broli,
Correct. The engineering problems involved are hardly up to your average free energy enthusiast. It’s like asking a microprocessor enthusiast to build his own microprocessor in his garage without the infrastructure of the multimillion dollar research labs and production facilities. To build microprocessor is possible in principle but isn’t up to an individual enthusiast neither is it up to a bunch of enthusiasts willing to help each other out. Those interested in free energy are total outsiders, trying to achieve the possible in an impossible way. How this is going to change is anyone’s guess.
energy producing experiments
Moderator: scott
re: energy producing experiments
Broli wrote:
Obviously not every body is my friend, I do have a partner and numerous others that I collaborate with regarding their designs and we build what we consider a well thought idea. We certainly do not build anything we do not understand unless something is discovered by accident or as a gift from God if you so wish to imply it as such.
If you and others are so dead set on the idea that this design is a runner then I see know reason why you cannot construct one out of wood and off-the -shelf hardware available at any hardware or building materials store. A microprocessor it is not!
I have reviewed this thread and still do not find any thing other than theoretical hypothesis as to why some believe it should be self-sustaining. In all fairness, I will go back to the beginning and review it one more time.
Ralph
First off I have never posted a fake video, I have never posted any videos as I do not have the skills or a camera to do so.You are always on your own up until you show a (fake) video then everybody becomes your friend. People are not willing to help you with a build of a well thought idea, they wait until they can REPLICATE something without understanding it at all.
Obviously not every body is my friend, I do have a partner and numerous others that I collaborate with regarding their designs and we build what we consider a well thought idea. We certainly do not build anything we do not understand unless something is discovered by accident or as a gift from God if you so wish to imply it as such.
If you and others are so dead set on the idea that this design is a runner then I see know reason why you cannot construct one out of wood and off-the -shelf hardware available at any hardware or building materials store. A microprocessor it is not!
I have reviewed this thread and still do not find any thing other than theoretical hypothesis as to why some believe it should be self-sustaining. In all fairness, I will go back to the beginning and review it one more time.
Ralph
Ralph, as the title of this thread suggests this thread is mainly about CREATING energy and not so about having a self sustaining design.
Energy creation can be proved by the numerous experiments performed by pequaide and by ones I suggested. Build the setup, have your measuring equipment ready and put your science coat on. Once you have the data, share it with the world.
Before you can space walk you need to confirm the science while crawling.
Energy creation can be proved by the numerous experiments performed by pequaide and by ones I suggested. Build the setup, have your measuring equipment ready and put your science coat on. Once you have the data, share it with the world.
Before you can space walk you need to confirm the science while crawling.
Nothing more besides your meaningless post. Apparently it's forbidden here to perform true science. People want to cut to the chase by not being part of the creation process.
It's kind of a paradox with you guys isn't it. On one hand you want confirmation of the theory which simple experiments show but on the other hand you want to see a self sustaining model.
Anyone with some tools or access to a machine shop can build these experiments but very few can manage to build a self sustaining model. If a lot of people can prove energy creation more will contribute to a simple self sustaining design. And thus an efficient well thought self sustaining design can be build. That's how open source ideas work, anyone can contribute to improve or build something.
It's kind of a paradox with you guys isn't it. On one hand you want confirmation of the theory which simple experiments show but on the other hand you want to see a self sustaining model.
Anyone with some tools or access to a machine shop can build these experiments but very few can manage to build a self sustaining model. If a lot of people can prove energy creation more will contribute to a simple self sustaining design. And thus an efficient well thought self sustaining design can be build. That's how open source ideas work, anyone can contribute to improve or build something.
re: energy producing experiments
I'd say you're right broli [re: pequaide/attwood] - build the first phase experiment to prove that the kinetic energy from the masses is greater than the kinetic energy inputted to start the device spinning in the first place - the pundits will say that the total energy is the same but some has been transformed into kinetic energy that you are witnessing as an increase - phase two would be to take that extra kinetic energy & use it to self sustain the total arrangement [back to starting conditions] - if this takes only a portion of the available kinetic energy then this should leave plenty left over for the device to do some simple work done [load] test ?
