I'm new and haven't read all the posts yet, but I noticed a few threads brainstorming various methods for shifting the weights on a gravity motor, including my favorite, the lever. I've got a machine in mind---don't we all---that I want to explain here and one major part of it is the mechanism to shift the weights. Thought I'd share it and see what you all think.
First, I'll establish the constraints I put upon myself when designing the gravity motor. 1. It had to be made from readily available parts. 2. It had to be simple enough for a craftsman to replicate in his/her workshop or garage from a set of blueprints and assembly instructions. 3. It had to be simple and intuitive enough to understand quickly when watching it run. 4. Absolutely no patents or mass manufacturing. It must be given as freely as the energy it produces. 5. It must produce a usable amount of energy for home use. Obviously, it has to work.
Okay, so on to the mechanism to shift the weights.
Imagine sitting at the local bar. (hopefully, at least a few here are tossing back a cold one as they read this and don't have to imagine a darn thing)
You ask the bar tender for 2 olives, three toothpicks, and a drinking straw.
Hold the straw horizontally. Poke the toothpick through the side of the straw so it vertically penetrates both walls of the straw. Next, jam an olive onto each end of the toothpick.
The straw represents your horizontal axel. The toothpick is your rod that goes through your axel. The olives are your weights at each end of the rod to run your motor. (for our purposes, the toothpick is firmly enough in the straw that it will not slide through unless you push it with your fingers, after which it will remain where you set it.)
If you push one end of the toothpick up an inch or so, you will notice that one olive is farther from the horizontal straw than the other. This will create an overbalance in a moment. Right now, the olive at the 6 o'clock position is close to the straw and the olive at the 12 o'clock position is farther from the straw.
Take the remaining 2 toothpicks and put them, horizontally, into each open end of your straw. These represent the bearings for your horizontal axel.
Down the rest of your drink and order another. Make it a double.
Pick up the straw, rods and olives and all, by the 2 toothpicks at each end of your straw. The olive at the 12 o'clock position should fall, turning your straw/axel as it does. It will come to rest at the 6 o'clock position. Push it up from the bottom and the top olive will move further from the straw while the bottom olive moves closer to the straw. Hold it by the horizontal toothpicks again and again, the top olive will fall to the 6 o'clock position.
Please tell me you finished that drink and have ordered another. Hurry up and finish that next one as well.
Now that you're starting to really feel gravity, imagine setting a round, metal axel horizontally between two bearings, so it can freely turn. Drill a verticle hole through it. Place a linear bearing in each side of hole, one at 6 o'clock position and one at the 12 o'clock position. Take a light, metal rod and slide it through the hole. The bearings will allow it to slide freely through the hole. Screw 2 equal weights onto each end of the rod. Push the rod from the bottom and the top weight wil rise, overbalanced & ready to fall. (imagine a mechanical "grabber" on the axel that holds the rod so it doesn't fall back down through the hole.)
Understand or can you picture this? Congratulations. Have another drink.
:)
Mechanism for consideration
Moderator: scott
-
Mangyhyena
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:21 pm
Mechanism for consideration
It'll never fly, orville.
-
Mangyhyena
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:21 pm
Quick correction before I continue. It should have been farther from the straw, not further.
So, why shift the weights like this? We're essentially doubling the weight by lifting a single rod with 2 weights on it, right? (The rods become levers, of a sort, when used this way. Thought Alex might like that.)
Really look at your olives as you push the rod. If you push them up 1/4", how far will your top olive fall? 1/4"? Nope, it will fall farther than 1/4". I'll go you one better. Replace your toothpick with a long skewer, say 6" long. Now, push the skewer, olive at each end, up from the bottom 1/4" and tell me how far the top olive falls.
What has happened is that the distance of the lift dictates the extent of overbalance, not the height of the fall. The length of the rod dictates the height of the fall. Want the weight to fall farther? Increase the length of your rod. If you increase the length of your rod, you gain height for your weight to fall from without increasing the distance of the lift.
To me, this makes sense for a gravity motor. Rather than lift a weight on the bottom up 6 feet, use a 4 foot rod and lift it one foot. (axel in this scenario is 3 feet in diameter). You will have one weight fall 6 feet with a one foot overbalance, more or less. Call me crazy or woefully uneducated, but it seems like lifting 2 weights one foot to get a 6 foot fall on one of them should require less energy than lifting one weight 6 feet to get a 6 foot fall. Now, I am aware that the rising weight closer to the axel will cancel out a portion of the releaeing energy from the falling weight. If someone here can confirm that, and perhaps explain in detail how we still get less out that we put in, I'd appreciate it. It's okay if it does require more to lift than we get out. There is more to this motor than what I've shared so far.
