energy producing experiments

[broli]

This is what the math boils down to. I just took the simple case of one mass;



Basically you have two acceleration components. One radially and one tangentially. This is simply the acceleration from the centrifugal force that we know increases x.

The radial acceleration will increase the radial speed while the tangential one decreases the tangential speed.

So both speeds will be increasing/decreasing at the same rate. The problem is that we can't solve these equation in a straightforward way. Because they are tangled together. I tried solving numerous differential equations but have yet to succeed.

For instance the radial acceleration increases x and as x increases the acceleration goes down. Because there's a simple 1/x relationship just like gravity or electrostatics. BUT this same acceleration is also propotional to the tangential speed. The problem is that this is part of another equation. No worries right? We just find the tangential speed equation and plug it back into it.

Well let's see. The equation of that other system has an acceleration which is proportional to - speed squared,something like air drag, but has also a 1/x relationship. But that x is not part of that system. So now we have to solve for x. So we need to solve the first equation.

But wait for that we needed to solve the second equation and get v out of it. But before doing that we needed an expression for x....

As you can see it becomes an infinite loop of the chicken and the egg. I'm sure it's probably a simple differential equation in the end but like I said I have yet to find it. If I do though it'll perfectly describe HOW momentum is conserved rather than WHY, which we already know (CoM).

[Omnibus]

@greendoor,

Is that not the same as saying that gravity is a "reservior of energy"

No, it isn’t.

Like I said, restrain from qualifications to also avoid embarrassing yourself.

I also reiterate, time is irrelevant in this discussion which is about excess energy (violation of CoE; perpetuum mobile). Your explanation doesn’t change that.

[broli]

I believe I found the answer. You must use a constant. In the previous proof I used angular momentum as constant which led to energy conservation. BUT I figured out you can use linear momentum as constant in the latest example to get a final equation for x. The final velocity will be along the the x line and will have the same magnitude as the initial velocity. This proves that angular momentum is conserved or linear momentum, not both.

[Omnibus]

@broli,

It was already mentioned that before occupying yourself with defining and solving the differential equations you mention you have to explain, if you really want to participate in this discussion devoted to perpetuum mobile, where this velocity seen in your drawings comes from. The velocity in question cannot come about without spending energy from a pre-existing energy reservoir. However, spending energy from pre-existing energy reservoir cancels at once the idea that you’re discussing perpetuum mobile. Before going on with your ruminations you have to take into account the above and it will convince you that the math you refer to boils down to nothing else but pure waste of time as far as perpetuum mobile is concerned.

[broli]

You should do you disinfo and derailing job a little more sneaky. This is my last post directly addressed to you, from here on you are ignored by me.

[Omnibus]

@broli,

You may ignore me but you cannot ignore the fact that you're proposing nonsense as an explanation for what the basis of perpetuum mobile is. And I will always remind you of that because nonsense has to be nipped in the bud.

Again, the nonsense which you're proposing consists in the fact that you fail to account for the origin of the velocity you're using in your arguments. The origin of that velocity however is crucial to be accounted for because the body at hand can have velocity only if energy from a pre-existing energy reservoir is spent. The minute a pre-existing reservoir is mentioned any implication that the discussion has anything to do with perpetuum mobile is out of the question. This you should be told very clearly.

Continuing to insist that momentum transfer can somehow provide a mechanism for violation of CoE and can lead to perpetuum mobile is bringing the discussion to a dead end. You may not realize that because you simply can't figure that out (I can't believe that you're doing it to destroy the thread) but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't be reminded of that any time you decide to continue along that wasteful direction.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, you don’t consume energy if you produce more than what you put in. You do of course need motion to produce more motion.

Fletcher quote: a FE machine is an engine that consumes energy & outputs work.

Ahhh ... normal engines use a calorific fuel [i.e. joules] [for instance] - they use this liberated energy in combination with a catalyst or oxidant to create heat & expand gas [for instance] - this in turn drives a mechanical contraption that can output work [joules].

All previous known examples use a quantity of supplied joules [via fuel] to give a reduced joule output [work] i.e. less than what was started with - this is because of losses in the inefficient system.

Bessler's wheels were a machine that also used energy garnered from the environment i.e. ambient conditions - so they consumed joules - they outputted work [joules] after losses.

The difference is that the fuel energy to drive the machine was not an obvious fuel source to ignite & expand gas & drive a piston, for example - but an ambient differential used to lift an weight into imbalance after it had been side-shifted & created torque to turn the wheel [& do work].

