Just my two cents but I think you're going too fast. Build a proto with just a few (maybe only 1) of these centrifugal/magnetic/spring and/or elastic actuated movable weights, see how it performs. Understand it. Get the "why" of overperformance (haha) or underperformance. Time enough later to think about adding more and more mags. See if you get a net gain first and foremost, and I say you will.
One point : trying to increase acceleration on the down stroke is hard: during the time your weight is moving "downwards" or "outwards" it is not acting much if at all on your main wheel. When it slides, it is "freefall". The duration in both time and minutes of an arc of that moment of uselessness depends on the speed of translation of the sliding weight relative to the speed of the wheel. Still, if that is understood, it is not a major obstacle.
Main thing is that as rpm increase, the force required to move back the weight increases, and as your elastic is of a fixed strength, the rpm framework within which the wheel will "work" is quite small. This a much misunderstood phenomenen. Worse, what usually happens is that chaos happens to your "timing", and counterforces cause the wheel to stop. In an ideal situation where all is linked, mechanically actuated and travel-limited as I imagine in Bessler's wheel, a fixed rpm is achieved. Going beyong that speed becomes a physical imossibility unless you increse the size of the wheel :))))
The GraMag Motor
Moderator: scott
re: The GraMag Motor
It will not work; in the simplest terms if the magnet is strong enough to move the mass in the first place, then the attraction gets stronger the closer it gets. The mass on the wheel actually loses weight due to the pull of the magnet, therefore not transferring any leverage to the wheel.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: The GraMag Motor
That is exactly the point I make above, excepting the increasing "pull" of the magnet as it approaches the steel bar which you quite rightly point out (but you miss the posibility of the "sliding weight" being a mag/soft steel combo, or even a mag/lead. That does most definitely not mean it won't work, because there are other counter forces which can be used. Or if you were really cunning, you'd seek to apply the advantage to the 300-359° radius. Same mechanism. And decreasing the weight on the "up" stroke is much easier than accelerating the down stroke.
Anybody building a test bench yet ?
Anybody building a test bench yet ?
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
Two points.
1. It would work better with magnets in repulsion cos then you get negative feedback and everything is easier to control. It doesn't matter if the weight moves in or out. It simply changes the direction of rotation. Also, this overcomes daxwc's objection to things acting in attraction.
2. Test bench is a good idea of Nicbordeaux's. A simple see-saw beam would be sufficient to prove the principle - or prove it couldn't be made to work - as the case may be.
1. It would work better with magnets in repulsion cos then you get negative feedback and everything is easier to control. It doesn't matter if the weight moves in or out. It simply changes the direction of rotation. Also, this overcomes daxwc's objection to things acting in attraction.
2. Test bench is a good idea of Nicbordeaux's. A simple see-saw beam would be sufficient to prove the principle - or prove it couldn't be made to work - as the case may be.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
Sorry Grimer, can't agre on that one. A rotating wheel has totally different characteristics to a seesaw. The moment of inertia is different for starters.
Definitely repulsion, if you're aiming to use downstroke acceleration, gyroscopics would throw your mag/weight outwards anyway (though later into the downstroke than if the weight was being "pushed)". Think you'll need more travel than you've shown in your model.
Good luck, you're on the right track :)
Definitely repulsion, if you're aiming to use downstroke acceleration, gyroscopics would throw your mag/weight outwards anyway (though later into the downstroke than if the weight was being "pushed)". Think you'll need more travel than you've shown in your model.
Good luck, you're on the right track :)
Hmmm - seems we are just using the magnets like a spring. I am inclined to think that magnets are very different from springs, just as I strongly believe gravity is very different from springs. But that's a side issue I don't want to derail this thread with.
But if we are seeking a magnet that behaves like a spring, but with a linear rather than inverse square law happening .. couldn't we consider the use of another mass which we raise or lower within the gravity field? Like the difference between a catapult and a trebuchet ...
I wonder if the external pendula seen on some Bessler wheels were used for this purpose ... we put energy in, we get energy back ... just like a very good spring ... we gain the benefit of a tuned frequency speed governor, and we can choose the phase relationship with the wheel, to get the energy back exactly when we need it. Seems easier than messing with springs or magnets ...