Yes, I'm sure my figure is slightly off, but I'm not drinking and you all are, so I'm claiming the moral high ground and calling it close enough for the purpose for explaining this. ;)
This concludes part 1 of this crazy motor. Part 2 will get into the lifter, adding multiple weights and why that shouldn't multiply the losses, and the general theory behind the functioning. (the power to run the lifter has to come from somewhere, right?)
Now, go have a drink and think on that, if you're still interested. I'll post more soon. It's Miller time!
So, why shift the weights like this? We're essentially doubling the weight by lifting a single rod with 2 weights on it, right? (The rods become levers, of a sort, when used this way. Thought Alex might like that.)
Really look at your olives as you push the rod. If you push them up 1/4", how far will your top olive fall? 1/4"? Nope, it will fall farther than 1/4". I'll go you one better. Replace your toothpick with a long skewer, say 6" long. Now, push the skewer, olive at each end, up from the bottom 1/4" and tell me how far the top olive falls.
What has happened is that the distance of the lift dictates the extent of overbalance, not the height of the fall. The length of the rod dictates the height of the fall. Want the weight to fall farther? Increase the length of your rod. If you increase the length of your rod, you gain height for your weight to fall from without increasing the distance of the lift.
To me, this makes sense for a gravity motor. Rather than lift a weight on the bottom up 6 feet, use a 4 foot rod and lift it one foot. (axel in this scenario is 3 feet in diameter). You will have one weight fall 6 feet with a one foot overbalance, more or less. Call me crazy or woefully uneducated, but it seems like lifting 2 weights one foot to get a 6 foot fall on one of them should require less energy than lifting one weight 6 feet to get a 6 foot fall. Now, I am aware that the rising weight closer to the axel will cancel out a portion of the releaeing energy from the falling weight. If someone here can confirm that, and perhaps explain in detail how we still get less out that we put in, I'd appreciate it. It's okay if it does require more to lift than we get out. There is more to this motor than what I've shared so far.
Yes, I'm sure my figure is slightly off, but I'm not drinking and you all are, so I'm claiming the moral high ground and calling it close enough for the purpose for explaining this. ;)
This concludes part 1 of this crazy motor. Part 2 will get into the lifter, adding multiple weights and why that shouldn't multiply the losses, and the general theory behind the functioning. (the power to run the lifter has to come from somewhere, right?)
Now, go have a drink and think on that, if you're still interested. I'll post more soon. It's Miller time!
-
Unbalanced
- Aficionado
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:53 pm
- Location: Bend, OR
re: Mechanism for consideration
Welcome Mangyhyena,
A drawing would be worth a thousand words. It sounds as though the Bessler bug has taken a thorough hold on you. Great! Misery loves company.
The greatest conundrum is in the lifting as you will learn as you get closer to a build.
In short, you must lift the same (or more) weight than you have falling and herein lies the problem.
I personally look forward to your 2nd installment and relish the possibility that the ultimate solution may have been born in a bar with olives.
A drawing would be worth a thousand words. It sounds as though the Bessler bug has taken a thorough hold on you. Great! Misery loves company.
The greatest conundrum is in the lifting as you will learn as you get closer to a build.
In short, you must lift the same (or more) weight than you have falling and herein lies the problem.
I personally look forward to your 2nd installment and relish the possibility that the ultimate solution may have been born in a bar with olives.
-
Mangyhyena
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:21 pm
Hi, unbalanced. Thanks for the comment. Your point about the lift is well taken. I agree this is the crux of the problem with getting a gravity motor to power itself, from all I've read and researched. Or, more precisely, how to get around the lift requiring more energy to perform than can be obtained from the subsequent fall. I know of exactly 4 examples of gravity motors that I believe worked. I can't prove they worked, I just believe they did based on what I read about them, and the reactions of people who witnessed them in operation. I believe Bessler's gravity motor was one of those inventions.
Most of my research, in the beginning, was in free energy suppression; who was doing it and why. I read enough to convince me suppression happens. If suppression is real, then free energy is real, along with several past free energy machines that worked. If free energy isn't real, then why suppress it? No need to get into all that crap here. It's just the thing that convinced me free energy is possible and that it's already been accomplished several times in several different ways. This is what bit me and the reason behind many sleepless nights. I take solace in the belief that I'm not doing anything brand new, just trying to figure out how it was accomplished by others.