I admire your determination to gain the skills necessary to find the answers for each step of the way - perhaps you should consider using your 3D design skills to mock up what you want & farm it out to engineering firms in your area - split the task up between competitors if you don't want any one organization to complete the whole thing ? - might be cheaper that retraining yourself into a new career unless it's a hobby ?
P.S. a small table top variety should be sufficient, & that wouldn't cost much to engineer - I've just been thru a similar process with getting permission to build a small house in another country - used local draughtsman for the detailed code complying plan to be submitted to council but first I designed it on paper then used google sketch-up to 3D it - then fleshed out the structural detail with the draughtsman who submitted the detailed plan with engineering specs.
I admire your determination to gain the skills necessary to find the answers for each step of the way - perhaps you should consider using your 3D design skills to mock up what you want & farm it out to engineering firms in your area - split the task up between competitors if you don't want any one organization to complete the whole thing ? - might be cheaper that retraining yourself into a new career unless it's a hobby ?
P.S. a small table top variety should be sufficient, & that wouldn't cost much to engineer - I've just been thru a similar process with getting permission to build a small house in another country - used local draughtsman for the detailed code complying plan to be submitted to council but first I designed it on paper then used google sketch-up to 3D it - then fleshed out the structural detail with the draughtsman who submitted the detailed plan with engineering specs.
re: energy producing experiments
LOL, yeah .. they do don't they - the lucky country has it's charms ! - no, sorry, just temporarily trading one banana republic for another I'm afraid :)
re: energy producing experiments
My latest designs make it possible for vertically fixed cylinder and spheres machines to operate without an expensive horizontal surface. The new designs can also incorporate within themselves the balanced mass of the Atwood’s machine being held in a horizontal plane. These designs provide a new multiplication factor for greater increases in output energy.
The new designs bring down the cost but the machines are becoming very large. The machines are now being built in a small barn. I am going to try to post these designs on a site where people build experiments, maybe a trebuchet site.
The new designs bring down the cost but the machines are becoming very large. The machines are now being built in a small barn. I am going to try to post these designs on a site where people build experiments, maybe a trebuchet site.
It's good to see you're still busy with it. I recommend you open a blog so your progress can be followed and archived.pequaide wrote:My latest designs make it possible for vertically fixed cylinder and spheres machines to operate without an expensive horizontal surface. The new designs can also incorporate within themselves the balanced mass of the Atwood’s machine being held in a horizontal plane. These designs provide a new multiplication factor for greater increases in output energy.
The new designs bring down the cost but the machines are becoming very large. The machines are now being built in a small barn. I am going to try to post these designs on a site where people build experiments, maybe a trebuchet site.
And yes size is a big factor. With size you could transfer the motion of a very big mass to a small mass. All that has to be done is increasing the swing length. This is what my plastic k'nex model has shown at least.
I think trebuchet don't create a lot of excess energy as most of the ones I've seen have a short sling thus a lot of motion remains when the projectile is shot. Another thing is duality between potential energy and motion.
The projectile is starting to rob motion when the counter weight is still gaining it due to gravity. The best solution for a trebuchet is to release the swing when the counter weight almost reaches the bottom and thus gained the most motion. This would thus give the most motion transfer and thus most energy gain.
I think the reference to a 'Trebuchet site' was a snipe at this forum for NOT building stuff. Not a suggestion that this invention is anything like a Trebuchet.
AFAIK - a Trebuchet is basically a catapult where a heavy mass is intentionally used exactly like a spring. There are people who would argue that gravity can ONLY be used like a spring (i.e., you can only get back some of the Impulse which you put into it). A trebuchet would be used to support this view, but I believe Pequaid is describing something significantly different which can deliver a much greater Impulse than is provided by the operator.
My analogy is comparing gravity to the wind. If you were pinned to a wall by a strong wind, you could argue that the energy of resisting the wind and moving forwards would all be gained back when you allow the wind to blow you back to the wall. In this mode, you are using the wind like a spring.
