Persistent Motor aka Avalanchedrive aka Gravity Turbine

[Unbalanced]

Hello Murilo,

I keep coming back to the thought that this is a good design but that it is not complete.

If I were as certain as you are that there is something valuable in this devise, I would look for small design changes and work with those.

Perhaps three wheels, four wheels or much larger diameter wheels would be a good place to start.

Another thought is to incorporate this design or multiple copies of this design into a larger devise such as a wheel.

I am just throwing out ideas. I am not saying they are good ideas.

I feel as though you are on a good path and that you should not get stuck on this specific design but rather expand on it.

I am fearful to comment on this specific design because you often respond with a great deal of emotion.

Your past experience with this design should be a good foundation for you to begin experimenting.

One reason that many here on BW have not jumped onboard with your design is that it is not a likely solution to Bessler's wheel. It does not conform with what we have to work with in the AP and MT clues.

There may be better forums on the web for discussing this particular design.

The fact that English is a secondary language for you also contributes to occasional misunderstandings.

The best contribution I can think of offering is to make your wheels much larger diameters such that they are nearly touching one to the other.

Please know that you don't have to have a design to have value as a contributor here on BW. I for one value your contributions and comments. Because you have not made any advances on the Avalanche Drive in so many years makes me wonder why you have not been playing around with variation of it yourself.

I personally don't like the name of your invention. When I think of an avalanche (and I see them every winter) I think of a small mass sliding under the force of gravity that increases its mass and velocity as it moves downhill. Your devise does not increase in mass or velocity.

I would like to collaborate with you but honestly, I don't feel as I have anything to contribute that you could not come up with yourself if you really put your mind to it.

[murilo]

Dear American friend,
THANX for your msg!
As said by Jack the Ripper, let's go by pieces and slices!
You sent me a words avalanche that I'll deal seriously! B|

Hello Murilo,

I keep coming back to the thought that this is a good design but that it is not complete.
>> Pls, consider my design as a simplified diagram. Thanx for your first time said 'good design'.

If I were as certain as you are that there is something valuable in this devise, I would look for small design changes and work with those.
>>> My mind always force me to simplify the war... not to complicate... in below I'll talk more about this.

Perhaps three wheels, four wheels or much larger diameter wheels would be a good place to start.
>>> Since/if/hence my basic model will work, many. many and many different versions will come for my conceptions!

Another thought is to incorporate this design or multiple copies of this design into a larger devise such as a wheel.
>>> Another member sent some draws with more and larger wheels. I couldn't find any practical reasons and 'gains' for the changes!

I am just throwing out ideas. I am not saying they are good ideas.
>>> You're welcome in brainstorming, since, as I said before, I got a design much bigger than myself... too much sand for my little truck! B∫

I feel as though you are on a good path and that you should not get stuck on this specific design but rather expand on it.
>>> Pls, give me tips upon. Be sure, up to now my design shows me only one ugly fail: those hooks that let chain scape!

I am fearful to comment on this specific design because you often respond with a great deal of emotion.
>>> OH, come on... No fear if you talk seriously, with good intention and with intelligence... I'm not that bad guy... BTW, I do love bullier guys! B]

Your past experience with this design should be a good foundation for you to begin experimenting.
>>> A complete new model will ask for a NEW adapted chain, a task that is beyond my skills and technical + other mean$... This is why I try a deal for to build a computer simulation, by finite elements, where all parts will be there, with the possibility of 'arrangements' on the assembling where needed.

One reason that many here on BW have not jumped onboard with your design is that it is not a likely solution to Bessler's wheel. It does not conform with what we have to work with in the AP and MT clues.
>>> Agreed, besides stupid... My design is absolutely out of BW rails... B( Another rule is that some kind of guys need to stay/walk alone for a time... B(((

There may be better forums on the web for discussing this particular design.
... Pls send me your tips. Even those angels... show me someone that is decided to face risk$ - micro risks, if compared to benefits!