I'm not well versed in physics, but I've studied every explanation I'm capable of understanding and I've asked physisists to explain the crux of the problem with trying to use static forces (gravity, magnetism, buoyancy) as a power source. I believe I understand those explanations. I believe those explanations are true. But, I also believe there is a loophole in the law, something else that changes the game when it comes into the mix. Before the Wright brothers flew their plane, it was a fact that humans were too heavy to fly. It had been proven beyond a doubt on paper. It was only after that first successful flight that physisists learned something more about lift and saw how it made human flight possible. They couldn't have foreseen that, but it's a great past lesson for today's physisists when they get too comfortable with all they know about individual aspects of physics.
So, IMHO, the past inventions which successfully looped static forces brought another element of physics into play that allowed those static forces to become power sources, probably an element we're familiar with, but haven't yet seen incorporated in the looping of static forces. Sort of the way lift, when taken into account as pertains to human flight, caused an unexpected result that led to success.
For a gravity motor to work, or any other motor that loops a static force, I think a maintained ratio might work. I don't know this for a fact, but my admittedly limited understanding of physics doesn't seem to apply to a maintained ratio. So, I'll do my best to explain it here and hope it turns out to be something useful.
How abour an example of 2 things I haven't seen combined, but might lead to success if they were? (success meaning more energy out than the user has to put in)
Buoyancy motors can't work, at least not with the way we've tried so far. Likewise, hydrogen generators can not produce/release more energy in hydrogen than the amount of electricity that is put in.
What if someone combined the two? Set up an electrolyzer beneath a buoyancy motor. The input power would crack water into two gasses (hydrogen & oxygen) and those two gasses will rise to the surface of the water. The buoyancy motor would use those gasses/bubbles to to operate, generating electricity. The hydrogen would be captured, scrubbed, and stored above the buoyancy motor, after the hydrogen & oxygen were done going through the buoyancy motor.
Would that achieve OU? I don't know, and neither does anyone else. It should at least, however, require less input energy than simply storing the hydrogen and wasting the oxygen, don't you think? Putting the hydrogen through the buoyancy motor before storing it in no way reduces the amount of energy in the hydrogen. And, using the oxygen to generate a portion of the input power as well, instead of wasting it, is a no-brainer.
This is how I think when trying to figure out free energy.
Most of my research, in the beginning, was in free energy suppression; who was doing it and why. I read enough to convince me suppression happens. If suppression is real, then free energy is real, along with several past free energy machines that worked. If free energy isn't real, then why suppress it? No need to get into all that crap here. It's just the thing that convinced me free energy is possible and that it's already been accomplished several times in several different ways. This is what bit me and the reason behind many sleepless nights. I take solace in the belief that I'm not doing anything brand new, just trying to figure out how it was accomplished by others.
I'm not well versed in physics, but I've studied every explanation I'm capable of understanding and I've asked physisists to explain the crux of the problem with trying to use static forces (gravity, magnetism, buoyancy) as a power source. I believe I understand those explanations. I believe those explanations are true. But, I also believe there is a loophole in the law, something else that changes the game when it comes into the mix. Before the Wright brothers flew their plane, it was a fact that humans were too heavy to fly. It had been proven beyond a doubt on paper. It was only after that first successful flight that physisists learned something more about lift and saw how it made human flight possible. They couldn't have foreseen that, but it's a great past lesson for today's physisists when they get too comfortable with all they know about individual aspects of physics.
So, IMHO, the past inventions which successfully looped static forces brought another element of physics into play that allowed those static forces to become power sources, probably an element we're familiar with, but haven't yet seen incorporated in the looping of static forces. Sort of the way lift, when taken into account as pertains to human flight, caused an unexpected result that led to success.
For a gravity motor to work, or any other motor that loops a static force, I think a maintained ratio might work. I don't know this for a fact, but my admittedly limited understanding of physics doesn't seem to apply to a maintained ratio. So, I'll do my best to explain it here and hope it turns out to be something useful.
How abour an example of 2 things I haven't seen combined, but might lead to success if they were? (success meaning more energy out than the user has to put in)
Buoyancy motors can't work, at least not with the way we've tried so far. Likewise, hydrogen generators can not produce/release more energy in hydrogen than the amount of electricity that is put in.
