Theory for looping static forces like gravity

[mangyhyena]

This is cut and pasted from my post in the half-baked ideas section.

"I honestly can't construct a proof of concept model because I have absolutely no mechanical skills and even less equipment that I don't know how to use.  I look at the replications members here do in their home workshops and marvel at the craftsmanship.  If I had those skills I would have already attempted my idea for looping static forces.

My idea has to do with static forces, like gravity and magnetism.  So, let's throw down with it.

How about we apply the same principal to gravity?

Obviously, the mechanics of an overbalance system is different than a magnet motor.  But the same principal would apply, if its correct.

First, get rid of the wheel and go straight to a horizontal axle.  Second, put rods through the center of the axle and put an equal weight at each end of the rod.  This will reduce the distance a lifter needs to reset the weight, allowing the weight to be reset more quickly.  Linear bearings would be inserted into the drilled holes in the axle to allow the rods to slide freely through the center.  The holes would be drilled in a spiral pattern down the axle.  And bearings would hold the axle as well.

The principal goes like this:  If you can insert, say, ten rods in the axle in a spiral pattern, then only one at a time would reach the lowest point in the rotation where it no longer provides power.  That weight needs external energy to be reset and the external energy will have to be more than the energy just released by that falling weight.  However, out of ten rods, the other nine are still falling, still providing energy for the axle to turn.  Those nine that are still falling would provide the external energy required to reset that one weight back to the top so it can fall again.

The reset would have to be complete before the next weight arrived at the six O'clock position.  So, the weights get reset one at a time quickly enough to be reset before the next rod needs to be reset.  A lifter could be run from the rotation of the overbalance motor.  The lifter would only ever lift one rod while the other rods continued to fall.  At the highest point of the lift a ramp would be waiting.  The rotation would take the weight at the end of the rod off the lifter and keep it on the ramp, stopping gravity from bringing the newly lifted rod back down.  Maybe put a roller ball on the end of each rod so the ends of the rod can roll up the ramp, which curves around the axle from just past the six O'clock position to the nine O'clock position.  If one end of the rod is on the ramp at the nine O'clock position, then the other end of the rod is extended at the three O'clock position.  After it falls toward the four O'clock position gravity will keep the rod extended and falling, which is why the ramp only goes up to the nine O'clock position.

How many rods falling would it take to provide enough external energy to reset just one rod?  I don't know.  Increasing the length and circumference of the axle would provide more room for more rods.  The more rods the better, I'd think as we're dealing with percentages of weight to be lifted.

If you could insert one hundred rods, then ninety nine rods would be falling while only one rod would need to be reset.  Ninety nine outweigh just one by quite a lot.  There should be more than enough energy constantly released to provide the external power to reset each rod with enough left over to provide useful energy for consumption elsewhere.

Maybe think of it as a juggling act where a lot of weights are falling but just one lands at a time for reset.  This principal incorporates speed and timing to loop the static force of gravity.  (As an aside, I've often wondered if a juggler who is juggling ten balls is an example of more energy released than is put into it.  While I see the effort or force it takes to throw that one ball back up into the rotation, I wonder if the force the other nine balls released as they fall is greater than the effort or force it took to fling that one ball back up.  In other words, if you could harness the power released from those other nine balls falling, would there be enough to throw that tenth ball back up into the rotation?)

So, there it is.  If you know of someone working on a gravity or magnet motor, please direct them to this post.  Maybe it will help someone.  Doesn't matter who accomplishes it first.  All that matters is that someone accomplish a motor and release the blueprints, a parts list, and assembly instructions to the public.

I ran this by a mechanical engineer and he thought it would function, but he said there would be heat issues and the bearings wouldn't last because the axle wouldn't be balanced.  I don't understand the bearing part because watermills are just overbalance wheels and I haven't heard of bearings going out on those in a short time.  As far as the heat issue, I'm not sure.  But there has to be a way around it if a motor like this will work.

(Continued from next post)

OK, so wow.  Reading over my post, that felt like a volcano that had so much pressure inside it just exploded because I've been keeping this inside for a while, now, turning it over and over in my mind.  Or, if a member here can look at my theory and point out some way in which it breaks a law of physics, I guess it would look more like me vomiting a putrid glop of nonsense.   