Before anyone mentions that magnets can attract from a distance, but springs and pendula can't, I would say that is not really important. A push is as good as a pull, and doesn't take much engineering to make use of one or the other. One can argue that nothing can ever 'pull' anything in reality. Try 'pulling' a door open ... you can't do it. What you are actually doing is 'pushing' the door open backwards ... (and argument that there is no such thing as action at a distance ... for those who choose to believe gravity is a push, not a pull ... )
Anway ... if we can get something oscillating up and down for a long time with very little energy input, it seems that we can get something oscillating sideways for a long time with very little energy input. Isn't that basically what we are trying to achieve here? The horizontal shift in mass being then used to exploit gravity and hopefully gain more energy than required to keep the system moving ...
This makes me think of the Milkovic 2 stage oscillator ... and the complex maths required to prove or disprove, which have got so complex for such a simple thing that nobody has really proven or disproven that concept ...
I think that is simply the reciprocating version of the rotary version being proposed here. There is no doubt that we can overbalance a massive beam by shifting a small mass in the horizontal direction. Due to gravity, we can get a lot of torque out of that beam. It's also clear that the small mass falls downwards with the heavy beam, and requires lifiting up.
But if we can make a mass oscillate up & down for a long time, or sideways for a long time ... I presume we can engineer it so that both actions occur. If we got a mass oscillating in basically a figure of eight, for little energy input, could we use this to overbalance a reciprocating beam?
Or have I lost the plot completely ... seems relevant to me, but maybe not.
But if we are seeking a magnet that behaves like a spring, but with a linear rather than inverse square law happening .. couldn't we consider the use of another mass which we raise or lower within the gravity field? Like the difference between a catapult and a trebuchet ...
I wonder if the external pendula seen on some Bessler wheels were used for this purpose ... we put energy in, we get energy back ... just like a very good spring ... we gain the benefit of a tuned frequency speed governor, and we can choose the phase relationship with the wheel, to get the energy back exactly when we need it. Seems easier than messing with springs or magnets ...
Before anyone mentions that magnets can attract from a distance, but springs and pendula can't, I would say that is not really important. A push is as good as a pull, and doesn't take much engineering to make use of one or the other. One can argue that nothing can ever 'pull' anything in reality. Try 'pulling' a door open ... you can't do it. What you are actually doing is 'pushing' the door open backwards ... (and argument that there is no such thing as action at a distance ... for those who choose to believe gravity is a push, not a pull ... )
Anway ... if we can get something oscillating up and down for a long time with very little energy input, it seems that we can get something oscillating sideways for a long time with very little energy input. Isn't that basically what we are trying to achieve here? The horizontal shift in mass being then used to exploit gravity and hopefully gain more energy than required to keep the system moving ...
This makes me think of the Milkovic 2 stage oscillator ... and the complex maths required to prove or disprove, which have got so complex for such a simple thing that nobody has really proven or disproven that concept ...
I think that is simply the reciprocating version of the rotary version being proposed here. There is no doubt that we can overbalance a massive beam by shifting a small mass in the horizontal direction. Due to gravity, we can get a lot of torque out of that beam. It's also clear that the small mass falls downwards with the heavy beam, and requires lifiting up.
But if we can make a mass oscillate up & down for a long time, or sideways for a long time ... I presume we can engineer it so that both actions occur. If we got a mass oscillating in basically a figure of eight, for little energy input, could we use this to overbalance a reciprocating beam?
Or have I lost the plot completely ... seems relevant to me, but maybe not.
The catch I can see is when we start to extract work from the system. A think a very small oscillating mass system can get a massive balance mass system oscillating in resonance ... because both systems are balanced, and what appears to be a lot of energy being displayed actually isn't ...
But if we started to extract energy from the heavier balanced system, (maybe) the showstopper flaw would become apparant ...
I say maybe, because i'm not totally convinced this can't work ... the Force X Time of moving a small mass up & down quickly can be engineered to be a lot less than the Force X Time of a massive mass being overbalanced for a much longer Time ... but I digress again.