What if someone combined the two? Set up an electrolyzer beneath a buoyancy motor. The input power would crack water into two gasses (hydrogen & oxygen) and those two gasses will rise to the surface of the water. The buoyancy motor would use those gasses/bubbles to to operate, generating electricity. The hydrogen would be captured, scrubbed, and stored above the buoyancy motor, after the hydrogen & oxygen were done going through the buoyancy motor.
Would that achieve OU? I don't know, and neither does anyone else. It should at least, however, require less input energy than simply storing the hydrogen and wasting the oxygen, don't you think? Putting the hydrogen through the buoyancy motor before storing it in no way reduces the amount of energy in the hydrogen. And, using the oxygen to generate a portion of the input power as well, instead of wasting it, is a no-brainer.
This is how I think when trying to figure out free energy.
-
Mangyhyena
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:21 pm
All right, onward we go with this. The mechanical means of shifting the weights to create an imbalance/over balance is to slide a rod, an equal weight on each end, through a hole in the axel, simultaneously shifting the weight on one side farther from the center/axel and the other weight on the opposite side closer to the center/axel.
Will one rod through the axel give us free energy? No, I do not believe it will. I believe the lift will require more energy to accomplish than the falling weight can produce, despite the short distance of the lift vs the long distance of the fall.
Physics says if I increase the number of rods I will simply multiply the loss. I am saying that a maintained ratio of falling weights to the one weight being lifted will not multiply the loss. Not only that, but as the ratio increases, the loss from the lift will become less than the energy released from the fall of all the other weights. I will get into this later, after explaining the lifting mechanism and showing that this machine can not possibly encounter 2 or more weights in need of a lift at the same time.
Got to run again for now. The lifter is up for consideration next post.
Will one rod through the axel give us free energy? No, I do not believe it will. I believe the lift will require more energy to accomplish than the falling weight can produce, despite the short distance of the lift vs the long distance of the fall.
Physics says if I increase the number of rods I will simply multiply the loss. I am saying that a maintained ratio of falling weights to the one weight being lifted will not multiply the loss. Not only that, but as the ratio increases, the loss from the lift will become less than the energy released from the fall of all the other weights. I will get into this later, after explaining the lifting mechanism and showing that this machine can not possibly encounter 2 or more weights in need of a lift at the same time.
Got to run again for now. The lifter is up for consideration next post.
-
justsomeone
- Addict
- Posts: 2098
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 5:21 pm
re: Mechanism for consideration
Welcome Mangyhyena, I love the way you write and look forward to your future posts as a productive member on this forum.
. I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills.
-
Mangyhyena
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:21 pm
The lifter is an axel below the main axel, linked to the main axel by a step-down belt and pulleys, similar to the serpentine belt in your vehicle.
When this smaller axel turns, the lifters go up and down. I say lifters because there are 2 lifters on this small axel. Each lifter runs opposite the other. When right side is rising, the left is dropping back down. They are always opposite, one going up while the other is going down. Lifters of this type were used a long time ago on steam engines, I believe, before cylinders were developed, if I remember correctly. (Yes, there are more efficient lifters out there, but this type seems better suited for DIY replication.)
Why 2 lifters instead of one? Because if there is only one lifter, it's going to have to perform the lift, then go back down BEFORE the next rod reaches it in need of a lift/reset. By using 2 lifters, we can cut the speed the lifter needs to run in half. Less speed translates to less power required to run the lifter. The first lifter can begin to come back down as the second lifter begins to rise/reset the next weight that just reached the 6 o'clock position.
It is absolutely imperative that the machine complete a lift and get the weight reset and actively falling before the next weight/rod reaches the lifter. One weight at a time is the only chance this machine has at OU. This is what will give a ratio of falling weights to the one weight being lifted. The idea is to out weigh the lift with falling weights by as much as possible. Further, if that ratio is to remain unchanged indefinitely, the lifted/reset weight must be back in play and actively falling (actively contributing energy to rotation) before the next lift. One weight goes into play (reset) at the same time as the next weight goes out of play (needs lift/reset) while all other weights fall out of phase with one another. Maintained ratio that does not fluctuate. Every weight overbalanced on one side with the exception of just one that is being reset. Since there can be only one getting reset at a time while every other weight on the machine is contributing power. There has to be a ratio that not only supplies enough power to perform the lift, but supplies more than required for the lift, leaving an excess for useful work above running itself. in a 100 to 1 ratio, one weight is getting lifted while 99 other weights fall. That ratio has a very good chance of releasing more energy than the lifter requires. If you put 1 pound on the end of each 6 foot rod and do a 1 foot lift, you should be doing a 2 pound lift (rod has 2 weights) of 1 foot and have 99 pounds falling 7 feet at a 1 foot overbalance. Seems like that much weight falling should be enough to cover the lift, during the moment, with excess energy left over for useful work above & beyond performing the lift. Whatever that excess might be, that would be how much energy the machine produces moment-to-moment. The ratio wouldn't fluctuate because one weight goes back into play to become one of the 99 falling weights at the same time another weight falls out of play and begins its lift/reset. It's that maintained ratio that should avoid multiplying the loss when adding more weights to the machine.
