Another claim to a working device...

[Tarsier79]

Grimer, I have a small working model. Give me $1,000,000 US, and I will build a shed with a unit big enough to power a soy bean oil extractor.
Why would I lie?

[Reticon]

yeah, yeah, me too! It can only power a toy so far, but if I had enough money I could build one the size of a room that will do much more. What? You just want the small one? Oh no... can't give you that, but I'll send you a picture, here it is: http://blogbattery.com/wp-content/uploa ... ymbals.jpg

[Reticon]

I wonder if these con-men didn't originally start out looking for an answer, but their only discovery was the gullibility of the populace. They feel as legitimate as Hollywood actors. Remember this guy?? : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Lazar

[zoelra]

Below is from the http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ site.

"We will build in Porto Alegre, at Av. Patria, 195 - a power generator that started by a mechanic system, and exclusively powered by the gravity force. It will be the first equipment with this technology in the world. We have a small machine for experience and testing in our headquarter at Av. Pedro Ivo,933. The mechanic system was created under a special conception, to pick up and take the energy contained in the planet gravity, at any moment and place, without pollution or heat. Technology was completely developed by our Company and consists in a continuos movement with some extra energy that can be taken, in a continuous and perpetual mechanic movement. This equipment is similar to a combustion engine, where a set of wheights represent the fuel and pistons that activate assemblies connected to a crankshaft. Another similar equipment will be built in the U.S.A. at the Incobrasa Industries Ltd plant, a Company of the group, located in Gilman, IL. Both equipment are demonstration models with capacity to generate 30 KW, and will be ready in the middle of the next year. The technique allows the building of great power generators."

[Tarsier79]

Why havent MIB broken into their HQ?

[Andyb]

May be they have done a deal or they are just full of poo,only time will tell dude,again i hope it is not just a joke and if it is i personally will not be bothered ,if it is real though i will be well happy doors will open all over the world for tec of this kind ,again time will tell i remain positive and open but not easily fooled,Andyb.Oh yer it would be funny if it was nut cracker though i would laugh a lot at that ,what a bunch of nutters ,the irony ha, we will see.

[Grimer]

yeah, yeah, me too! It can only power a toy so far, ...

To describe their small machine as a toy is pejorative.

[Tarsier79]

At least by the description, it seems to be a motion wheel requiring a gravity environment.

[Grimer]

Why havent MIB broken into their HQ?

They've used up all their spare manpower monitoring the nutters on the forum.

[Reticon]

Why havent MIB broken into their HQ?

They never said it was a "working" model.

[Reticon]

I contend that we do not need "time" to tell. The signs are all here short of tarring and feathering them. They never claimed that their model worked, they let you assume that it does. Plausible deniability established. They claim the model exists for "testing" but the fact that we all know is that a working model needs no more testing other than to demonstrate what has otherwise been determined to be impossible. It doesn't matter how much energy it produces, any = overunity. Anyone that is serious about this quest will ignore delusional ranting about how it can be used, or how much it can generate, and just focus on the part that matters, demonstrating it at any scale.

May be they have done a deal or they are just full of poo,only time will tell dude,again i hope it is not just a joke and if it is i personally will not be bothered ,if it is real though i will be well happy doors will open all over the world for tec of this kind ,again time will tell i remain positive and open but not easily fooled,Andyb.Oh yer it would be funny if it was nut cracker though i would laugh a lot at that ,what a bunch of nutters ,the irony ha, we will see.

[Andyb]

Reticon ,i was under the impression that they had claimed a working device when they spoke of 30 kw of output energy,however that now seems questionable as well it would seem ,i have not read deeply enough so i will look further ,thank you for enlightening me,Andyb.

[Grimer]

Anyone believe in dreams?

I've had a dream in which I spoke to the owner and one of his sons. I asked them if their "small machine" worked. The son smiled and said yes of course it worked. I congratulated them and departed.

It seems to me that the machine depends on the conservation of angular momentum combined with the action of gravity.