To make a machine that takes the force of the wind and allows you to travel forwards, into the wind, using the force of the wind, takes a little more inqenuity - but it most certainly can and is done.
I see Pequaide's machine as using the force of gravity to create an Impulse that is far stronger than simple freefall, and therefore the basis of real free energy from gravity.
Very probably, working machines will be built by other builders, rather than the people who frequent this forum. Trebuchet enthusiasts is a good idea - I think those people would quickly grasp the important of this work.
AFAIK - a Trebuchet is basically a catapult where a heavy mass is intentionally used exactly like a spring. There are people who would argue that gravity can ONLY be used like a spring (i.e., you can only get back some of the Impulse which you put into it). A trebuchet would be used to support this view, but I believe Pequaid is describing something significantly different which can deliver a much greater Impulse than is provided by the operator.
My analogy is comparing gravity to the wind. If you were pinned to a wall by a strong wind, you could argue that the energy of resisting the wind and moving forwards would all be gained back when you allow the wind to blow you back to the wall. In this mode, you are using the wind like a spring.
To make a machine that takes the force of the wind and allows you to travel forwards, into the wind, using the force of the wind, takes a little more inqenuity - but it most certainly can and is done.
I see Pequaide's machine as using the force of gravity to create an Impulse that is far stronger than simple freefall, and therefore the basis of real free energy from gravity.
Very probably, working machines will be built by other builders, rather than the people who frequent this forum. Trebuchet enthusiasts is a good idea - I think those people would quickly grasp the important of this work.
re: energy producing experiments
This letter is the same old, same old, stuff. It is for a university professor, what do you think? Is it succinct?
Professor K
I have made energy in the laboratory. The experiments are simple and inexpensive. Repeating the experiments would surely result in the awarding of the Noble Prize in Physics.
First I will explain why the experiments make energy.
Objects are set in motion by the application of force for a period of time: for example one newton applied for one second. If one newton is applied to one kilogram for one second the mass will be moving one meter per second. To get the mass to stop you must apply a force for a unit of time that is equal to one newton of force applied one second; for example, 2 newtons for ½ sec, or ½ newton for 2 seconds. This is Newton’s Second Law of Motion F=ma.
Once in motion the mass can be directed into a circular path without the loss of motion. An object that was moving in a straight line, at one meter per second, can be caught on the end of a string. After being caught it will move around the circumference of the circle at one meter per second. When released from the circle the mass will leave the circle at one meter per second. There is no loss or gain of motion; they are one and the same quantity.
In a ridged circle, such as a bicycle rim, a tangent force can be used to stop the motion of the circle. If a one kilogram rim is moving clockwise at one meter per second; a tangent force of one newton applied counterclockwise for one second is necessary to stop the motion of the rim. A nine kilogram rim will require nine newtons applied (tangent) for one second to stop the rim’s motion.
Now let’s do the experiment.
Wrap a string around a 9 kilogram rim and attach a one kilogram mass to the end of the string. Spin the rim in the opposite direction that you wrapped the string. Secure the mass against the rim while you measure the rate of rotation, then release the mass. The one kilogram and string will unwrap from the nine kilogram rim and stop its motion.
Let’s say the mass of the nine kilogram rim and one kilogram mass are initially moving one meter per second. To stop the rim you would have to had applied the equivalent of nine newtons of force (tangent) for one second to stop the rim. You also had to have applied the equivalent of nine newtons of force for one second to the one kilogram mass (Newton’s Third Law of Motion). The one kilogram mass was already moving one meter per second, when the rim is stopped the one kilogram will then be moving 10 meters per second, because of the application of the equivalent of nine newtons for one second.
My data proves that Newtonian Physics is correct and that 10 meters per second, in the above experiment, is what should be expected experimentally. Most accurate results are found at lower speeds because of air resistance. Air resistance should become negligible in larger and more massive machines.
Why is proving that Newtonian Physics is correct worth the Noble Prize in Physics?
Because ten kilograms can achieve one meter per second by dropping only .05097 meters (5 joules), and one kilogram moving 10 m/sec can rise 5.097 meters (50 joules).