The rods will be drilled through the main axel in a staggered spiral pattern. With a spiral pattern, it is only possible for one weight to reach its lowest position at a time. A staggered spiral pattern means the first hole is drilled on right side of the axel, and the next is drilled on the left, and so on. This makes the weights reach their lowest position on one side above the corresponding lifter, then the next reaches the lowest position on the opposite side, above the other lifter.
To picture the lifters, hold your hands in front of your chest, palms up, fingertips to fingertips. Raise one hand and at the same time, lower the other at the same speed. Next, reverse it and make them go the other way, so one is rising as the other is lowering. Do that several times and you will be mimicking the lifters on this machine.
Timing is achieved by linking the operation of the lifters to the main axel; the big one with all the rods through it. The size of the step-down pully and the distance between each hole that is drilled around the main axel will dictate the speed of the lifter. No matter how fast or slow the main axel turns, the lifters will be synced to perform the lifts on the correct weight at the correct time. Right, left, right, left, ect...
If you can accept that two lifters can run opposite one another and be tied to the rotation of the main axel via step-down pully and belt, then that would be good enough for now, even if you can't picture this.
All this assuming, and it's a huge assumption no one in their right mind would make at this point, that this machine will work. Won't know that until the build is completed.
In a nutshell, that is the motor. A maintained ratio of falling weights to the one being lifted/reset that is great enough to produce/release more energy than the lifter requires, is the principal
Any questions or comments?
When this smaller axel turns, the lifters go up and down. I say lifters because there are 2 lifters on this small axel. Each lifter runs opposite the other. When right side is rising, the left is dropping back down. They are always opposite, one going up while the other is going down. Lifters of this type were used a long time ago on steam engines, I believe, before cylinders were developed, if I remember correctly. (Yes, there are more efficient lifters out there, but this type seems better suited for DIY replication.)
Why 2 lifters instead of one? Because if there is only one lifter, it's going to have to perform the lift, then go back down BEFORE the next rod reaches it in need of a lift/reset. By using 2 lifters, we can cut the speed the lifter needs to run in half. Less speed translates to less power required to run the lifter. The first lifter can begin to come back down as the second lifter begins to rise/reset the next weight that just reached the 6 o'clock position.
It is absolutely imperative that the machine complete a lift and get the weight reset and actively falling before the next weight/rod reaches the lifter. One weight at a time is the only chance this machine has at OU. This is what will give a ratio of falling weights to the one weight being lifted. The idea is to out weigh the lift with falling weights by as much as possible. Further, if that ratio is to remain unchanged indefinitely, the lifted/reset weight must be back in play and actively falling (actively contributing energy to rotation) before the next lift. One weight goes into play (reset) at the same time as the next weight goes out of play (needs lift/reset) while all other weights fall out of phase with one another. Maintained ratio that does not fluctuate. Every weight overbalanced on one side with the exception of just one that is being reset. Since there can be only one getting reset at a time while every other weight on the machine is contributing power. There has to be a ratio that not only supplies enough power to perform the lift, but supplies more than required for the lift, leaving an excess for useful work above running itself. in a 100 to 1 ratio, one weight is getting lifted while 99 other weights fall. That ratio has a very good chance of releasing more energy than the lifter requires. If you put 1 pound on the end of each 6 foot rod and do a 1 foot lift, you should be doing a 2 pound lift (rod has 2 weights) of 1 foot and have 99 pounds falling 7 feet at a 1 foot overbalance. Seems like that much weight falling should be enough to cover the lift, during the moment, with excess energy left over for useful work above & beyond performing the lift. Whatever that excess might be, that would be how much energy the machine produces moment-to-moment. The ratio wouldn't fluctuate because one weight goes back into play to become one of the 99 falling weights at the same time another weight falls out of play and begins its lift/reset. It's that maintained ratio that should avoid multiplying the loss when adding more weights to the machine.