If you sit on an office chair which is free to rotate and hold a heavy weight out at arms length which you rotate in a full circle then the chair will rotate a small angle. This is the conservation of angular momentum which seems to be the same thing as the conservation of jerk energy.

When we carry out this procedure in the vertical plane then Newtonian gravity comes into things. For a rotation where the heavy weight axis is at the same height as the chair axis gravity will act on a smaller lever arm on one side of the weight rotation than the other.

Now in the horizontal plane a full rotation of the weight only turns the chair by a small angle. Therefore one needs many rotations to turn the chair through 360°. That's why the RAR mill has many arms. Each provides a small rotation angle to the main shaft.

It's all quite simple really - when you can see it.

[Tarsier79]

No. It isn't that simple. You need an advantage. If you find that advantage you should be able to turn a single arm, or multiply the force by multiplying the arms. Just adding arms won't make anything rotate. Most of my builds have 2 arms, simply due to the ease of balancing. I prefer to build one.

[Grimer]

I think I am beginning to grasp one of the essential requirements for a gravity mill.

One must have a closed path for the weights on one side of the main axle but no
closed path on the other.

In other words we must have at least two centres of motion for the weights.

We probably need three but preventing structure as a whole moving relative
to the earth will possibly give us the third.

LOL. It's all to do with the conservation of energy.

Each energy derivative is conserved. The two familiar ones are of course the first and second derivatives, Momentum and Force x distance. We can think off these as velocity "energy" and acceleration energy. We could add conservation of heat within an insulated space as a third familiar conservation.

But all derivatives must be conserved since we are talking in all cases of more and more complicated examples of the basic conservation, the conservation of momentum.

So jerk is conserved, snap is conserved, crackle is conserved, pop is conserved and all higher as yet unnamed derivatives are also conserved. Heat covers a range of derivatives depending on the number of independent particle motions involved.

To return to the subject in hand, if we have a simple closed path which weaves in and out towards a single axle centre then though we have plenty of change in acceleration towards the centre (jerk), the positive jerk on the one side is necessarily balanced by the negative jerk on the other and so there is no net gain in energy.

However, if we have a major and a minor centre and we loop around the minor centre on one side but not on the other then we have more jerk energy on one side than the other. So we can use the jerk vector to unbalance the wheel - which is basically what Trevor is trying to do - and the Boys from Brazil as well for that matter.

It seems to me that the machine depends on the conservation of angular momentum combined with the action of gravity.

If you sit on an office chair which is free to rotate and hold a heavy weight out at arms length which you rotate in a full circle then the chair will rotate a small angle. This is the conservation of angular momentum which seems to be the same thing as the conservation of jerk energy.

When we carry out this procedure in the vertical plane then Newtonian gravity comes into things. For a rotation where the heavy weight axis is at the same height as the chair axis gravity will act on a smaller lever arm on one side of the weight rotation than the other.

Now in the horizontal plane a full rotation of the weight only turns the chair by a small angle. Therefore one needs many rotations to turn the chair through 360°. That's why the RAR mill has many arms. Each provides a small rotation angle to the main shaft.

I'm amazed how long it's taken me to see that the conservation of angular momentum and the conservation of jerk are the same thing.

I suppose we are so used to the phrase that we run it into one word as
theconservationofangularmomentum and it becomes a proper noun to us - very Germanic I suppose.

I remember as a child my family referred to the space between the veranda and the kitchen as the "damp corner". I saw this as the name of a place "Dampcorner" like Liverpool. It was only when I was older that I realised it was called dampcorner because it was always damp.

Above I stated:

"But all derivatives must be conserved since we are talking in all cases of more and more complicated examples of the basic conservation, the conservation of momentum."

It's almost Freudian how the word "momentum" is used in the description of the third derivative energy conservation, i.e. the conservation of angular momentum. Presumably an alternative way of describing the second derivative would be as the conservation of circular momentum.