I do not believe either of these machines would break any of the laws of physics.  These machines would not make power out of nothing.  The push of the magnets against one another is not nothing.  Weights falling due to gravity are not nothing.
What these machines would do if a proof of concept could be demonstrated is force the assumption that static forces can not possibly be looped without adding a different source of external energy to be questioned or reevaluated.  I say assumption because physicists looked at one fact---the fact that a single motor powered by a static force requires more energy to run than it makes per rotation---and threw their hands up and stated that no motor like that could ever produce a viable source of energy.  These two motors would contradict that assumption if they worked.

Also, these two motors I've described are just two examples of a mechanical means to harness the energy from this theory.  I am positive there are other mechanical means to harness it, probably better, more efficient means.  Perhaps units that function more like oil rigs, pushing up and falling down, could be linked to one another out of phase to push a lever that spins an alternator or generator.  Sort of like those crank flashlights where you push the lever to make something inside the light turn and produce electricity to run the light?  Or, perhaps this theory could be applied to a motor that runs on buoyancy---several floats rising to the surface out of phase, the one at the surface forced back down so quickly it's reset and rising again before the next float in the series reaches the surface and using the energy created by the other floats rising to accomplish this.  Don't know for sure.  Again, when it comes to mechanical engineering, I'm quite stupid; a total moron.

But, when it comes to the history of free energy suppression---the techniques the elite use to stomp inventors of free energy devices and who the elite are---and this theory I've proposed---that you get the external energy to run a static force motor from other motors exactly like it linked and running out of phase---I am not a moron.  I don't know about you all, but I've never seen this theory described on the net before.  At the least, I'm hoping to put forth something that has not been considered before.  Maybe some small part of this will lead to something good or help someone else make their motor run, even if my theory is flawed.

It is my opinion that if motors like these work, there is far more energy going into the motor than the motor would produce.  These motors would not change the magnetic thrust or the falling weights into usable energy with 100% efficiency, not even close.  Some of the energy that propels these motors would be lost---more energy would go into the motor than would come out.  This is why I do not believe these motors would break any of the laws of physics.  They would only contradict an understandable assumption drawn from the fact that a single motor using a static force will require an external source of energy that is greater than the individual motor produces in order to keep running.  Also, these machines are not perpetual motion machines.  The bearings will eventually break down and stop the motor, so it will not run forever and ever.

The two motors described could be built from off the shelf parts or, barring that, made from commonly available materials.  Made and/or replicated by someone with mechanical skills, that is.  Moron that I am, it ain't me who will accomplish this if the theory is even correct.  But I would be willing to help in any way I could.
It is important that the blueprints, parts list, and assembly instructions for a useful, working machine that is easily replicable by local craftsmen be made available to the public, no charge.  Ideally, someone like me who has no mechanical skills would be able to download the plans and parts list or take plans on hard copy, along with parts, to a local person with a home workshop and pay that individual to fabricate the machine from the plans I brought him or her.  From there I would want to pay an electrician to wire the 5-12KW generator that runs off one of these motors to my fuse box at home.  Viola, I'm off the grid and I can pass those plans on to my family and friends so they can get off the grid as well.  And it would not cost me 30K-50K as with a windmill or solar panels.  Grass roots movement.  Get it?  This is how you beat suppression.  Patents and media coverage serve only to alert the elite to what you're attempting so they can step in and shut you, as an individual, down once and for all.

I think a large percentage of members here are capable of understanding what I've laid out here.  Even if you're reading this and do not fully understand what I'm proposing here, please copy and paste these posts into a document saved on your computer.  Or make a hard copy of these posts.  When you encounter someone with a knowledge of physics or mechanical knowledge, show them these posts and see what they make of it.
I know there are other members here who are much smarter than I am.  Some of our members here are extremely intelligent and capable of evaluating what I've put forth in this post.  Some members here are even capable of fabricating and testing machines that run on this theory.  If you know some of them, would you copy and paste these posts into an email or PM and send it to them, please?  I would like it very much if this information is saved in several places instead of just sitting in this one place.  (Then again, if I'm wrong it will not matter where it's posted or not posted. )

My main goal in life is to break free energy suppression by making sure the general population understands why a motor like this works---making it common knowledge within the population.  A motor of my design or another person's motor, assuming that person wants to make it available to everyone, makes no difference to me.  This is a fifty year or so process toward changing things for the better in this world that has to start somewhere.  Whether or not this theory can be applied, the process of change starts in places like this with people like you who are interested in putting your hands on the problem to fix it.