The rods will be drilled through the main axel in a staggered spiral pattern. With a spiral pattern, it is only possible for one weight to reach its lowest position at a time. A staggered spiral pattern means the first hole is drilled on right side of the axel, and the next is drilled on the left, and so on. This makes the weights reach their lowest position on one side above the corresponding lifter, then the next reaches the lowest position on the opposite side, above the other lifter.
To picture the lifters, hold your hands in front of your chest, palms up, fingertips to fingertips. Raise one hand and at the same time, lower the other at the same speed. Next, reverse it and make them go the other way, so one is rising as the other is lowering. Do that several times and you will be mimicking the lifters on this machine.
Timing is achieved by linking the operation of the lifters to the main axel; the big one with all the rods through it. The size of the step-down pully and the distance between each hole that is drilled around the main axel will dictate the speed of the lifter. No matter how fast or slow the main axel turns, the lifters will be synced to perform the lifts on the correct weight at the correct time. Right, left, right, left, ect...
If you can accept that two lifters can run opposite one another and be tied to the rotation of the main axel via step-down pully and belt, then that would be good enough for now, even if you can't picture this.
All this assuming, and it's a huge assumption no one in their right mind would make at this point, that this machine will work. Won't know that until the build is completed.
In a nutshell, that is the motor. A maintained ratio of falling weights to the one being lifted/reset that is great enough to produce/release more energy than the lifter requires, is the principal
Any questions or comments?
-
Mangyhyena
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:21 pm
Oh, one more visual image for you, since it doesn't look like I explained this very well. If you drew a red line from hole to hole along the axel and then spun the axel, it would look similar to a barber shop pole, only horizontal rather than vertical.
Because each successive hole is drilled on the opposite side of the axel, two spiral lines would appear to wind from each end of the axel and meet in the middle when the axel is turning.
All right, that does it for now. I've got to be at work in 3 hours, so I'm off to sleep. (another sleepless night due to free energy bug. Fabulous.)
Any questions, comments, or challenges are welcome, though I'd appreciate it if the challenge remains respectful. I'm fully willing to see reason if you can explain why a maintained ratio will still multiply the loss from the lifter to a degree so great the total loss is more than the total gain.
Thank you for looking this over. Much appreciated. Use whatever you like out of this post toward your own design, or nothing at all. I wish you nothing but good fortune in your quest for a better future.
Because each successive hole is drilled on the opposite side of the axel, two spiral lines would appear to wind from each end of the axel and meet in the middle when the axel is turning.
All right, that does it for now. I've got to be at work in 3 hours, so I'm off to sleep. (another sleepless night due to free energy bug. Fabulous.)
Any questions, comments, or challenges are welcome, though I'd appreciate it if the challenge remains respectful. I'm fully willing to see reason if you can explain why a maintained ratio will still multiply the loss from the lifter to a degree so great the total loss is more than the total gain.
Thank you for looking this over. Much appreciated. Use whatever you like out of this post toward your own design, or nothing at all. I wish you nothing but good fortune in your quest for a better future.
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: Mechanism for consideration
Dear Mangyhyena,
You missed some important old posts, in particular:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 884f#65228
You missed some important old posts, in particular:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 884f#65228
But there are several other successful concepts (I agree with you on this point).As indicated in the title of the thread, I wrote:A double parametric pendulum, linked to a seesaw axle, could be the solution...
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
re: Mechanism for consideration
i can almost picture it :)
-
Mangyhyena
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:21 pm
Thanks, pathfinder. (good screen name for this theme)
I read that thread. I can't say I understood every drawing perfectly, but I think I got the just of it. I'll take another closer look after I get off work.
A rolling cam in the middle might be another mechanical means of shifting the rods in the machine I'm describing. That would eliminate the need for the second axel/lifter and get the same overbalance result. I'll have to think that over.
I will attempt to get a drawing or two uploaded for a visual explanation. I'm not experienced with digitizing images and posting them, so be patient while I figure it out.
I read that thread. I can't say I understood every drawing perfectly, but I think I got the just of it. I'll take another closer look after I get off work.
