Georg Künstler's Ideas...

[rlortie]

He is after what pendulum enthusiasts are also searching for - the Holly Grail of self amplifying oscillation. The question is ... do you think he has the answer ?

As one of those pendulum enthusiasts, I guess it's time for my 2-bits worth. For the younger generations 2-bits is $.25 worth.

I have never looked at a pendulum as a self-amplifying oscillator. All a pendulum can do is in a sense store energy that will be released on falling. We all agree that there is loss due to friction and gravity therefore input must be maintained. A pendulum does not offer a free ride.

Everything is said to have a resonant frequency, if that frequency is induced it will set up a vibration that is easily maintained and will amplify only as long as what ever source is supplying said frequency is kept constant. If maintained the object will self-destruct as Georg implies.

The first example that come to my mind is a female singer capable of shattering crystal glass. Another is the rubber motor mounts in your automobile. Without them, if the engine RPM ever produced the resonance of the auto body your car would self-destruct. Now some of you will probably say poo poo to this, so I recommend you talk to an auto designer or engineer. My third example would be large windmill blades that experience metal fatigue due wind finding blade resonance.

I agree with bill, that a resonance will build but you cannot use it as an outside energy force. Any attempt to connect or draw from it will change the resonance of the object in question.

Ralph

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Fletcher,
see you catch me up. System's(also a wheel) are out of balance because we extract energy. We have at start time a 'Well balanced system' or say preloaded system, not a system in balance.

You had seen frenzy sheet clutch a long time ago. When we extract energy at shortly after 6 o'clock, then we lift the mass. So gravity is used to bring us back this lost energy. Als more you extract, as more you get.

the future has begun

Georg

[Wheeler]

Hi Fletcher
Very good point, about the timing. We must not simply disregard anything until all details are tested.

Now if Georg put a photo of his system up for us, we could see it more clearly, but he is not doing this.

This is another piece of science that we do not understand yet. We do not have all the facts about why George is not putting up a photo, so we can not close the possibilities of it showing up.

We are all conducting a scientific test with Georg Künstler.
We must look at everything scientifically.
How far can one go with theory? When do we drop out, and walk out of the lab?
Has anyone proved with a working model that Georg is wrong?

If Georg as is correct in his statement:

Als more you extract, as more you get.

And he is using this system, I do believe it.

It is the known system of intake and exhaust, and that system works as long as you have fuel.
Georg's fuel is continuous we can not dispute that.

His preload is the compression spring held and then released to start the system.

[ovyyus]

...He is after what pendulum enthusiasts are also searching for - the Holly Grail of self amplifying oscillation. The question is ... do you think he has the answer ?

Theorizing is great, but Georg claims the force of gravity is the input energy source that keeps his secret working wheel perpetually driving itself. Where is Georg's proof of this claim? Where are the independent witnesses? Where is the workable theory? How long has he been making these claims? Why am I wasting my time asking these stupid questions? duh!

[Wheeler]

You are not waisting your time.

We can not all answer the questions you have when you ask them, because we too are asking the same questions.

Do you think gravity is a fuel?

[Wheeler]

This man used to work with Georg and once saw it go by.
He now works for goggle, and is paid under the table.

[ken_behrendt]

Well, I have been reading through this thread and, to tell everybody the truth, just how Georg's self amplifying oscillation wheel would work is still not clear to me.

I tried to make a model of such a device using WM2D (see the attached Workspace image below). My wheel is a hollow drum (transparent circle) that is 6 feet in diameter and weighs 10 lbs. Inside of it I "trapped" a smaller drum (gray circle) that is only 3.5 ft in diameter and weighs 2 lbs. The smaller drum is held inside of the larger drum by a set of 16 pegs or dowels, against which it rests.

Inside the smaller drum there is a pendulum with a mass of 1 lb.

The larger drum is free to roll along the flat and level surface below it (dark gray).

The various parts were arranged in the configuration shown before running the simulation. I was expecting the pendulum to swing to the left side of the smaller drum which would then propel the smaller drum to the right and up against the dowels on the right side of the larger drum. I thought that this action would then create an imbalance that would force the larger drum to roll to the right along the flat surface below it and that, somehow, the motion of the pendulum would keep the smaller drum "climbing" over the larger drum's dowels to the right of it and would, therefore, continuously move the larger drum or even accelerate it.

Unfortunately, all that happened was that the two drums would briefly counter oscillate before coming to a standstill. No net motion or PM was observed.

I probably am misinterpreting how this oscillatory to tranlational motion convertion is supposed to take place. Can anybody make any suggestions for improving my design?

ken

[ovyyus]

You are not waisting your time.

We can not all answer the questions you have when you ask them, because we too are asking the same questions.

Do you think gravity is a fuel?

I'm wasting my time with Georg - these same old questions have been asked by me and others for the last couple of years and here we still are on Georg's special little round-a-bout. Why? Like I said before... duh!

In answer to your question Wheeler - not that I've witnessed to date.