Lets roll."



OK, so I posted the explanation for a magnet motor that uses the same principal and I got an intelligent response that said it wouldn't work as I've explained it.  This poster had an interesting suggestion about transferring the stator from one motor to the next in order to bypass the gates entirely and I truly appreciate his suggestion.  I don't know if it would take more power to transfer the stator to another motor than it would to just crash through the gate.

The poster explained that in one cycle the total power produced would be less than the external power required to reset the motors.  I responded that motors that had been reset are now in their next cycle and assisting the other motors still in their first cycle to reset. meaning the external energy is coming from more than just one cycle.  Sort of like borrowing from the future.  Don't know if my response applies or not, but it's something to consider.  With my limited knowledge of physics, all I can see is that more motors are actively producing power at any given moment than the one that needs to be reset quickly should require to get back in play.

The poster's comment applies to this gravity motor as well, so consider it as you try to envision this.  My response is the same for the gravity motor, which may or may not hold water.  Once a weight has been reset it's on it's next cycle and assisting the resetting of weights still in their first cycle.  Borrowing from the future?
I'm honestly not married to these two motors, so I don't have a personal stake in their success or failure.  I know free energy motors are not like fairies; they don't run on beliefs and personal faith in the concepts.  My goal is to either get a motor running on clean, readily available energy for the home user or to assist in any way I can someone else who is attempting to do the same.  I don't give a crap about fame, fortune, or power.  I do care about what type of world my children and grandchildren grow up in, though.

[mangyhyena]

Sorry, can't leave this alone just yet.  I've been thinking over the response all night.

Lets say we're going to put two thousand pounds on the axle.  We'll start with just one rod to begin.  So, we drill a hole in the axle, insert a linear bearing, then insert the rod.  At each end of the rod we attach one thousand pounds.  At this point the top end of the rod with its thousand pound weight is sitting on top of the axle and the other end of the rod is hanging at the six O'clock position.  We manually do a vertical lift, picking up that rod with a thousand pounds on each end, two thousand pounds total. Lets say we use a "grabber" to catch the weight as it is lifted up to the bottom of the axle.  So, now we've got the rod extended at the twelve O'clock position, ready to fall.  We give it a nudge and the axle turns as the weight falls.  When it gets to the six O'clock position and the lifter kicks in, nothing happens.  Why?  Because we have no external energy to perform the lift.  Nothing else is falling, causing the axle to continue to turn and supply the power to run the lift.  Dead in the water.

So, lets split the weight in half and add one more rod.  Now we've got two rods with five hundred pounds at each end.  We do the lift manually, lifting one rod that weighs one thousand pounds between the two ends.  The other rod is extended and at the one O'clock position.  We give it a nudge and the first rod hits the lifter and---nothing happens.  The five hundred pounds that is still extended and trying to fall is not enough weight to perform the one thousand pound lift needed to reset the other rod at the six O'clock position.

Now we cut both weights in half again.  We've got four rods, each with 250 pounds at each end.  We set the motor so one weight is at the twelve O'clock position and the others are past that.  We don't need to nudge it this time because the other three rods are extended and waiting for us to take the brake off.  We take the brake off and the weights fall, turning the axle.  The first weight hits the lifter and ---I still don't think the lifter has enough weight falling to turn that axle and overcome the 500 pounds that need to be lifted and the friction inherent in this machine.  We have 750 pounds falling, but we've got a 500 pound lift to accomplish and friction to overcome.  I don't think this falling weight to lift ratio is good enough yet.