A rolling cam in the middle might be another mechanical means of shifting the rods in the machine I'm describing. That would eliminate the need for the second axel/lifter and get the same overbalance result. I'll have to think that over.
I will attempt to get a drawing or two uploaded for a visual explanation. I'm not experienced with digitizing images and posting them, so be patient while I figure it out.
-
Unbalanced
- Aficionado
- Posts: 672
- Joined: Thu Dec 04, 2008 6:53 pm
- Location: Bend, OR
re: Mechanism for consideration
Good Day Mangyhyena,
Even the simplest of paint programs can be used to good advantage. I hope that you can take the time to draw this concept and post it here.
Even the simplest of paint programs can be used to good advantage. I hope that you can take the time to draw this concept and post it here.
re: Mechanism for consideration
Hi Mangyhyena,
If I understand your design correctly, it is very similar to one I am currently working on.
I noticed in your post that you want to run your weighted rods through the main axle. This will create torque but you will not get any " free fall " acceleration. The rods will turn at the same rate as the axle which is constantly being used to reset the rods.
You could create a free fall system by going outside the axle< a gap section in the middle of the rods and then hung on the axle>
with the system you describe, I don't think the arm length will matter. The torque will be determined by the offset. Take a ruler and balance it on your finger with a quarter at each end. Now move your finger 1/2 inch and you will have a 1 inch offset. Take a third quarter and put it on the short arm to create balance. The distance from the pivot point to the third quarter will be the same as the offset and the amount of torque you are creating. repeat with a yard stick.
It will also be difficult to use 100 weights/50 rods in a system like this as each weight has to be lifted per cycle< yes you lift 2 at a time but you have to do it twice per cycle>. Take the 360 degrees and divide by number of weights and thats how many degrees of rotation your lifter will have per weight.
Using less rods<2-4> will give the lifter more time to complete its job. imho
Sorry, I just reread this and it sounds very negative but I am actually working on something very similar and believe this type of design should be explored further.
If I understand your design correctly, it is very similar to one I am currently working on.
I noticed in your post that you want to run your weighted rods through the main axle. This will create torque but you will not get any " free fall " acceleration. The rods will turn at the same rate as the axle which is constantly being used to reset the rods.
You could create a free fall system by going outside the axle< a gap section in the middle of the rods and then hung on the axle>
with the system you describe, I don't think the arm length will matter. The torque will be determined by the offset. Take a ruler and balance it on your finger with a quarter at each end. Now move your finger 1/2 inch and you will have a 1 inch offset. Take a third quarter and put it on the short arm to create balance. The distance from the pivot point to the third quarter will be the same as the offset and the amount of torque you are creating. repeat with a yard stick.
It will also be difficult to use 100 weights/50 rods in a system like this as each weight has to be lifted per cycle< yes you lift 2 at a time but you have to do it twice per cycle>. Take the 360 degrees and divide by number of weights and thats how many degrees of rotation your lifter will have per weight.
Using less rods<2-4> will give the lifter more time to complete its job. imho
Sorry, I just reread this and it sounds very negative but I am actually working on something very similar and believe this type of design should be explored further.
-
Mangyhyena
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:21 pm
zog420, your reply doesn't sound negative. You are stating facts, not downing the whole notion.
The weights do need to be reset twice per revolution. While the main axel would not spin very fast, the lifter beneath it would be moving very fast. It may not work, I'll admit. However, I saw elements in the design I hadn't seen incorporated in other gravity/overbalance attempts I've seen so far and thought they should be explored a bit by folks smarter than I.
The rod through the center of the axel was just a mechanical means to shift both weights with one lift/motion. I found it interesting that the distance of that lift dictated the extent of overbalance, rather than the distance of the fall. The distance of the fall is dictated by the length of the rod, which shouldn't place affect the power requirement as much as attempting to lift one weight all the way to the top height. I figured the lifting of 2 pounds 1 foot would be roughly equivalent to lifting 1 pound 2 feet. And the speed requirement to lift, say, 1 pound six feet really adds to the power requirement. With a rod between two weights, the distance of the lift is shorter to get that top weight 6 feet up and the speed requirement can be met by limiting the distance of the lift. But, you're right, the overbalance aspect may cancel any gains using the rod and 2 weights.
If you see anything in this design that might help you get your motor going, run with it. That's why I posted it on a public forum. Using some variation of this lift technique to drop the weight onto a seperate motor is an interesting idea. Might work better like that.