So, it does not contravene any basic principles of mechanics - energy in is greater than energy out - just that we have not identified the source of the differential he used & where he drew that energy from - my best guess is ambient air temperature but in a very clever & not at all obvious way - we might not see the relationship [that he found thru experimentation] because we are prejudiced by a different use of the technology in common use today that he might have used in its infancy & without expectation - JMO's.

[Omnibus]

@Fletcher,

Bessler's wheels were a machine that also used energy garnered from the environment i.e. ambient conditions - so they consumed joules - they outputted work [joules] after losses.

Not a shred of evidence for that. How did this occur to you? Maybe just because of what we all have been indoctrinated, namely, that a machine must necessarily be working at the expense of some pre-existing reservoir. That isn’t the case here, however.

So, it does not contravene any basic principles of mechanics - energy in is greater than energy out - just that we have not identified the source of the differential he used & where he drew that energy from - my best guess is ambient air temperature but in a very clever & not at all obvious way - we might not see the relationship [that he found thru experimentation] because we are prejudiced by a different use of the technology in common use today that he might have used in its infancy & without expectation - JMO's.

On the contrary, it does contradict CoE because the energy is created out of nothing, as it were – the proper construction allows for displacement under the action of the force of gravity. Neither gravity nor the construction itself are energy reservoirs and yet there’s a displacement., that is, work is done. That’s crucially at odds with what’s thought to be at the foundation of the natural sciences.

[DrWhat]

I'm not going to get intensely involved in these discussions except to say that I believe Bessler found a way to REDIRECT the force of gravity in such a way that gravity pushes the wheel at an angle a little from the side of the wheel rather than just straight down.

I still believe it is gravity causing a skew in the forces within the wheel. I'm not a proponent of the ambient theory other than if you define gravity as being ambient. But as always until John Collins finishes his build we'll need to wait and see!

Damian

[pequaide]

Omnibus quote: “Continuing to insist that momentum transfer can somehow provide a mechanism for violation of CoE and can lead to perpetuum mobile is bringing the discussion to a dead end. …(I can't believe that you're doing it to destroy the thread)�

No omnibus you are the one that is out of line, “to insist that momentum transfer can somehow provide a mechanism for violation of CoE and can lead to perpetuum mobile� is exactly what this thread is about.

There is no “pre-existing energy reservoir� of which you and Fletcher speak. There is no mysterious force lurking in the back ground that needs to be identified. Atwood’s produce more momentum than freefall. That excess momentum can be placed in a small object; this placement generates huge quantities of energy. This is what the thread is about.

[greendoor]

@ whoever the hat fits: This is a thread for discussing pequaide's theory of how to produce excess energy. I fail to see why this has to degenerate into a pissing contest for other bogus theories. If you think you have a good theory you want to share - start another thread, and describe it calmly and logically.

I find the irrational emotional outbursts that this concept creates to be an interesting pschological experiment ...

To anyone else reading this thread - try to ignore the noise generated by these people seeking to derail this thread. Some of them may well be paid to disrupt any discussion that gets too close to the truth. It is a matter of historical record that many, many free energy ideas have been bought out by large corporations and squashed to prevent any damage to their business (which is usually based on a consumable fuel oriented product).

Free energy is a real threat to some corporations, and this means that there are people employed (at least partially) to seek out any emerging threats and squash them. Nothing seems to stir up more irrational outbursts that a good idea that is in danger or working. Some people are only happy to maintain the status quo of ignorance, inactivity or chasing red herrings.

Back on thread:

To any sane people still reading - we can easily demonstrate the production of large amounts of Momentum from the g-force acting on a small weight that is descending slower than freefall. We can accumulate this momentum in a system of balanced heavy masses.

Bessler said that his wheel used weights that act in pairs.
Bessler said that "the children play between the pillars with heavy clubs" - another translation may read "heavy marbles".
Child can play on see saws - aka teeter-totters. Heavy clubs (or marbles) are used for impact - the transfering of momentum from one mass system to another mass system.
Bessler said "a crab walks from side to side - it is sound for it is designed thus".
Bessler mentioned using four crossbars.
If you can imagine 4 balanced beams mounted on the axle, oscillating back & forth - presumably with staggered phase offset so the impacts are evenly distributed in time - I think this would look very much like a crab walking.

