energy producing experiments

[pequaide]

I know: I think most people are fascinated with trying to trick the center of mass. When someone uses actual real science they seem bamboozled by it.

Many like greendoor don’t seem to comprehend the extraordinary and singular importance of making energy in the lab.

Greendoor quote: Pequaide on the other hand can describe how he creates energy in the lab - but we aren't seeing any mechanisms that could be built ...

Greendoor; you have seen pictures, a poor video and detailed descriptions of a working energy producing machine, yet you say you see no mechanisms that can be built? You can build a cylinder and spheres machine for 25$ in a period of eight hours. The cylinder and spheres machine makes energy and is therefore worth the Nobel Prize in Physics, and it is a source of unlimited, clean, free energy. And you see no mechanisms that can be built?

Confirm that energy has been made in the lab, and any first year engineering student can design a model that cycles.

Confirm that energy has been made in the lab, and I will find a corporation that will pay for the build.

[Omnibus]

@pequaide,

Confirm that energy has been made in the lab, and any first year engineering student can design a model that cycles.
Confirm that energy has been made in the lab, and I will find a corporation that will pay for the build.

It has already been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that excess energy (violating CoE) can be produced discontinuously in the lab which I will not discuss here.

What remains now is to construct a working lab device which produces excess energy continuously. That such device can exist is proved by the following undeniable facts:

As seen from the attached WM2D model example.wm2d, a certain construction of a wheel can ensure that the center of mass remains persistently sideways vs. the axis of rotation at any position of the wheel. This is contrary to the model in example_fixed.wm2d whereby the weights are at fixed positions, attached to the wheel, and the center of mass wiggles from left to right and back until finding its equilibrium position underneath the axis of rotation. I am elevating the above persistent center of mass-axle discrepancy to the position of a criterion for a machine to be a perpetuum mobile (violating CoE continuously).

Another fact, independently confirming that the above device is a perpetuum mobile is that the net torque (the sum of all eight torques) caused by the weights has a non-zero (negative) value for all positions of the wheel. (cf. attachments torques.gif for various forms of the track shown in tracks.gif).

The above analysis of the torques is carried out in absence of friction and is characteristic for each given construction. On the other hand the friction is a variable and upon skillful making of the device it can be decreased to values below the excess torque due to the perpetuum mobile effect.

Thus, after confirming the reality of perpetuum mobile, what is needed is not so much a corporation to pay for the making of the device but for someone really skillful in making precise mechanical devices (say, a Swiss watchmaker and that isn’t quite likely to be a first year engineering student) to get interested in that project and have the device built in flesh and blood. Do you know anyone with such skills in fine mechanics who would be interested in making this device?

[greendoor]

Many like greendoor don’t seem to comprehend the extraordinary and singular importance of making energy in the lab.

Pequaid. You banana. Of course I see the extraordinary and singular importance of making energy in the lab.

The quote you mentioned is in the context of me trying to politely suggest to pathfinder that he was strong in designing complex mechanisms that look very cool, but weak in basic theoretical principles for surplus energy.

I was pointing out that you have a very strong theoretical principle, but you haven't been able to 'wow' many people here because they can't see exciting designs they can build. You and pathfinder have very different, but very complementary skills.

You have to remember that this forum attracts many people with differing srengths and weaknesses. Some are academics but can't build. Some can build but can't crunch the numbers. Some use WM2D software, and confuse themselves with the glitches and quirks (and ideology) of the software.

What I really hope to see is a very simple, cheap, easy to replicate experiment that proves conclusively that surplus energy is created either by A/ a self sustaining wheel, or B/ a mass being lifted higher than it falls.

Numbers and words are fairly meaningless at this stage, because depending on where we are at, we either don't understand conventional physics, or we disagree with conventional physics (rightly or wrongly), or we are so besotted with conventional physics that we don't believe anything is possible.

You've seen the arguments cycle around and around. I actually think that you've defended your theories extremely well. But we need to see proof.

You keep on saying that you've given us the proof - but I don't see it. Maybe i'm just too lazy. But if somebody like me who considers themselves a supporter can't see it, maybe you have a communications problem?

Good rules of thumb:

Tell the people what you are going to tell them.
Tell them what you want to tell them.
Tell them what you've just told them.
Expect people to hear and remember approx 10% of what you've told them.
A picture tells a thousand words. It's how our brains are wired.

[pequaide]

Yes; I know you are one of the earliest supporters and I appreciate your input, Thanks. But here are a few things that cause my frustration.

Greendoor quote: What I really hope to see is a very simple, cheap, easy to replicate experiment that proves conclusively that surplus energy is created either by A/ a self sustaining wheel, or B/ a mass being lifted higher than it falls.