But if we started to extract energy from the heavier balanced system, (maybe) the showstopper flaw would become apparant ...
I say maybe, because i'm not totally convinced this can't work ... the Force X Time of moving a small mass up & down quickly can be engineered to be a lot less than the Force X Time of a massive mass being overbalanced for a much longer Time ... but I digress again.
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: The GraMag Motor
Here is the The GraMag Motor at the start of the thread working with the repulsion concept;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcPuKv9Z-XE
I don’t know how, but one has to make use of the inverse square relationship without using the magnetic field as just purely a spring.
One would have thought this thread would have moved to changing the permanent magnet to an electromagnet. You can then turn off the magnetic field in the Gramag motor letting the weight of the mass down and leveraging the wheel to turn. What’s the chance the math is going to work for a wheel to turn a generator that charges a battery to open and close an electromagnet... you would have to prove first that a considerable net gain can be obtained from torque vs electromagnetic energy needed to slide the mass over.
Just the babbling of a non genius...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcPuKv9Z-XE
I don’t know how, but one has to make use of the inverse square relationship without using the magnetic field as just purely a spring.
One would have thought this thread would have moved to changing the permanent magnet to an electromagnet. You can then turn off the magnetic field in the Gramag motor letting the weight of the mass down and leveraging the wheel to turn. What’s the chance the math is going to work for a wheel to turn a generator that charges a battery to open and close an electromagnet... you would have to prove first that a considerable net gain can be obtained from torque vs electromagnetic energy needed to slide the mass over.
Just the babbling of a non genius...
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
Sorry daxwc, forgot to include you in the genius lot :)
Electromags are seld defeating at this point, because you need so much energy to move from mechanical to electric and then back to mechanical. In my non-genius opinion. Plus it leaves the door wide open for all the sour debunkers out there to ckaim that your device is underunity because they've measured the electricity required and it's more than the mechanical. Irrespective of how long the thing runs, they'll attack you on that.
Electromags are seld defeating at this point, because you need so much energy to move from mechanical to electric and then back to mechanical. In my non-genius opinion. Plus it leaves the door wide open for all the sour debunkers out there to ckaim that your device is underunity because they've measured the electricity required and it's more than the mechanical. Irrespective of how long the thing runs, they'll attack you on that.
@ greendoor
I agree with you about the push and pull. There is no pull, only push. Tensile forces are negations, reductions in some ambient unrecognised pressure. I wrote several papers on the subject. Unfortunately I was well ahead of my time (and still am come to that). I have attached the earliest of the papers as a pdf. I have had to shrink the page images somewhat to fit in with the forum's size restriction but they are still perfectly readable.
I also agree with you about the use of pendulums. Indeed, I have realised that the easiest way to implement the Vesica Pisces design of motor is as a clock. I am preparing diagrams for Community Buzz. Unfortunately NicB wont be able to see them until he has sufficient posts (25) to elevate him from a dabbler to an "enthusiast" (which he obviously is de facto if not de jure.)
I agree with you about the push and pull. There is no pull, only push. Tensile forces are negations, reductions in some ambient unrecognised pressure. I wrote several papers on the subject. Unfortunately I was well ahead of my time (and still am come to that). I have attached the earliest of the papers as a pdf. I have had to shrink the page images somewhat to fit in with the forum's size restriction but they are still perfectly readable.
I also agree with you about the use of pendulums. Indeed, I have realised that the easiest way to implement the Vesica Pisces design of motor is as a clock. I am preparing diagrams for Community Buzz. Unfortunately NicB wont be able to see them until he has sufficient posts (25) to elevate him from a dabbler to an "enthusiast" (which he obviously is de facto if not de jure.)
- Attachments
-
- Southampton paper_small.pdf
- (2.44 MiB) Downloaded 172 times
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
Re: re: The GraMag Motor
LOL - Certainly nothing original about the idea I see.daxwc wrote:Here is the The GraMag Motor at the start of the thread working with the repulsion concept;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcPuKv9Z-XE
I don’t know how, but one has to make use of the inverse square relationship without using the magnetic field as just purely a spring.