Professor K
I have made energy in the laboratory. The experiments are simple and inexpensive. Repeating the experiments would surely result in the awarding of the Noble Prize in Physics.
First I will explain why the experiments make energy.
Objects are set in motion by the application of force for a period of time: for example one newton applied for one second. If one newton is applied to one kilogram for one second the mass will be moving one meter per second. To get the mass to stop you must apply a force for a unit of time that is equal to one newton of force applied one second; for example, 2 newtons for ½ sec, or ½ newton for 2 seconds. This is Newton’s Second Law of Motion F=ma.
Once in motion the mass can be directed into a circular path without the loss of motion. An object that was moving in a straight line, at one meter per second, can be caught on the end of a string. After being caught it will move around the circumference of the circle at one meter per second. When released from the circle the mass will leave the circle at one meter per second. There is no loss or gain of motion; they are one and the same quantity.
In a ridged circle, such as a bicycle rim, a tangent force can be used to stop the motion of the circle. If a one kilogram rim is moving clockwise at one meter per second; a tangent force of one newton applied counterclockwise for one second is necessary to stop the motion of the rim. A nine kilogram rim will require nine newtons applied (tangent) for one second to stop the rim’s motion.
Now let’s do the experiment.
Wrap a string around a 9 kilogram rim and attach a one kilogram mass to the end of the string. Spin the rim in the opposite direction that you wrapped the string. Secure the mass against the rim while you measure the rate of rotation, then release the mass. The one kilogram and string will unwrap from the nine kilogram rim and stop its motion.
Let’s say the mass of the nine kilogram rim and one kilogram mass are initially moving one meter per second. To stop the rim you would have to had applied the equivalent of nine newtons of force (tangent) for one second to stop the rim. You also had to have applied the equivalent of nine newtons of force for one second to the one kilogram mass (Newton’s Third Law of Motion). The one kilogram mass was already moving one meter per second, when the rim is stopped the one kilogram will then be moving 10 meters per second, because of the application of the equivalent of nine newtons for one second.
My data proves that Newtonian Physics is correct and that 10 meters per second, in the above experiment, is what should be expected experimentally. Most accurate results are found at lower speeds because of air resistance. Air resistance should become negligible in larger and more massive machines.
Why is proving that Newtonian Physics is correct worth the Noble Prize in Physics?
Because ten kilograms can achieve one meter per second by dropping only .05097 meters (5 joules), and one kilogram moving 10 m/sec can rise 5.097 meters (50 joules).
Note that this should be a "rigid" circle. College professors will notice things like this.pequaide wrote:In a ridged circle,
This is an example of transferring inertial momentum from a slower moving mass to faster moving mass. Kinetic energy can be increased in the process. Kinetic energy is the measurement of available usable energy due to difference of velocity of two objects. This difference of velocity is often measured between an object and the Earth. When one moving object transfers some or all of its inertial kinetic energy to another moving object then the resultant inertial kinetic energy can be greater than the initial kinetic energies of the two objects.
As far as I know, no one (except possibly myself and Bessler) has devised a way to reset weights in a manner that a cycle of continuous gaining of inertial kinetic energy can be accomplished.
I agree that pictures or diagrams would be very helpful in understanding what it is you are talking about.
Side note: Would a device be considered a perpetual motion machine if it produced continuous work by harnessing the invisible forces that are the cause of inertial momentum within our universe?
re: energy producing experiments
Thanks Broli and Jim. It is now rigid.
Answer to side note: Perpetual means continuous. With the machine you can change 1 unit of motion into 5 units of motion within about a 4 second cycle; continuously. That is 4 extra units of motion every 4 seconds; and nothing is used up. I think that meets the criterion. But I am a pragmatist: who cares what they call it.
Free energy machine: is more descriptive.
Answer to side note: Perpetual means continuous. With the machine you can change 1 unit of motion into 5 units of motion within about a 4 second cycle; continuously. That is 4 extra units of motion every 4 seconds; and nothing is used up. I think that meets the criterion. But I am a pragmatist: who cares what they call it.
Free energy machine: is more descriptive.