For Georg

[Jonathan]

I do not want to offend you, but I have visited your site several times and I still do not understand, I am having a big problem with the language barrier. Both your site and the thread that Scott routinely posts your ideas on don't seem to be going anywhere, they are like hints. I went to the resonance page and there was no talk of a 'trouble force', but there was elsewhere and it was unintelligable. It seems that you think that resonance somehow gets you extra energy, but nowhere do you describe how. Resonance is well understood and everyone knows that reasonance it just a way to put a small amount of energy in over a long time and get bigger energy out over a smaller time, it is exactly like using multiple stages of pulleys, but doesn't get you any more energy, it merely changes the amount of power. But changing the amount of power is already known, they haven't made a conservation of power law because it is so obviously wrong.
The only way I see resonance as having any bearing on free energy is if your free energy source has a little energy over a lot of time, so you can save it up and put out much energy for a short time, thereby letting you intermittently power a more energy-hungry load.
Please explain! In all your posts you seem to imply that you know how to make a PM wheel, but I can't tell if that is what you mean or my misunderstanding. If you know how just show and tell us how. I can't stand the suspense!

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Jonathan,
the resonance page is also written in english, so you can not have a language problem. But there is a language problem in general. I will explain what this problem is, it is the view!!
On the resonance page you see that any external force (also a small, periodically one) can have big forces a result. Hope you agree.

But what happend if you use a INTERNAL force ? You still get the same result, big forces.

So external force don't apply is is a force from outside. Think a while.
ANY force, Internal or external can be used.

Best regards

Georg

[Jonathan]

First, no, there is a language problem because the slightest mistake in grammar or spelling will throw me off. I have trouble understanding the British! Let alone the translation from German done by a machine!
Second, yes, an internal or external force can be used, that is self evident. The problem is that for a resonance phenomenon, you can put a small amount of energy in over time and get a short amount of high energy. What is important is both the energy and the time. If I can draw a mechanical analogy where distance is time, then we can like resonance to a pulley system, where on pulls without much force over a long distance and gets a strong force over a small distance, then f*D=F*d. The work in equals the work out and so there is no gain.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Jonathan,
i like to give an example, maybe that is helpfull for you.

Assume, you have a ramp. On the top of the ramp is an roller.
We let roll the roller downwards. What happend on the bottom ?
All energy m*g*h is transformed to 1/2m v*v+ rotational energy. Hope you agree.

With our foot we can absorbe this energy, than the roller standstill.

But we can also give that roller a kick, so that it is rolling back to the top.
Hope you agree.

So your foot has to do double of work, absorbe the energy and kick it back.

I think, after a while you will be tired. gravity has won.

Best regards,

Georg

[Jonathan]

I think I understand what you are getting at, but I do not understand it's relavance to resonance or to free energy, since it is easy to prove that the energy released by the roller falling is equal to m*g*h and to get it back up the ramp the energy needed is m*g*h, so in this case, and physics says all cases, gravity acts like a virtual spring. My hope for a gravity wheel is that there is some novel process that will allow it to act as a source of energy and not a storer of energy. I have little hope of this left and am about ready to move on almost entirely to different types of free energy.
So back on topic, how do you propose that one could get more work out than in in a resonant system? This is the one thing I don't understand, the thing that your site nor your posts ever tell us: how? It is very simple, I want you to tell me of a straight forward little proof of principle type device, apparently using resonance, to give you more work out than in. I say 'apparently using resonance' because I don't care what it uses, I just want to know how you propose to do these things.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Jonathan,
I suppose you should read http://evert.de/eft722e.htm
Have a look to the example with the football players. There are always two systems acting one against the other. An outer and an inner system.
But when one of the system is allowed to swing, force differences will be the result. This differences, periodically used, are the way to free energy.

Again we are using an oscillating system and resonance with a trouble force.

Best regards

Georg

[Jonathan]

Oh, I think I see what you mean, I will go to the link and come back and add more to this post in a minute.

Well, that took me longer than I thought, but I think he has some neat ideas. I'm not able to tell for sure because I have a hard time understanding him. If I have any ideas from this I will post them.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Jonathan,
i think you did not understand how the roller will climb the wall. The black circles are the mass. If you suddenly stop the movement of a excenter-roller, the mass isn't stopped. You can not stop it, it trys to keep its movement. While doing this, it turns the cylinder up. You can give this the name kinetic energy or what ever you like. But hte result will be that
the roller climbs the wall. This don't happen with a massive cylinder as you suggested. For me it is inertia energy.

I will try to expain it on an other example. You know a lorry with a tank.
The tank is filled half with water. The lorry is moved with speed x.
Now you try to stop that lorry. But the liquid is not stopped. It tries to move with speed x. So how do you call this energy ?