A/ takes smooth surfaces, bearings, timing devices for catching and releasing, and sufficient structure for supporting mass at various heights. Or in short what is needed is money. But we don’t need step A/ at this time; a corporation can deal with A/ so let go to requirement B/.

B/ has already been done. If an object has a certain velocity it will rise a certain distance, we need not see the rise we only need to confirm the velocity. For a certain velocity v we have a certain rise d according to this formula, d = ½ v²/a this is from d = ½ at² and v = at. This formula has been proven in laboratory experiments (literally) millions of times.

The Atwood’s gives us a certain quantity of motion caused by a small mass falling a certain distance; it is almost as common as the rise experiments.

We only need to confirm input and output velocities from existing (very simple, cheap, easy to replicate) experiments, we know from where the initial velocity came (Atwood’s), and how much energy the final velocity has (d = 1/2v²/a).

[greendoor]

Confirm that energy has been made in the lab, and any first year engineering student can design a model that cycles.

Confirm that energy has been made in the lab, and I will find a corporation that will pay for the build.

Pequaide - WTF? I really don't understand your communication techniques at all.

This reads (to me) that you (Pequaide) are tell the world (us) that if we (us) "confirm that energy has been made in the lab" that you (Pequaide) "will find a corporation that will pay for the build".

As a point of English communication, these statements imply a number of things:

A - that you (Pequaide) have not confirmed that energy has been made in the lab (otherwise why are you issuing this challenge to us?)
B - that should you find somebody else who can "create energy in the lab" that you will find a sponsor to build the thing. This strongly suggests that you have not found a sponsor for your own machine - so what's the story?

I'm just hassling you to show you that you are probably your own worst enemy for promoting your ideas. And I believe that you probably have the single most valid idea that is closest to the Bessler principle. Communicating your ideas are very important, otherwise no progress is made.

Can you demonstrate a mass being lifted higher than the point from where it falls? If you think you have communicated this to us, I'm sorry but I can't see it.

[greendoor]

Thanks Pequaide - sorry about the cross-posting there.

OK - I think I can see what you are saying. In short - you need money to build a working device.

I agree - the combination of the Atwoods and the yo-yo despin principles should give the small mass enough velocity to rise a certain distance.

How can we turn this into a visible, easy to replicate experiment that could become a U-tube viral sensation? Pathfinder seems to be a genius at mechanisms ...

Maybe a ball bearing, having descended with the Atwoods machine, could fall into the cylinder, after it has been spun up to speed, and when it has attained maxium velocity it could rise up the cylinder and fall out at a tangent? I could imagine ball bearings getting flung very high with a simple device - they only have to fly higher than the starting point to prove your point to the world.

[jim_mich]

What we have here is a failure to communicate!

Pequaide thinks that he has discovered a mechanism that causes an increase of energy. If I understand his concept (despite his very poor presentation skills) it involves two spinning weights where one weight moves outward to a more distant radius.This causes an increase of kinetic energy as the inertial momentum of the inner weight transfers to the outer weight because the inner weight slows down and the outer weight speeds up.

See this post.

Let's call this the Jim_Mich principle. The formula is...
(V - X)^2 + (V + X)^2 > (V - 0)^2 + (V + 0)^2
where V = Velocity and X = eXtra velocity of weights traveling in a circle with X not zero.

I think this is/was Bessler's secret principle. Since Bessler never revealed what his principle was I cannot attribute it to him.

Or I could be totally off base here.

This concept of increased and decreased kinetic energy due to objects changing speeds is well known in physics. But so far no one has harnessed this in a repeating cycle. It usually takes the same energy to reset the weights as they produce by changing their radius.

It will take much more then a "first year engineering student" to solve the problem of resetting the weights in a cyclical fashion so as to produce a working perpetual motion machine. Most PM wheels concepts involve falling weights. Other less known PM wheel concepts involve trying to harness the increased kinetic energy of weights moving at different speeds. Both concepts have been around for hundreds of years.

[mickegg]

Hmmm

I've been enjoying this thread all through, and if I've understood
what's been put forward, Jim, I think pequaide has shown us that the excess energy is produced in the momentum of the overbalanced flywheel.

It is to be harnessed by detaching the overbalanced mass and then transferring all of the flywheel's momentum to it....the flywheel coming to a stop in the process.

The disk and spheres is a method to tranfer momentum to a smaller mass.

In a working(resetting) wheel the flywheel should not need to stop, but must be capable of transferring as much momentum as required to lift the
detachable overbalanced weight back to a reset position.