One would have thought this thread would have moved to changing the permanent magnet to an electromagnet. You can then turn off the magnetic field in the GraMag motor letting the weight of the mass down and leveraging the wheel to turn. What’s the chance the math is going to work for a wheel to turn a generator that charges a battery to open and close an electromagnet... you would have to prove first that a considerable net gain can be obtained from torque vs electromagnetic energy needed to slide the mass over.
Just the babbling of a non genius...
Perhaps I ought to concentrate on the Vesica Pisces Motor. I doubt if anyone has tried that before.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: The GraMag Motor
There are today more than a dozen of working engines combining the gravity and some magnets.
For memory the most known are:
- The Walter Torbay motor (the original website has been unfortunately closed) :
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... sgenerator
- The Wesley W.GARY motor:
http://www.rexresearch.com/gary/gary1.htm
- The Empyros engine:
http://www.empyros.org/?j=id_&avt=vsk&sod=018
On the hand the way to switch the magnetic field is known since a long time:
- Remember the roof walking stewardess in the Stanley Kubrick movie (2001 a space odyssey) and her magnetic shoes designed by Radus:
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/astroboots.htm
(it has nothing to do with the reversal of the camera)
- The Joe Flynn's Parallel Path Magnetic Technology, here:
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php?title= ... ivecommons
- The Believe Machine using some sectored shutters:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?nam ... e&sid=2309
and a video of a working replica here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeaG6bPIPGs
On my side even if these designs work, I'm not interested to duplicate them.
My personal quest is not the overunity or the salvage of the planet.
I want just to make the retro-engineering of the ancient trilobed 'flowerbowl' and include it in my merry-go-round.
Therefore I'm concerned only by the designs using stricly the gravity.
On the other hand this quest cannot be successful if the Bessler wheel and the buzzsaw are ignored.
Another question now is: why these various designs didn't have any industrial application?
As explained earlier I think this is first a question of torque.
Then there are some exogenic reasons (p.e. the patents for the 'fuel-cell' are hold by Exxon).
We do have today all the means to save the planet.
They are not used yet just for economical reasons.
Any gravitic motor (if discovered) will have no incidence at all on the energy crisis.
For memory the most known are:
- The Walter Torbay motor (the original website has been unfortunately closed) :
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... sgenerator
- The Wesley W.GARY motor:
http://www.rexresearch.com/gary/gary1.htm
- The Empyros engine:
http://www.empyros.org/?j=id_&avt=vsk&sod=018
On the hand the way to switch the magnetic field is known since a long time:
- Remember the roof walking stewardess in the Stanley Kubrick movie (2001 a space odyssey) and her magnetic shoes designed by Radus:
http://www.cheniere.org/misc/astroboots.htm
(it has nothing to do with the reversal of the camera)
- The Joe Flynn's Parallel Path Magnetic Technology, here:
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php?title= ... ivecommons
- The Believe Machine using some sectored shutters:
http://www.zpenergy.com/modules.php?nam ... e&sid=2309
and a video of a working replica here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeaG6bPIPGs
On my side even if these designs work, I'm not interested to duplicate them.
My personal quest is not the overunity or the salvage of the planet.
I want just to make the retro-engineering of the ancient trilobed 'flowerbowl' and include it in my merry-go-round.
Therefore I'm concerned only by the designs using stricly the gravity.
On the other hand this quest cannot be successful if the Bessler wheel and the buzzsaw are ignored.
Another question now is: why these various designs didn't have any industrial application?
As explained earlier I think this is first a question of torque.
Then there are some exogenic reasons (p.e. the patents for the 'fuel-cell' are hold by Exxon).
We do have today all the means to save the planet.
They are not used yet just for economical reasons.
Any gravitic motor (if discovered) will have no incidence at all on the energy crisis.
Last edited by path_finder on Sat Oct 03, 2009 9:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
nicbordeaux
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
re: The GraMag Motor
"Any gravitic motor (if discovered) will have no incidence at all on the energy crisis"
Are you a betting man, Path_Finder ?
Are you a betting man, Path_Finder ?
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
