Gravity Motor Patent 7/10/08

[broli]

Please do not listen to Broli.    If you want to know why something works or doesn't learn it out of experience instead of reading it from the biggest believer around. You'll learn nothing from someone who only agrees with everything you say.

TinselKoala...what kind of idiotic post is that. Why are you tainting this thread with your smelly shit. If you can't contribute with anything constructive then fuck off with your museum of closed mindness.

[TinselKoala]

you know of any CAD software that takes into account mass, kinetic energy, gravity, and such? Maybe in some university somewhere but not in an engineering dept!

That link you provided was very interesting but it is based on the premise that the energy gained by the mass shift is nullified by the energy lost in the opposing mass shift. This design may overcome this, we will see. The simplicity of the design is what is exciting. If the mass on the heavy side of the wheel is great enough to overcome the magnetic or EM resistance of moving or "loading" the mass of the magnets into the "mass switch" then it should work, right?

By the way, Mondrasek has in fact been a mechanical engineer for as long as I have known him. He successfully modeled several innovative designs for his company as well. Don't belittle people because you think you know better man, its just mean.

Google "phun" and have phun. It's pretty processor intensive and has only rudimentary physics but it will show you what is out there for free, and you can imagine what the professional packages can do. Yes, it models mass, KE, gravity, friction, air resistance, stickiness, spring constants and other stuff (but not, sadly, magnetics) , and it's just a toy. I think it will be possible to model mondrasek's wheel in phun, the weight-shift part anyway. Why don't you try it?

"That link you provided was very interesting but it is based on the premise that the energy gained by the mass shift is nullified by the energy lost in the opposing mass shift."
And all theories of working gravity wheels are based on the premise that it is not so nullified. So? Nobody's done it yet, and although Simanek doesn't stress them, there are sound physical principles why not. Like gravity being a conservative field, for instance. Like conservation of momentum, for another instance.

It's not unusual for people to make very basic errors when they try to work out of the field they are experienced in. But usually a bit of prior research minimizes the embarrassment. Everything, with the possible exception of the latches, in mondrasek's patent has been suggested and tried before, many times, and has never worked. Everything he has suggested as add-ons in this thread, has also been suggested before, and tried, without success. Are we to expect that the latches are the critical element that will save the world from the tyranny of oil, simply by adding them to an existing non-working design? Or should we expect that this endeavor, too, will be another one of those never-ending threads, like so many you see here, that start off with "I have found Free ENergy!" and wind up...just sort of trailing off....into nowhere....


EDIT to add: http://www.scribd.com/doc/259189/Orffyreus-wheel  This link is about the only gravity wheel in history that may have worked, and as you will see near the end, Besseler (Orffyreus) himself invented a magnet-assisted version, but knew that the magnets available at the time would not be strong enough. It is likely that his design's magnetic portion was similar to mondrasek's, although the gravity drive was probably different.

[TinselKoala]

TinselKoala...what kind of idiotic post is that. Why are you tainting this thread with your smelly shit. If you can't contribute with anything constructive then fuck off with your museum of closed mindness.

Sorry, I missed the part where you contributed anything constructive. At least I back up my statements with links.
You are just backed up, period.

Oops. I missed this constructive post from broli, sorry.
"Agreed but you'll need the right variables. So if it doesn't run it might be because of some variable not being in sync with the rest."

Really constructive. I'm sure that will save a lot of people a lot of time. Unlike my posts.

[TinselKoala]

xee, it seems to me that your latch suggestion is a good one--it might be a low-loss way of implementing the latches, as it might return the energy required to go thru it, on the way out, by slapping the magnet in the 'butt' so to speak. There will still be losses of course, that will have to be made up from the rotational energy somehow.

(see there, I'm not a total nay-sayer.    )

[LarryC]

@All,

Even if Archer's current approach works by using lets say a 80% mag filled loop, it is going to be hard to pull any power off of the rotor because it would interupt the momentum that it is using to get thru the circle and the rolling unit would hang.

Mondrasek has a nice concept, but I think when it starts using larger masses it will have issues.

So please find below the drawing for a new combo concept, which would be good at moving large masses and maintaining it's position.

Notice the catch basis at the end of each run which will break the wall and catch and hold the mass roller until the angle changes enough for the ball to get pass the timing bump and run up the other side. The timing bump is used to stop the roller from starting at to low a speed. It may not be needed, just the last magnet being closer could do it.

Can anyone see any problems with this design?

Also, the roller balls should be in some kind track to keep them centered.

Please excuse the hand drawing, but just starting to learn Sketchup.

Regards, Larry