The fact that English is a secondary language for you also contributes to occasional misunderstandings.
>>> Yes... this is one of my faults! Be sure that open minds, or people that admit a open complete planet are much able to understand/comprehend persons on several cultures! (for example, myself! B)

The best contribution I can think of offering is to make your wheels much larger diameters such that they are nearly touching one to the other.
>>> The basic 'power' for my device is that vertical straight pile shape, where one can do it as desired and in face of resistances/gains. Truly, I can't see why and how to accumulate this 'potential power' besides these 'free to fall' so as 'free to rise' segments of chain. But, be my guest for tips.


Please know that you don't have to have a design to have value as a contributor here on BW. I for one value your contributions and comments. Because you have not made any advances on the Avalanche Drive in so many years makes me wonder why you have not been playing around with variation of it yourself.
>>> READ MY LIPS: up to the moment I found NONE, ANY, point where apply evolutions, except for those HOOKS. You see? This means that my design is so simple as possible and even in this way I can not deal it, so as there are people who just can not understand it.

I personally don't like the name of your invention. When I think of an avalanche (and I see them every winter) I think of a small mass sliding under the force of gravity that increases its mass and velocity as it moves downhill. Your devise does not increase in mass or velocity.
>>> Many guys like this name! It is a sum of antagonistic stuffs and defines potentially what can/may/will happen with a 'pile'. Case you find a new name, pls tell me! Yesterday I got a new one, even if names, at the stage, are secondary! B)

I would like to collaborate with you but honestly, I don't feel as I have anything to contribute that you could not come up with yourself if you really put your mind to it.
>>> Thank you indeed! I do believe in inspirations... any tips may come...

Take care!
Best!
M[/b]

[poa_engineer]

Olá Murilo,

The mechanics of your device is not easy to analyse in details, as I'm not a Mechanical Engineer or physicist. On the other hand I believe there are several possible approaches to demonstrate why it doesn't work (or does work), for a person with the appropriate skills.

Another idea is to make a software simulation. I think SolidWorks would do the job.

One high level consideration that comes to my mind: As gravitational field is a conservative field, the work done by a mass that performs any path and returns to its original position is null. In your device, the work done by a link when it falls at left is the same it will be necessary to lift it at right.

Best regards

[murilo]

Oi, poa,
blz?

Thank you for your msg.

My conception is absurdly simple, clean and easy to understand.

So easy that it may cause confusion! B)

The main stuff is this: one side will tend to fall ( repetitively ), exactly as falls the heavier plate of two plates balance.

Suppose 100kg against 50kg... the torsion at fulcrum will be a true stuff to deal, so as a resistance IF you try to avoid the fall.

The idea is to hold the fulcrum at ~80% of free/surplus potential and so as take profit of 'g' acceleration, with square of time in P formula.

My need is for a simulation with finite elements, or similar. Any ideas?

Be sure that there are many skilled people all around, but they use abusive and predatory ways to talk to inventors and others eccentric... B(((

Obrigado!
M

[poa_engineer]

For simulation try SolidWorks, it is very powerful and heavily used in industry by mechanical Engineers.

Good luck

[murilo]

SW is great for the building, animations and constructive discussions.

Finite elements analyzes will show, as a color GRAPHIC over the design, every points where a piece will touch to the other UNDER 'g' action... dynamically as the accumulated sum of potentials..., stuck points, so as all vector resultants.

My design 'applies' vertical touch under 'g' as a provisional assembling of arrangement for main 'solids' during 'operation'.

Sorte pra vc tb!

[Ed]

"It is too expensive" would have been a better excuse, since it does just about everything. B)

http://www.solidworks.com/sw/products/s ... lities.htm

[murilo]

Yes indeed: expensive... or worthy!

Yes indeed: great results, with solutions!

I'm already in contact! They'll have an event down in SP, on may/29!

In my mind I didn't connect 'Solidworks' to Dassault! B(

Thanx, Ed!

[murilo]

Boys and Gals,
pls take a look at my indeed extra new site:
http://avalanchedrive.com
The idea is to provoke a hard on possible allied people, since I still look for a simulation!
TC!

