Friendly Little Note

[Ed]

Thanks Jim. This is probably the most clearly you've stated your ideas without getting into details I can remember. ;-)

[wazeb]

Jim Mich wrote:
["If we cause the two weights to change velocities within the wheel, then we can use their velocity difference to do work. And suppose this causes the two weights to revert back to moving at the same speed again. We simply repeat the process."]

My build is design to use velocity difference. Wheel gain energy when at different velocities, but loose when weights revert back at the same speed.
No runner

[getterdone]

After the motion is extracted from the moving weights that are moving at different speeds and this motion is caused to move into the wheel and the two weights are again moving the speed of the wheel, then the two weights swap roles. Once again the two weights change velocities within the wheel. Once again we can use their velocity difference to do work. Once again this causes the two weights to revert back to moving at the same speed. We repeat the process again and again.

Yes it sounds crazy. But aren't all PM wheel proposals a little bit crazy?

Bill keeps asking, where's the energy source. To answer that we need to fully understand the concept of kinetic motion energy. And also understand that KE is always relative energy. It's not conservative.

I agree that KE is not a conservative force,if you put a washer and a coin on a ramp, and let them roll down, the washer will always go further ,because the weight is concentrated at the perimeter. With that said, I don't understand were the extra energy is coming from .It reminds me of hockey, when they change players on the fly. one player's tired, he goes in, and a fresh one comes out.

[jim_mich]

It's hard to discuss without presenting details. But a long time ago the forum had a discussion involving a swinging incense burner in some cathedral, where a rope was pulled up and down, thus pumping the motion of the swinging burner. The name given is asymmetrical parametric oscillation. All forceful rotation requires asymmetrical force. The moving/swinging weights within a working wheel are subjected to asymmetrical forces. "The weights gain force from their motions." The motions of the weights then rotate the wheel. No gravity is involved when "there are now two and two" or translated differently a "pair of pairs" of things/weights. Before the "two and two" the weights were not balanced, and thus unbalance weight was stored up when the wheel was stopped. The unbalanced weight then would start the wheel rotating, and then the weights would "gain force from their motions" to keep the wheel moving.

My usual disclaimers apply. It's up to each person to decide if they believe what I say or to think that I don't know of what I speak. If you are an unbeliever, it is not my responsibility to force my beliefs down your throat. But don't come to this thread accusing me of being wrong. You have not been told enough about the concept to make such a judgement.

OK, break/rest time is over - back to yard work.

[eccentrically1]

How can you be right, unless...?

[Dwylbtzle]

he can't, unless...

[cloud camper]

OK folks, in order to help JM stay on focus ferreting out suspicious trolls, tracking IP addresses of trolls,
researching start dates of trolls, determining which members are returning trolls, awarding red dots to trolls
in addition to his many other important forum duties, I have taken the time (geez it must have taken 5 or 10 minutes at
least) to simulate Jim's fabulous mechanical Maxwell's Demon in WM2D.

Jim just hasn't found the time to build this thing for going on 10 years now so we will just have to help out.

We now have the answer to the wheel and will live a glorious future powered by Jim's mechanical Demon!

Here we have the start position:



And here we have the actual video file. Forum members will be the first to watch this fabulous mechanism at work! Just click on the image to see
the future!



But I must have done something wrong though as no matter how many times I run the sim, it always seems to balance.

So to save everyone the agony of actually watching this thing, I have shown the final balance position:



This is what we've been waiting for all these years folks! Just keep hitting
replay and we generate an infinite amount of clean motion powered energy!

[ovyyus]

Bill keeps asking, where's the energy source. To answer that we need to fully understand the concept of kinetic motion energy. And also understand that KE is always relative energy. It's not conservative.

Isn't that like saying we need to fully understand how fuel burns before we can understand a steam engine? Thomas Savery could easily explain and demonstrate his energy source without presenting any details about his engine design. Same can be said for any type of engine. Not yours?

[rlortie]

Erick sent me these links; kinetic and angular momentum at work!


http://www.bciburke.com/getintensity/pl ... vents.html
Scroll down to "Extreme Cyclone"

Here it is at work! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76O5ZMP77pQ

Also check out; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euqpjdI3ock

[jim_mich]

So Bill, I guess you have never seen a weight fly outward when forced to rotate on a wheel. That is the energy source.

Thomas Savery could have demonstrated his energy source by putting a lid on a boiling pot. The lid lifted off.
But Thomas Savery needed to construct a means of repeating the cycle. He had to bring about the means of harnessing the steam pressure. It is easy for us to look back and see how he did it, we are blessed with hindsight. We know how it was done. We have grown up knowing how to harness steam by allowing it to push pistons. This was not so apparent to most people when the steam engine was first built. It was new technology. Thomas Savery would not have gotten far with explaining the source of the energy to power his engine without demonstrating the details of how it was done.

In the same manner, the means for harnessing motion energy cannot be presented without explaining the details of how to do it. It is the how that makes it work. The method, the principle. I have stated repeatedly that it is the motions of weights. And you keep asking the same question, "What is the energy source?" The energy source is the motions of the weights. But that make no sense to you. And I fully understand that it makes no sense. But in order for me to present why it makes sense, requires me to present the details of how to do it. When my preparations for such disclosure are complete, then I will explain in full detail how and why.

There are seven criteria or conditions needed to bring about perpetual motion. ONE is a rotating environment - a wheel. Gravity is not a requirement. The SECOND condition is movable weight mass. It can be solid, or flowing liquid, or gas, or possibly even fiery plasma, anything that exhibits inertial resistance to being moved and momentum resistance to being stopped. The THIRD thru SIXTH criteria all involve conditions relating to the motions of the weights. The THIRD is a route or path means along which the weights move. The SEVENTH last condition is means to prevent CF from stopping the weight motion. Only when all SEVEN condition are present will motion of the weight cause the weights to keep moving forcefully.

If I remove any one of these criteria or conditions, then it will not work. Remove any one of the seven criteria and it no longer makes any sense. Only when all SEVEN condition are present, then the weights work, they simply do their thing. And when you understand all SEVEN conditions, only then would you understand why.

The energy source is like a Maxwell's Demon. The weights gain energy from their motions.

[Ed]

Jim,

IMO, there is no difference between "means to prevent OOB from keeling" and "means to prevent CF from stopping the weight motion".

And if we were to get into the details, I could easily explain to you how an OOB mechanism could "gain force from it's own movement".

You still haven't mentioned what you hope to gain by trying to convince everyone of your way? I'm not saying your way is wrong, but then I'm not trying to convince anyone my way is right.

[eccentrically1]

I don't know. I just hear another cry of "wolf".

[daxwc]

Jim:

When my preparations for such disclosure are complete, then I will explain in full detail how and why.

Care to elaborate; do you have a working model or are you going to present a theory?

[Dwylbtzle]

if so i advise you don't disclose it here
before you get it patented (if you can)
or put it in the public domain

[ovyyus]

Thomas Savery could have demonstrated his energy source by putting a lid on a boiling pot. The lid lifted off.

No. Thomas Savery did not need a pot and lid, or even water, in order to demonstrate his energy source. If I asked Savery what his energy source was then all he had to do was make fire, point to the fire and say 'energy source'. No mention of steam or boilers or pistons required. The simple answer to the simple question is fire.

When I ask you the same question you point to inertia and say 'energy source' - but - 'only under the seven conditions maintained within my engine'. Of course it doesn't make sense! Never before has an engine defined and created its own energy source as a function of its own operation. I guess that must be a definition of PM?