothesis is just an "if-then" statement, clearly specified in advance.

For example: one might compare the rotation time of the wheel (DV) , with the weights locked down so they cannot move as one condition, and the weights free to move as designed as the other condition (IV). The hypothesis under test would be "The wheel will spin longer if I make the weights free to move, given the same starting impulse" or something like that, and it could in principle be falsified by an observation that it doesn't spin longer with freely moving weights.

So at the very least, a wheel builder must have a system to apply a constant, repeatable, known starting impulse to the wheel. Mister Hand cannot do this, but it's very easy to do. A simple string, wrapped around the periphery or the axle, with a weight tied to the end, released from the same height each time, is easy enough to do, but there are many other ways.

Take a string, wrap it partway around the wheel and dangle the weight. The stored energy in the weight is (mass) x (height) x (acceleration due to gravity). When the weight is released, it will fall through a distance down to a second lower height before the string comes off the wheel. The energy imparted to the wheel in Joules is then just (mass of weight in kg) x ( difference in heights in meters) x (9.81 meters/second²). Right? It is very easy to do, but I can count on one finger the times I've seen any wheel builder do this.

So now you have a system to impart a known energy to the wheel, over and over. The rotation of the wheel can then be accurately timed easily enough, using frame counts in the video for example. So now you set up your experimental conditions. The wheel obviously weighs the same in total, whether or not the moving weights are locked down or are free to move, right? So you first lock the weights down so they cannot move, and you do a dozen trials, averaging the rundown times to get a good average figure. Call this the baseline condition. Then you free up the weights so that they can move as designed, and you do another dozen runs in this "experimental" condition to get an average figure in this condition. Compare, contrast, discuss.

How else are you going to be able to tell if your improvements, modifications, etc. are actually helping or hurting, without some comparison data? If your wheel doesn't spin all by itself already, that is.

(I've dug up and re-edited an ancient video of mine, illustrating the testing the Mondrasek magnet-gravity wheel in this manner, just in case the description above isn't clear enough. I'll post a link to the video when the processing and uploading is finished.)


It is my "guess" that the reason we so seldom see clearly stated hypotheses, baseline tests and careful comparisons to baseline, is that the researchers don't really want to see the results.

ETA: When the video is done uploading it will be viewable at
http://youtu.be/XMIsABzDkw0
Please excuse the lousy quality, this was made many years ago and I don't have the original files any more so this version has been through many transcoding conversions and edits. I also had to remove the clever musical soundtrack so that YouTube wouldn't flag me for copyright violations... you can imagine Dexter Gordon's jazz during the title sequences if you like.

@TK

I PMd you in regards to the video you linked-didnt realise it was from some time back.
But still,it needs a revisit i believe-an extra second with all magnets in place,can only meant extra force being applied some where?.
I know it go's against your beliefs,but if you still have it kicking about,dust it of,and give it another shot.