What reward ?

[nicbordeaux]

Let's imagine that somebody comes up with a device, be it a wheel or else, which to keep things simple uses mechanical principles to exploit gravity or/and magnetic force(s) , not a drawing, a sketch or a "it'll work I just need more magnets and ceramic bearings" gizmo... but a real device which is self sustaining for a prolonged period. Even better, let's suppose that the device can put out some amount usable power and still self sustain. Not necessarily PM/CM or whatever, just self sustaining for a prolonged period, let's say 4 hours. Or even, imagine, 24 hours. The total usable output, ofcourse, being higher that the power required to set said device or gizmo in motion.

Is there some foundation out there offering a big reward ? If so, where :) ???

Or are there any mug punters out there who are betting hard currency that achieving a given result as described vaguely above is impossible ?

[bluesgtr44]

The Amazing Randi comes to mind....I think he was offering a million bucks.


Steve

[AB Hammer]

Once proven, the Nobel prize for science. I believe is $10,000,000
OverUnity.com has a prize for it. I think it is around $15,000

I am going to get mine in patent pending first, before I expose it for any prize. (this is not confirming I have one)

[nicbordeaux]

Once proven, the Nobel prize for science. I believe is $10,000,000
OverUnity.com has a prize for it. I think it is around $15,000

I am going to get mine in patent pending first, before I expose it for any prize. (this is not confirming I have one)

Well, thx for the answers, I'll be checking out the Amazing Randi or whatever he's called, but the name sounds a bit like "The Incredible Houdini".

As to Nobel prizes, a small hope, there are so many patents out there or people who have striven for decades, somebody would claim precedence. And I don't think you could put a watertight patent a device like this. You mention overunity, and this is where the big catch is: all the overeducated debunkers are invoking laws of physics which prove that PM (call it Constant motion, really) is impossible, because you can't create energy out of nothing. Which as far as I know or care is correct. Overunity is creating energy from no provable source of energy if I get this right ? That would disqualify any device I might by mistake create, unless overunity is just defined as more mechanical output than mechanical input, in which case a nuclear plant is overunity. And the Incredible Randi had better start saving. Not of course that I would invent anything like that. Or give away the secret to overunity.com or else for a mere 10 000 bucks. Preferable to do something awful like save the world by going public for free.

[Grimer]

"Virtue is its own reward, and brings with it the truest and highest pleasure;"

Newman

[path_finder]

Dear Nicbordeaux,

Don't always wait on another generous fallacious donors.
If your product does that, establish your own company and make your own business.
If these donors are offering so much, from where is coming the prize? from the future benefits coming from your product, so long lost for you after receiving the money. Nothing is gratis in the life.

Another way is the Open Source GNU license. You will have perhaps in this case your statue standing in your good city, even when you will be 5 feet under the floor.

Good luck nevertheless.

[nicbordeaux]

Hi Path_finder :

irrespective of statues, setting up your own business in a field like (I hate this term) "Free Energy" is likely to be impossible without some very, very powerful backers and protection. Just my opinion.

As to your signature which I recognize as the French "pourquoi faire simple quand on peut faire compliqué" , that's the whole point. Drill two holes in a bicycle fork and attach to something solid with some screws (9 inch nails if you prefer) , plop in a 700 (that's 28 inches ?) wheel. You should now have a vertically mounted wheel free to rotate in a vertical plane. Get hold of a piece of steel plate or else weighing about 150 grammes and wire this to the spokes near the rim, find the exact balance point with weight at top. Let the wheel go. You're very, very few degrees short of a full turn. Surprsingly few.

You don't necessarily need magnets though you could use them, you might want a means of shifting a very small bit of weight around but other solutions are possible... The reason people aren't actually making working devices which can get through those very few degrees is that everybody is looking at overcomplex solutions. Then the idea doesn't work, although it looks good on paper, so people think "yeah, it needs 38 neodym mags on the "stator", and 22 on the rotor, quick, I gotta buy some 28 kg mags". All systems are currently being built like this, whether they are rotary or else, call on gravity or some antimatter pulled from the ether or I dare not think what else. The end product before having validated the basics.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remeber that the French idiom for this is "Mettre la charrue avant les boeufs ?"

If it won't do 360 °with all weights or else returned to exact point they were at departure whilst remaining simple, it is flawed and a waste of time (replace 360° by "cycle" or else for non rotary systems, or systems which rotate alternately thru shorter arcs).

[AB Hammer]

nicbordeaux

By the way welcome to the forum.

After reading what you wrote, you need to look here at Mr. Reidar Finsrud machine. It is a very interesting design and it runs for along time as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=us7YB7eiOeQ

But it has no value out side of an oddity and art. The one I am building (if all goes well) will have a fair bit of power.

[path_finder]

Dear Nicbordeaux,

Ma signature is just a 'cliché', and must be taken only as a no-way sentence.

First, you don't need a lot of Neodyme magnets to do the job.
Just one simple magnet is sufficient.
Look here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMxwt8w3lB0
And I'm pretty sure there are a lot of another successful designs.
If it is so easy, why this guy is not multi-millionaire today?

Second, even if just a small amount of energy is missing for a full 360 grades turn, you must find the corresponding energy somewhere.
After more five years visiting this forum, I cannot tell you what is the best available source (momentum, centrifugal, Coriolis, gyroscopic, loss of mass, gravity hole,etc.)
If you have the answer, everybody here will be happy to know it.

But in any case the fundamental question is the torque.
And the torque is dependent from the value of the weights and the size of the wheel.
The subsidiary question is the rigidity of the frame wich defines the building process.
Believe me the big job is not at the idea level, but at the implementation step.
And the good builders are not numerous.

[nicbordeaux]

Thanx AB and Path_Finder, I'll check those links. Agreed, if it's only self perpetuating on a hairline, it's nothng but a toy. I'll not clutter the forum with suggestive stuf not backed by clear video and data, this "wheel in a fork" is just something every "inventor" or builder should have as a reference point, and allways keep in the workshop or garden shed or fallout shelter, or wherever one "works" :)

Ways of getting the missing degrees. here's a few : move angle of fork at appropriate moment (shortens distance of travel required), use an opposing polarity magnet to manually push a ring magnet (ceramic, not a whopping great neodym) mounted on steel plate on wheel... There are many other ways, all these ways require using power from the system (or a secondary device/system) so must show a net + . Basics, but as long as you haven't played around with that very basic fork/wheel toy and got a grasp on what is actually happening, I doubt you'll find any solutions. The torque ? Sure, mass, but mass depends on speed as well, no ? And you are right, hysterisis is a big enemy.

On Bessler, was surprised to see his alternating wheel, because that definitely works. The answer is standing right there in the paragraphs of "observations" or suggestions. "Overunity" of the machine if not drawn from runtime is a straight function of ballast/amplitude, and the top weight on the triangular pendulum is not strictly necessary :)

As to the link to the bike wheel with rod and magnetic replusion, why the guy isn't rich ? Because the overunity isn't suficient (if it exists at all). Overunity does not mean infinite acceleration. In the case of this design, you can up the load as much as you want, you can use magnets as powerful as you want, the ratios will remain the same. To run a small car generator or lift a decent column of water with that design as it stands, it'd need to be as big as the Eiffel tower. But then, it wouldn't work : cx and other nuisances exclude liear extrapolation. Still, it is a very simple demonstration of a grav/magnet combo which sustains for a while. And used as a drive for an appendice of a larger and different device, would lead to some very interesting output.