I'm not an expert in how Bessler made his wheel. I'm just interested in any overunity gravity machine at this stage. But I mention this because I find it very easy to believe that Bessler incorporated one or more 'Atwood machines' into his wheel. I believe this allows the production of plenty of surplus Momentum to send the (relatively) small weights upwards, with height to spare to drive the wheel.

For all the anger and spleen venting - I am not seeing anyone brave enough to tackle the maths and prove pequaide or myself are wrong. The maths is simple enough for a child to understand. I'll give a worked example next, because it seems that some people can't see the principle yet.

To the disinformation spreaders - the more you try to derail this thread, the more I will try to expose the truth. So if you want this thread to die away, you would be wise to shut up.

Or give some VERY good logic (with maths) to prove that this is wrong.

[greendoor]

I'm not going to get intensely involved in these discussions except to say that I believe Bessler found a way to REDIRECT the force of gravity in such a way that gravity pushes the wheel at an angle a little from the side of the wheel rather than just straight down.

I still believe it is gravity causing a skew in the forces within the wheel. I'm not a proponent of the ambient theory other than if you define gravity as being ambient. But as always until John Collins finishes his build we'll need to wait and see!

Damian

Damian - I wouldn't wait for John to build his wheel, because I doubt he has found the answer yet. I'm pleased that you can see that gravity can be the source of energy input.

AFAIK, it is easy to redirect the force of gravity. As grimer has pointed out - force is strain within a material. If we have a brick sitting on a vertical pillar, the force of gravity is directed straight down. But if that pillar is bent on an angle, and is still supporting that brick - the force of gravity is obviously directed down to earth on an angle. It's as simple as that. But I don't see any potential for surplus energy to be gained from simple redirection.

I hope you will admit that a Force has the ability to Accelerate Mass. F=MA.

I hope you will admit that gravity is (or exerts) a Force.
Therefore gravity has the ability to Accelerate a Mass.
We know from experience the most of the time, the Force of Gravity does not Accelerate Mass - but instead it creates Strain within Mass as that Force is redirected to earth. (Just like a brick sitting on a pillar).

To extract Motion from Gravity, we need to stop restricting movement. Take away the opposing forces, and Mass wants to move - due to the Acceleration of Gravity. The only thing stopping Motion are the forces opposing Motion. Such as hitting the ground.

Momentum = Force time Time. The limit to the amount of Motion/Momentum that we can extract out of gravity is only limited by Time. Specifically - the Time that the opposing forces are not opposing motion.

For most practical earth-based purposes - hitting the ground is when we run out of time, and the Normal forces kick in and Acceleration stops.

What about geo-synchronous satellites? These satellites are constantly "falling" around our Earth. They don't need energy input once they are in place - the source of their (virtually) perpetual motion is gravity pulling them down. Except the don't run out of Time - so they don't hit the ground! They also don't accelerate up to infinite speed - because they are oscillating between accelerating and deceleration. Satellite and moons don't have perfect cirular orbits. That means they do not move at a constant velocity. They accelerate and decelerate.

Anyhoo - i'm not a rocket scientists, and somebody more experienced in space physics could easily baffle me with science. I also know that NASA get their calculations wrong. Verrryy wrong as it turns out. So i'm not going to go there.

My point - is that the limitation to extract continuous energy out of gravity is simply Time.

Any gravity wheel that allows the main masses to lower their CoG is going to strike the problem of having to raise that CoG back up again.

The beauty of using balanced masses (pairs, or a flywheel) is that the CoG never falls. It never requires resetting, because any position is as good as any other position. (For practical purposes - a balanced beam does prefer to be horizontal, but it doesn't pose a problem for a practical machine).

So what is the point of having balanced masses? When one goes up, the other goes down. Achieving what? Good question. What it achieves is energy storage. We can now take a seperate, smaller mass, and allow this to fall to earth. But we don't let it freefall - because we all know the maxium amount of momentum that can be achieved by freefall.

Freefall generates the least amount of momentum possible.

Think about that!

The reason this is true is because Momentum = Force times Time. The Force of Gravity on a fixed mass is practically constant. Freefall achieves the maximum velocity possible - and therefore we hit the ground and run out of time the fastest! Therefore - we accumulate the LEAST possible Momentum.

If we slow down a mass by friction, we increase the Time of fall - BUT - we lose all that excess Momentum by turning it into heat.

But if we divert (redirect) all the Force of Gravity acting on our small mass into a much larger but balanced system ... we don't waste our Force time Time.