[Grimer]

"It is too expensive" would have been a better excuse, since it does just about everything. B)

http://www.solidworks.com/sw/products/s ... lities.htm

Since RAR aren't short of a bob or two presumably they must have validated their design on software like this.

[Ed]

What would be the point if the logic is sound in one's head... and don't call me presumably.

[Grimer]

touché :-)

[LustInBlack]

Perpetual Madness ... my dear!

[murilo]

In below I reproduce 3 personal msg I got from a 'raj' in another forum!
He's an engineer and I hope to not be anti-ethical. My responses don't are saved, sorry!
(no editions, for sure! I miss this guy! B(



Murilo,

My name is not Raj; but I am an engineer and I saw your designs, I believe your designs could work but ofcourse, you are not an engineer or a physicist. I will offer you help, think about it, research about it.

Your design is about using gravity as a source of energy, when you use gravity as a source of energy, the fundamental concept you need to keep in mind is that you need to have the mass eccentric! so for example, you need the heavier portion of your system FURTHER away from the VERTICAL axis. Most people will come and tell you and count the WORK done as W=F*d but what you need to tell them is that they are missing something critical. COMPLETE ENERGY balance equations. the only way your system stands a chance of working is if you allow the higher mass to WORK more through the concept of MOMENT. if you have mass returning at a distance further away from from the one that is going up; GRAVITY WILL WORK.

See what you are missing is that you are thinking in terms of heavy side, light side, you keep thinking momentum, but think about this for a second, your momentum only works if mass can be multiplied with velocity; velocity wouldnt be achieved unless you have distance for acceleration, I can leave a feather from a height and I can slowly bring down a heavy object using the same amount of energy.

TORQUE and MOMENT, so try and make a D out of your system, it will work..

Cheers
X
---------------------------------------------------


The message they sent you was:

Yes,

I do see you are seeking help. Good. See you device isnt "free energy" device. Your device is a way to convert gravity to usable energy, I do believe that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but "IT CAN BE TRANSFORMED FROM ONE FORM TO ANOTHER" that is the law! You have go the part of the device having to be LONG; most people in their experiments fail to realize that conversion of energy they are trying to gain in their prototypes is "TOO LESS" for them to overcome frictional losses, energy conversions to sound etc, you need to generate high enough torque to be able to start the CONVERSION, think of it as a breakeven point.

This system is difficult to model while considering frictional losses; however it can be modeled. If you can simplify the system, I would recommend you to use a software program called ANSYS, again frictional modelling is way to difficult and I would ask you to ignore it for the moment, whatever resultant torque you get from the model, reduce it to 60% as useable.

Another program which can do this very well but is EXTREMELY difficult to use is called ABAQUS. Both of them are used in the industry for validations all the time.

Have you considered drawing a free body diagram before you 3D modlled it? I saw your website; your current design I can tell you with utmost confidence will NOT work unless your design starts creating torque. In general terms, TORQUE is produced by mass or force that is further away from NEUTRAL axis. Your mass energy balance in the current design are symmetrical at the neutral axis, that is WHY it wont function.

Let me know if you have any questions

X
------------------------------------------------------------------

I forgot to mention something in my previous email;

I dont know if anyone has explained this or you know it or not, you say your design works on GRAVITATIONAL ACCELERATION; because of mass difference, I will explain this. The fact of the matter is that every thing on EARTH is pulled towards the center of the earth at 9.81 m/s2 acceleration. So, why do we not accelerate? people will say earth, but answer is that the crust is so compacted that you are STOPPED from accelerating towards the center of the earth.

If a meteor is falling, it too is subjected to 9.81 m/s2, why does IT accelerate then? its due to the fact that there is room to allow the TRAVEL, which means mass has to travel a distance in order to accelerate and gain energy and momentum.

In your design, the higher masses on one side dont have the SPACE for them to travel, so momentum on both sides become equal and it would just be at STANDSTILL.

Cheers
X

[preoccupied]

The Avalanche drive looks like it would have twice as much weight on one side. That has to work. Only one thing could stop it and that is the lever that moves the weights together at the top and bottom. I want to see the full avalanche drive drawing to see if I can figure that out.