The other thing I saw in this design was that it handled the weights one lift at a time, leaving all other weights actively falling/releasing energy. The power to perform the lift has to come from somewhere and I was hoping it could come from all those other weights. If the ratio of falling weights to the one being lifted, in that moment, remained the same at all times, I was hoping there would be a point where the lift was so outweighed by the falling weights, in the moment of lift, that the energy would be available to perform the lift. If the ratio were maintained, then no matter how many lifts it had to make per rotation, the required energy would be available.
That was my thinking. I'm aware others have been at this a lot longer than me and would be able to see flaws in this idea. No offense taken at all. My goal is the release of free energy to the public. I don't care who accomplishes that, who gets credit, or which motor design gets the job done, or which abundant energy source is used.
Like I said, if this sparks an idea that leads to success, then it was worth posting.
The weights do need to be reset twice per revolution. While the main axel would not spin very fast, the lifter beneath it would be moving very fast. It may not work, I'll admit. However, I saw elements in the design I hadn't seen incorporated in other gravity/overbalance attempts I've seen so far and thought they should be explored a bit by folks smarter than I.
The rod through the center of the axel was just a mechanical means to shift both weights with one lift/motion. I found it interesting that the distance of that lift dictated the extent of overbalance, rather than the distance of the fall. The distance of the fall is dictated by the length of the rod, which shouldn't place affect the power requirement as much as attempting to lift one weight all the way to the top height. I figured the lifting of 2 pounds 1 foot would be roughly equivalent to lifting 1 pound 2 feet. And the speed requirement to lift, say, 1 pound six feet really adds to the power requirement. With a rod between two weights, the distance of the lift is shorter to get that top weight 6 feet up and the speed requirement can be met by limiting the distance of the lift. But, you're right, the overbalance aspect may cancel any gains using the rod and 2 weights.
If you see anything in this design that might help you get your motor going, run with it. That's why I posted it on a public forum. Using some variation of this lift technique to drop the weight onto a seperate motor is an interesting idea. Might work better like that.
The other thing I saw in this design was that it handled the weights one lift at a time, leaving all other weights actively falling/releasing energy. The power to perform the lift has to come from somewhere and I was hoping it could come from all those other weights. If the ratio of falling weights to the one being lifted, in that moment, remained the same at all times, I was hoping there would be a point where the lift was so outweighed by the falling weights, in the moment of lift, that the energy would be available to perform the lift. If the ratio were maintained, then no matter how many lifts it had to make per rotation, the required energy would be available.
That was my thinking. I'm aware others have been at this a lot longer than me and would be able to see flaws in this idea. No offense taken at all. My goal is the release of free energy to the public. I don't care who accomplishes that, who gets credit, or which motor design gets the job done, or which abundant energy source is used.
Like I said, if this sparks an idea that leads to success, then it was worth posting.
-
Mangyhyena
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 28
- Joined: Wed Apr 11, 2012 8:21 pm
Another question that occurs to me is about the momentum. If the rod is moving in time with the axel, would the act of lifting it nullify that momentum? If not, wouldn't the top weight that was just reset start its fall with that extra energy transfered up to the top? If the lift were performed similar to a cue ball smacking another pool ball, it seems like the momentum/centrifugal force would be transfered from the bottom to the top, where it could add energy to the fall. Maybe. Or not.
I saw a YouTube video of a man's gravity motor. It had just two poles of equal length on a wheel, a weight at the end of each pole. Of course, a shroud was over the moving parts that were within the pole and the covers over the weights, so we couldn't see how he was achieving this, mechanically. I suspect he was shifting the top and bottom weight up when the poles were vertical. (6 and 12 o' clock position). It ran pretty fast and slowed slightly in that position. Looking at it reminded me of that carnival ride; the salt and pepper shaker.
In any case, I thought this machine I proposed and his might operate in a similar manner, assuming he wasn't perpetrating a hoax.
I saw a YouTube video of a man's gravity motor. It had just two poles of equal length on a wheel, a weight at the end of each pole. Of course, a shroud was over the moving parts that were within the pole and the covers over the weights, so we couldn't see how he was achieving this, mechanically. I suspect he was shifting the top and bottom weight up when the poles were vertical. (6 and 12 o' clock position). It ran pretty fast and slowed slightly in that position. Looking at it reminded me of that carnival ride; the salt and pepper shaker.
In any case, I thought this machine I proposed and his might operate in a similar manner, assuming he wasn't perpetrating a hoax.