It is this working mechanism that is frustrating me for the moment.....though I am happy to support his conclusions as to the
source of the gain.

I would disagree with him that it is a trivial matter to produce a working
machine <grin>

Regards

Mick

[pequaide]

I think there may be value in evaluating jim_mich’s principle.

Let's call this the Jim_Mich principle. The formula is...
(V - X)^2 + (V + X)^2 > (V - 0)^2 + (V + 0)^2
where V = Velocity and X = eXtra velocity of weights traveling in a circle with X not zero.

My evaluation: The decrease in velocity of the larger mass (cylinder) is not equal to the velocity increase of the smaller mass (spheres). The smaller mass has an increase in velocity that is larger than the decrease in velocity of the larger mass. The increase in the velocity of the smaller mass is greatest when the velocity of the larger mass is zero.

If the initial velocities of the two masses are the same, the maximum increase in the velocity of the smaller mass is proportional to the initial total mass divided by the smaller mass.

We must know which mass is having an increase in velocity and which mass is having a decrease in velocity, therefore mass must be a factor in the formula.

Let m1 equal the larger mass. (Cylinder)

Let m2 equal the smaller mass. (Spheres)

Let v1 equal the initial velocity of the larger mass.

Let v2 equal the initial velocity of the smaller mass.

Let v3 be the final velocity of the smaller mass.

(m1 * v1) + (m2 * v2) = (m2 * v3) + (m1 * 0)

After this equation is satisfied we can go to an inequality that is similar to jim_mich’s principle.

½ * m2 * v3² > (½ * m1 * v1²) + (½ * m2 * v2²)

You have an accurate evaluation mickegg, but I still think a first year engineering student could design a machine.

[greendoor]

I believe a large part of the communication problem is in the understanding of what 'energy' is. I believe pequaide is using the traditional physics definition of kinetic energy = 1/2MV^2, at the same time debunking the idea of this being a conserved quantity.

There is a valid, proven Law of Conservation of Momentum. In a closed system, obviously Mass isn't going to disappear on us. Velocity of mass is relatively an "at rest" state - and it takes Force to either Accelerate or Decelerate mass. So in the context of a closed system, Velocity isn't going to disappear on us either. (Although because Velocity is a Vector, we could change the direction of Velocity and cancel out the maths and make a complete mockery of the concept if we wanted to.) But assuming common sense and logic, it seems reasonable that Momentum - being the product of Mass & Velocity - is going to be conserved. Experiments such as Newtons Cradle support this theory.

Energy = 1/2MV^2 is a completely different concept to Momentum = MV. Very obviously the numbers are not the same.

So take a very simple example of a pendulum. When it falls from 12:00 to 6:00 it acquires - shall we say - a "quantity of motion". This "quantity of motion" is obviously related to the mass and the final velocity of the pendulum bob. Excluding friction losses - this 'quantity of motion' can propel the pendulum bob all the way from 6:00 to nearly 12:00 again - resisting the force of gravity all the way.

But is this "quantity of motion" best described as Momentum (MV) or Kinetic Energy (1/2MV^2)?? This is an important question. "One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong ... (Sesame Street)"

In a simple pendulum, it doesn't matter what we call it - because either maths will work. BUT - when we start transfering this "quantity of motion" between objects of differing mass, it becomes embarassing to have to point out that only one equation can be right. Because once this "quantity of motion" has been transfered, each equation yeilds different numbers. So which values accurately represent the "quantity of motion" that is able to make a pendulum bob rise against the force of gravity?

What is the "quantity of motion" that we really care about for lifting mass in a gravity wheel?

Kinetic Energy is based on Velocity Squared. Momentum is based on simple Velocity. If there was any doubt at all about Momentum being a conserved quantity, then I believe the doubt about Kinetic Energy should be squared too!

No real world object can travel at "velocity squared". It's a mathematical abstraction. (A valid equation in the right situation agreed, but should it be the true defination of "quantity of motion" for ALL situations?)

Squaring Velocity means that a disproportionate value is assigned to Velocity. We are pretty much saying that the faster objects have more validity than slower objects. But on the other hand, if we believe in Conservation of Momentum - it should not matter.

My understanding of what pequaide means when he talks about "energy being made in the lab" revolves around the equation E=1/2MV^2. If all the momentum of a (relatively) slow moving heavy mass is transfered to a smaller mass - due to Conservation of Momentum, that smaller mass has to acquire a faster velocity.

Right at that point - we can say that 'energy' (as defined) is created. It can't be anything else. Has momentum been created at that point? No - at best it is transfered with minimal loss. But because of the increase in velocity (at the expense of mass) we now have an increase in energy - because the energy calculation is based on velocity squared.