BTW, how hard is it to answer questions? Answer... duh! (again)

[Fletcher]

He is after what pendulum enthusiasts are also searching for - the Holly Grail of self amplifying oscillation.

I have never looked at a pendulum as a self-amplifying oscillator. All a pendulum can do is in a sense store energy that will be released on falling. We all agree that there is loss due to friction and gravity therefore input must be maintained. A pendulum does not offer a free ride.

I agree with bill, that a resonance will build but you cannot use it as an outside energy force. Any attempt to connect or draw from it will change the resonance of the object in question.

I was particularly referring to a pendulum as 'half' of a system where it is cobbled to another 'half' system. Both considered separately have the ability to store Potential Energy & it is hoped to create an energy imbalance that will allow continuous motion & the ability to draw excess energy for work.

An example would be Jan Rutkowski's device but there are many more. The counter balance (pendulum) can store PE & it is an integral part of his device. The second 'half' is the asymmetrically loaded wheel which when viewed in isolation looks very unbalanced hence, conclusion, plenty of available PE. Interestingly, he claims to have a working model also.

But when you bring the 2 systems together & connect them you may be able to deduce that stored energy in 1 half system is exactly matched by potential of the other, not counting ordinary losses that all mechanical systems suffer from.

What the researcher hopes to achieve is a "special" arrangement whereby the net energy of one system is greater than the other, so that a first condition is met of excess energy available to be used to offset ordinary losses (ala self-amplifying oscillation) & the second condition, excess energy available to do useful work.

Everything is said to have a resonant frequency, if that frequency is induced it will set up a vibration that is easily maintained and will amplify only as long as what ever source is supplying said frequency is kept constant. If maintained the object will self-destruct as Georg implies.

Absolutely correct, no argument from me. Its well known in engineering. One of the most used examples is bridge design i.e. dampening & strength considerations to overcome wind shear forces causing a destructive oscillation. I think the original 'golden gate' suffered from it. There is also the urban legend of soldiers breaking step to cross a poorly built bridge. That may well have happened in the days of old.

As for Georg. I have attempted to interpret & unwind his spin so that others may draw their own conclusions. I can't of course leave all my bias & opinion out otherwise it wouldn't be a discussion board.

nugeb sah erutuf eht

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't your above post reflect back to Claudio's (unstable) thread on "Weight question" page 4 & 5.

I understand what you are saying and have begun to wonder what a resonant frequency of a pendulum would be. I am quite sure it would have nothing to do with its amplitude which is governed by its length.

By the way the bridge you are referring to was the Tacoma Narrows Bridge south of Seattle Wa. It was completely destroyed. Archived films are available that show how the resonance amplified until like a child on a swing it went over its suspension limits.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

You are probably right Ralph about the unstable thread. Claudio's design was a derivation of Rutkowski's. Georg & Jan are connected by their mutual claims of working devices, but no proof.

Thanks for the info about the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. I have family in the Tacoma area so I should've known better :)

[Jonathan]

Pendulum frequency does have to do with amplitude, so the common equation T=2πsqrt(L/g) is for small amplitudes only. I don't think an exact expression for all amplitudes is possible.

[Vic Hays]

The resonance of the Tacoma Narrows bridge did not amplify itself. It was receiving energy from high winds. It stored the energy as resonance until it could no longer contain the energy it was storing. This is in no way pm or f/e.

I have seen the old bridge wreckage and I belive it is still there. Galloping Gerty is still studied for an example on how not to build a suspension bridge.

[rlortie]

Jonathan,

Thank you for your input, although as you know your math is a waste of time with me. Its the final answer that matters.

What I know about simple or straight plane oscillating pendulums can be summed up in the quote below. which to me says that the higher a pendulum is pushed it will accelerate in speed to make up for the extended arc in the same given time as a shorter arc. Therefore if arc or amplitude is forcibly increased, that amount of input will be returned at a faster speed to make the extended travel equal to the same time factor.

The principle of the pendulum was discovered by Italian physicist and astronomer Galileo, who established that the period for the back-and-forth oscillation of a pendulum of a given length remains the same, no matter how large its arc, or amplitude.
"Pendulum," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Resonance of a pendulum can be looked at in two ways. First an even and equal input on each swing or isochronism, such as found in a clock escapement. Second is the pendulum object itself, not unlike a windmill blade finding resonance by wind when it is locked from turning.

I like others have never been able to understand Georg's input on this 19 (by now 20 page thread). I will give him credit for bringing a lot of food for thought to consider. Some of his statements and pictures do supply one with opportunities to explore in other tangents. His "trouble force can be effective in making or breaking a resonance whether desired or not.

Ralph

[rlortie]

Vic,

The resonance of the Tacoma Narrows bridge did not amplify itself. It was receiving energy from high winds. It stored the energy as resonance until it could no longer contain the energy it was storing. This is in no way pm or f/e.

You are correct and that is what I was attempting to imply, It did not amplify itself but was receiving energy from the wind that kept blowing at the proper speed and strength to be stored in the bridge.

Sorry if I did not make myself clear.

Ralph