So, lets go all out now and increase the length and circumference of the axle to make room for lots of rods.  We insert 100 rods, each with 10 pounds at each end.  The holes in the axle are drilled in a spiral pattern, so none of those rods will arrive at the lifter at the same time.  (Linear bearings are installed in each hole so the rod can slide through.)  We set the motor so each and every rod is extended in a pattern from the twelve O'clock position to almost the six O'clock position.  (From just past the six O'clock position to almost the twelve O'clock position, not one rod is extended, leaving all the weight extended on the right side of the axle only.)
We take the brake off and the weights fall, turning the axle.  The first rod hits the lifter and---what happens now?  We've got over 900 pounds extended and falling, turning the axle and providing external power to the lifter.  We're asking over 900 pounds falling to lift a 20 pound rod and overcome the friction inherent in the motor.  Do you think there is enough energy being released to accomplish this?  I would think so, though I'm not positive.  I would even think there might be some left over energy to do some useful work.  For the sake of argument, lets say that over 900 pounds falling was enough to do a vertical lift on the 20 pound rod.  Now what?
The next rod hits the lifter.  Again, we've got the same amount of falling weight to lift ratio.  Everything looks exactly the same as the last lift with the exception of a different rod being lifted.  The first rod that was lifted and reset is now part of the weight falling on the right side of the axle, keeping the weight to lift ration the same as it was on the first lift.

Again and again, hopefully.  Every time one rod arrives at the lifter, all the other rods are extended and falling on the right side.  Never is there an extended weight on the left side of the axle, which leaves the axle overbalanced on the right side at all times.  Also, because we're using rods, the lifter only needs to travel from the lowest point the rod hangs at the six O'clock position to the bottom of the axle, not from the lowest point at the six O'clock position all the way to the highest point at the twelve O'clock position.  Yes, the weight that needs a lift is doubled because the rod has equal weight on both ends, but the trade off is less distance to travel in order to reset a rod so it can begin to fall again from the highest position, providing external energy for the next rod that needs to be lifted.

My hope would be that with over 900 pounds falling, there would be enough energy released to perform the lift, overcome the friction inherent in a machine like this (even with the axle on bearings and linear bearings assisting a smooth slide of the rod) and to turn at least a low speed alternator.  I have no idea how much, if any, energy would be available for useful work.

This would not be one motor, in my opinion.  It would be one hundred gravity motors running out of phase and linked via an axle.  Always, just one rod would be reset at a time and the right side of the axle would be overbalanced with extended rods.

A machine like this, if it would work, could be made with commonly available materials and off-the-shelf parts.  Probably wouldn't need to put quite that much weight on it, but who knows?  At this point I don't even know if it would work.  The energy needed to lift each rod is greater than the energy that rod provided when falling, which should mean the machine requires more energy to run than it makes.  But---because the weights take longer to complete their fall than the lifter needs to reset them, and because only one rod at a time is reset, that leaves all the other weights falling at all times, always providing enough external energy for the reset.    I'm so frigging confused because I can see both views of the machine and I can't reconcile them.  One view says the machine will need more power to run than it will make.  The other view says the exact opposite.

I don't think I can explain it any better than this right now.  I hope anyone reading this can envision the machine I've got in mind from my description.  Maybe later I'll come up with a better way if people here want more of an explanation.

[mangyhyena]

Thanks, P-Motion.  Shifting the weight at a 45 degree angle wouldn't be a problem to accomplish.  Would just be a matter of shifting the lifters a bit.

Weight distribution, completing one lift at a time, and timing seem to be the key to this thing.

[Low-Q]

Just don't forget that in a complete loop where all the 10 weights have done their turn they have each contributed to lift one weight (1/10th of total weight) 10 times, and the sum of potential energy is still maximum hight minus minimum hight - which is zero. No potential energy can ofcourse not be conveted to any kinetic energy - definitely not excess kinetic energy.

Now you can sleep well again mangyhyena

Vidar

[TechStuf]

Drop a 1lb weight from a height of 1 foot and measure the impact force of the object at impact.  Now drop a 1lb weight while it is situated at the end of a 1ft long pendulum held perpendicular to the pull of gravity and measure the force applied to the axle at the bottom of it's first swing.

Now drop that same 1lb weight still attached to the pendulum in the same manner as before, only this time having placed an immovable angular deflector at the bottom of the swinging arc such that the 1lb weight is deflected downward 90 degrees from it's direction of motion.....

And measure the impact forces at the moment of impact as applied to both the deflector and the pendulum's axle.  How do they differ?  Is the ratio of difference of any importance?  How significant are these measurements?  Alone?  Summed together?  Compared to the first two figures?

What if both or either the axle and deflector were movable, able to store or redirect their energies?


Indeed, just what are the implications here...


TS