SO we have the same Force - acting for a much longer time. This means that our balanced energy storage system accumulates far more momentum than the small mass would generate in free fall.

I'll post a calculation later for those who still can't see this.

This is nothing new - pequaide has given us these secrets a long time ago. I'm just trying to present it in a different way so more people can get the idea.

It should be fairly obvious to anyone that if we have accumulated far more momentum than a mass achieves during free fall - it should be possible to return that mass using some of that momentum, and have surplus momentum to drive a load.

If the disbelievers can't see free energy here, they are in the wrong business. (Or they are on the payroll to spread disinformation and disrupt genuine free energy research).

[greendoor]

1 kg mass freefalls 10 meters:

1 kg accelerated at 9.81 m/s^2 for 10 m:

V^2 = U^2 + 2AD
V^2 = 0^2 + 2 * 9.81 * 10
V^2 = 196.2
V = 14.01 m/s

D = (U+V)/2*T
10 = (0+14.01)/2*T
10 = 7.005 * T
T = 10/7.005 = 1.43 s

Momentum P = MV
P = 1 kg * 14.01 m/s = 14.01 kg*m/s

Can we agree that when a 1 kg mass freefalls 10 meters:

Final Velocity = 14.01 m/s
Time = 1.43 s
Final Momentum = 14.01 kg*m/s

We also know that in a perfect elastic collision, or in a pendulum swing, the momentum that this mass accumulates in freefall is nearly enough to bounce or return that mass back up to where it fell from.

So before we go to much further - how much momentum does it take to return a fallen mass to it's original height??

In this case (1 kg mass falling 10 meters) can we agree that it is going to need at least 14.01 kg*m/s of Momentum to return this mass? There will certainly be losses - but what percentage do you think is reasonable?

There is a Law of Conservation of Momentum that is not disputed by conservative scientists. So how much Momentum do you think we will lose here - seriously?

Do you think it is likely that we could lose 50% of our Momentum? Think about bouncing super balls, or swinging pendulums ... I think 50% loss is being rather pessimistic, or our engineering skills really suck.

So let's assume that we are going to need 30 kg*m/s of Momentum just to return 1 kg back up 10 meters. (Let's face it, our engineering skills probably do suck).

[greendoor]

Now let's build an Atwood machine with two heavy masses each weighing 1000 kg. Being balanced, they are effectively weightless. But they still have lots of inertia, and it takes a fair amount of force to get them to move. But once they start moving, it takes a fair amount of force to get them to stop. (Have you ever wrestled with a heavy trailer?)

Now let's overbalance this Atwood machine with 1 Kg - and allow that 1 kg to fall 10 meters, just like our previous example.

The total Mass in this system is 1000 + 1000 + 1 = 2001 kg. Agreed?

We can ignore the force of gravity acting on both 1000 kg, because one balances out the other. As one goes up, the other goes down.

The Force of gravity acting on the 1 kg mass is 9.81 N. Agreed?

F = MA. Therefore A = F/M

The Acceleration this system will experience = 9.81/2001 = 0.0049 m/s^2

Now let's calculate the Final Velocity:

V^2 = U^2 + 2AD
V^2 = 0^2 + 2 * 0.0049 * 10
V^2 = 0 + 2 * 0.0049 * 10
V^2 = 0.098
V = 0.313 m/s

D = (U+V)/2*T
10 = (0+0.313)/2*T
10 = 0.1565 * T
T = 10/0.1565 = 60.6 s

Momentum P = MV
P = 2001 kg * 0.313 m/s = 626 kg*m/s

Can we agree that when a 1 kg mass freefalls 10 meters while diverting all available force into a balanced 2000 kg momentum acculmulator:

Final Velocity = 0.313 m/s
Time = 60.6 s
Final Momentum = 626 kg* m/s

[greendoor]

So in summary: we have two scenarious, each involving a 1 kg mass falling 10 meters.

A/ Freefall - takes 1.43 seconds and generates 14.01 kg*m/s of momentum

B/ Atwoods system with two balanced 1000 kg weights - takes 60.6 seconds and generates 626 kg* m/s of momentum

626/14.01 = 44 rounded.

How incompetent do we have to be to NOT be able to return 1 kg back up 10 meters, when we have 44 times the momentum it could gain in free fall.

Or to put it another way: if we can assume we require 30 kg*m/s of momentum to return 1 kg up 10 meters ...

do you think 626 kg*m/s might be enough, with a little over to spare ....?

IGNORE THAT!