Pequaide - please correct me if I have understood this wrong.

The reason I believe this theory requires experimental proof of overunity is because the results are still based on mathematical calculations - and we know one of these has to be wrong.

For me anyway, the whole object of this exercise is to get either a self sustaining wheel rotation - or to see mass being lifted higher than it fell. Regardless of the mathematics - can we do this??

What is the "quantity of motion" that we need to achieve this? Is it Momentum? Or is it Kinetic Energy (as conventional science would have us believe).

My personal belief is that Momentum is what is required. Because look at a pendulum when it starts to ascend. What does it have in reality? It has mass, and it has velocity. If we can give an identical mass the identical velocity, I expect it will rise to the same height. Because we are considering a fixed amount of mass, we could equally argue that Energy is required - and the maths would still work.

But - it all changes when we start transfering this "quantity of motion" from different size masses.

The Atwood machine can generate large gains in momentum - but does this mean diddly squat in real terms?

There is the argument that an out-of-balance flywheel may acquire considerable momentum - BUT - it is still insufficient momentum to return the OOB mass to the top - provided it stays attached to the flywheel.

Considering that a balanced flywheel, once run up to speed, will continue to rotate with only frictional losses - that's fairly damning argument right there. At face value, it would appear that an overbalanced wheel can't generate enough surplus momentum to lift the OOB mass back up again ... despite promising looking numbers.

Only an experiment demonstrating mass being lifted higher than it fell is going to resolve this. Or better still, a self-running wheel - either will do.

[pequaide]

d = ½ v²/a; it matters. The distance an object can rise is the square of its velocity. This is undoubtedly where the kinetic energy formula came from, 1/2mv². I like your word “abstraction�. Is it a natural consequence of another quantity?

[Omnibus]

@All,

Dynamic parameters such as velocity, centripetal/centrifugal force, momentum etc. have only a secondary importance in the discussed machines. As I’ve shown, the perpetuum mobile effect is due to the persistent sideways position of the center of mass with respect to the axis of rotation at any position of the wheel for that particular construction. This I have elevated to a criterion to judge for whether or not a device is a perpetuum mobile. In addition, I’ve shown that the net torque (the result of summing up the eight individual torques) is persistently non-zero for all positions of the wheel for the shown construction.

The above is a characteristic of any given perpetuum mobile construction -- set in stone for that construction, as it were.

Again, dynamic behavior is beside the point (one can imagine a very slowly rotating perpetuum mobile where CF/CP forces are negligible). The wheel of a perpetuum mobile is a self-starter at any position of the wheel.

Like I said, now that the reality of perpetuum mobile is proven beyond doubt, the only remaining problem is to have some very talented, mechanical constructor with proper experience in building fine mechanical device to get interested in making it. It is very likely that this device, working, has been made many times throughout the centuries (the propaganda denies this but that's just propaganda) but has been suppressed. The recent problems in making a working device is most likely due to the fact that it’s left in the hands of amateurs with frugal means. Even well established existing mechanical devices such as watches or internal combustion engines let alone microprocessors or space crafts won’t be up to such amateurs to bring to life which, of course, doesn’t mean they can’t be made and don’t exist.

Thus, again, where are these skilled, talented constructors willing to make it?

[broli]

Omnibus, what you have shown has very little to do with what is being discussed here. The thread is about transferring momentum completely from one object to the other.

The sad part is every day I check this thread I see no significant progress. In a team everyone has a set of skills that are used together to make something happy. This forum is all about talk and little about making progress FAST. WHAT THE HELL is the point of a bloody community if no progress is made towards the common goal.

Seriously what's the purpose of this forum?

[Omnibus]

@broli,

This thread is about making a perpetuum mobile, that is, about continuous production of excess energy (discontinuous production of excess energy, violating CoE, has already been realized in practice). Transfer of momentum has little to do with that if at all. The pivotal question, now that the reality of perpetuum mobile has been proved, is to hear people with talent and expertise in making fine mechanical devices as to how to decrease maximally friction on the left side of the device so that it won't overcome the excess net torque. Doesn't seem like an advanced topic to discuss but that's the only problem that stands in the way of making a working device at this point.

[broli]

Transfer of momentum has little to do with that if at all.

That sentence insults every single person in this thread who made a contribution. It shows you have no idea what this very thread is about but are willing to disrespect everyone.

If you want to talk about your abeling wheel there's a thread about it. I will happily even ask you the analytical reasoning of the wheel. Just don't go around spreading your ignorance like you just said.