OLD IDEAS THat worked

[james kelly]

ACTUALLY THat should be AXLETREE Dynamo jim kelly

[cw]

GO to axle tree .com---- there is a working unit,with complete instructions on building it. build it It works.

Jim Kelly,

Thanks for the heads up, the "axletree" machine certainly looks interesting. Have you actually built it yourself? Or do you know somebody that built one?

cw

[Jonathan]

I think your question is irrelevant cw, because the device there doesn't work. Clearly jim kelly is a nut like all the others. Like Bill said, if you have a working design, then the old wind/water/sun FE systems don't matter. If you have a working design, completely different unworking designs don't matter either. I don't understand why he is even at this forum, he doesn't want to tell anyone the details. The time spent writing pointless messages would be better spent finishing his worthless device.
http://www.stoptellingustobe.com/axletree/

[ken_behrendt]

Ralph wrote:

Although my version did not work, that still does not, to my thinking justify that Jim's early versions did or did not work.

I can only assume by this that you made various modifications to James' design...perhaps to simplify its construction. However, I am sure that you would not have made changes that would interfer with the device's basic principle of operation. The fact, that you could not get it to work is, I must confess, somewhat troubling. But, as you point out, that does not necessarily mean that the original device did not work.

I just hope that this design does not wind up becoming permanently "lost" like so many others have over the centuries...


ken

[james kelly]

NOW that I have been treated so graciously. I have been called many things. The last Thing I was called was a nut. I may Be , but I am not stupid. One of the units that I quickly put together, Ralph told me it wouldn't work. I built it in a few hours and just as Ralph said ;"It DIDN'T work." I remove myself from this forum and will not write anymore. All of you can have big heehaws, JAMES l. kELLY

[ovyyus]

My "big heehaw" will come on the day someone can make a sensible post that explains their "working design" without all the cloak-and-dagger beating-around-the-bush but ending-up-with-less-than-nothing bullshit.

James' silly response with that dopey axletree design, which has been around for ages and clearly doesn't work, makes me want to agree with Jonathan's harsh yet fair conclusion.

wHY wOULD YOU Want to invovle Ralph?

Answer - because Ralph can at least respond to questions with some clarity and reason. Goodbye and good luck James Kelly.

[ken_behrendt]

James...

I do hope that, despite some negative comments, you will not give up on this Discussion Board. If you have a working design, then I'm sure that you remaining active here would only enhance its replication and dissemination to the world.

Your suggestion to go to Axletree.com to view their dynamo makes me suspect that your device may use some of the principles of that dynamo. I agree with other board members that the Axletree design would not be workable because as it rotates CW, its weighted arms must be raised in order to maintain its CG on the right side of the axle. Yes, I know that the magnetic bed will work so that there will be no physical contact between the arms and the bed surface, but that does not mean that there will be no counter torque applied to the axle that would prevent its rotation. We have all seen designs like this in the past and, whether they used magnetic replusion or rolling wheels for contact, they all were unworkable.

I would, therefore, assume that your design is substantially different from the axletree one. The only way that something similar to the axletree design could work was if the inventor figured out some way of raising the weighted arms without them making contact with any exterior surfaces or "beds" or with the axle shaft itself. If you have a working design, then I would assume that is exactly what you managed to do...

ken