[Jonathan]

No, you have misunderstood. The thing that is interestng about your design is that it allows for the kinetic energy of the weight to climb a vertical wall instead of an inclined plane, but there is nothing particularly noteworthy about this possibility. As I said before, a simple rolling weight could do the same thing with an inclined plane, and I suspect it could do it more efficiently.
As for the example, I don't know what a lorry is, but I'm certain I understood not only it but where you are getting confused. If we have a container of water and it is moving at a constant velocity, there is no relative movment between the water and the container. However, if one tries to change the velocity, say by stopping it, one can only directly effect the container and not the fluid. So the fluid sloshes about, possibly reaching great heights with its splashing. At first, the energy you have to absorb to stop it is only the kinetic energy of the container. The rest of the kinetic energy, in the form of the movement of the water, is converted cyclically into potential energy and back to kinetic in a damped oscillation. (It is damped because your hand is continually trying to stop the oscillations, that way you won't spill.)
There is nothing special about this system, it is entirely explained by Newtonian mechanics and has no energy output. This is the thing I don't understand, you say things like:

...you must use Bessler laws, not Newton laws...

(or something to that effect) as if there was any known system that didn't obey Newton's laws under nonrelativistic condictions. Of all the systems and ideas you post here, it is not clear to me why one would use them, how one would use them, and why it is that they have some sort of unusual properties.
However, I do see how one might come to the conclusion that if one uses weird things, like highly nonlinear acceleration, one might get unexpected results as per the thread 'centripetal (etc.)'. This, along with possibly novel 3D (rather than usual 2D) movements in the mechanism, seems to be an interesting route to take.
I suggest that you get a better grip on Newton's laws before you come to the conclusion that they don't work.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Jonathan,
i understand Newton very well, but as i said, Newton isn't correct, his laws are INCOMPLETE, they cover 99.9 percent. You will learn it, I am sure. You will do, as i did many, many experiments, and then you will see, that the gain of energy with gravity is a TIME problem. Then you will change your view as i did, or you never will find the solution. Think of Leibnitz, he also wasn't the same oppinion as Newton was. On about 1712 they had the possibility to discuss problems and manipulate their formulars.
On 2003 Newton is right as a FACT, and all others are idiots, but no bumble bee can fly, because it is to heavy.

I am sure, TIME, will show you the right view.
Study Bessler, he did it well.
He managed to solve this TIME problem between left and right lever arm.

A hit is short, very short in TIME frame.

[Jonathan]

Well thank you for the enlightening gooble-d-gook. If you have indeed figured out that gravity has something to do with time, then come up with the equations that govern it and make a PMM already. Or, at least try to make sense by fully forming your theories before you declare all others wrong. Give me one simple nonrelativistic example where Newton's laws fail. For example, in the 'Georg's ideas' thread, all the systems you described and their results are fully explained by Newton's laws.

[Georg Künstler]

there are enought examples on this board. Look at Hans Weidenbusch,
earn the money, if you can. Show the error of Hans, if you can.

There is a gap between reality and Newtons formulars. His formulars are
not COMPLETE. I do not say, that all others are wrong, as you are try to telling me. They are correct for most of the cases. But I say INCOMPLETE.

[Jonathan]

incomplete=wrong
I don't know who Hans W. is, I'll look into it.
BTW, as I have already said and you not answered, the ideas in your ideas thread are nothing unusal. Well, they are unusual, but Newton's laws predicts them.

[Jonathan]

Oh him. I have read his page before and don't remember much except that I probably didn't understand. I do remember that the experiment is very complex. Have you done the experiment, does it indeed not follow the laws?

[AlanR]

Hi guys (dont think theres any girls here?)

A quick thought on reading Hans' page - sorry if its out of context for this thread...

(this is really rough)

The case of the "pirrouette man" (sp?) anyway, take an ice skater, spinning on the spot, with hands fixed ("locked") close to chest (lets say each hand has a 1Kg weight). The skater is spinning at V radians/sec.
Now at constant radial velocity, skater releases "lock" on hands and what happens? Well of course his hands thrust outwards from his body, due to Fc. Sure, seen it on TV, and his radial velocity slows to maintain conservation of angular momentum. Fine, no big deal.
Now heres the catch - since angular momentum is the same before & after the "release", where did the WORK performed by the outward movement of the weights come from? ie, springs (as per Hans example) could be attached from weights to body, and they would have been stretched (converted to PE), energy being used to do this.

Is this energy simply stored as PE until slowing down, as PE becomes KE again as Fc decreases?

I'm not making any claims here, I am just curious as to where this energy forms part of the equations.

I can imagine this being related to the whole centripetal anomalies thing.

If this is NOT what Hans is about (in his 3rd example) i apologize.

Reagrds, Alan.