Idea based on Pequades momentum theory

[greendoor]

I'd love to see you succeed Nick. The physics laws that have been broken and how it works can be argued about long after the event. I suspect that if it works the basic reason will be the same principles that Pequaide has given. But it isn't really a competition. Anything that truly flings a ball higher than it needs to fall from will be a winner.

[Fletcher]

Actually IMO it is almost identical Nick.

Scenario One - you have a flywheel & one tethered mass that acts as the overbalance causing the flywheel to rotate as it falls & pulls the flywheel - the mass moves to a greater radius constrained by the tether - a feedback loop results between the flywheel inertia & mass & the mass linked by the tension in the tether [they interact] - they reach equilibrium whereby the flywheel deccelerates to a stop & the mass on tether accelerates - so far with your bouncy ball experiments the height gained by the "bola" has been insufficient to get higher than its starting height at 12 o'cl therefore no gain in Pe.

Scenario Two - which you videoed, the setup was the same but you used an independent drive mass permanently attached to the flywheel - the combined masses of the bola & drive mass caused rotation of the flywheel - the bola moved to a greater radius constrained by the tether - equilibrium was reached whereby the flywheel & drive mass was deccelerated & the bola mass accelerated - in your video experiments the bola mass could not achieve greater height gain than lost by the drive mass resting position at end of experiment so no Pe gain.

Scenario One is the encapsulated essence of the pequaide, greendoor, broli discussions - there they proposed a heavy flywheel to develop momentum & attaching by tether(s) either a single bola, or two bolas with a permanently attached drive weight to cause imbalance & rotation of the flywheel as one bola would - pequiade showed the atwoods experiments [essentially two elevator cars around a pulley with mass] to differentiate the linear momentum from the angular momentum of a heavy flywheel but IMO the result is the same as a single heavy balanced flywheel - next pequiade showed his cylinder & sphere's experiments with dual bola deployment - the cylinder was the flywheel approximation - he had to give the cylinder rotational velocity by hand spinning it - this energy input was to be automated by replacing muscle energy with a drive mass attached to the flywheel - the idea was that the drive mass would accelerate the flywheel deploying the tethered dual bolas which would move to a greater radius thus deccelerating the flywheel & drive mass to a stop & accelerating the bolas to maximum velocity i.e. equilibrium was to be reached between the components - it was hoped that knowing the velocity of one bola mass it would be able to calculate the vertical height that bola could achieve if released - from there calculate the new Pe's for all masses & see if there was a surplus of Pe over & above starting conditions - pequaides math showed that provided complete or near complete transfer occurred then theoretically the released bola should launch into low orbit - the alternate hypothesis was that low orbit would not result & there'd be no gain in Pe overall - putting all those components into one apparatus to test the theory & validity of the math pequiade uses is the issue in order to resolve whose theoretical analysis is correct.

So, sorry for the long winded explanation but as you can see there is much synchronicity between your experiments & pequaides experiments & theory, enough for them to be fundamentally identical in approach & why they are often talked about in the same breath.

[pequaide]

Yes: my machines are inside also. But the big one does not move so easily. I will probably have to make a tent for it.

[pequaide]

The stand; just some ideas I don't mean to interfere with your diligent work.

[broli]

Good to see you're still working on it Peq. With that size you can bombard the moon.

[path_finder]

Dear pequaide,
Be careful, you are starting small but the tentation is coming very fast for a bigger unit.
Like Aldo Costa?: here http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... vity_Motor
or like the Chernobyl russian DUGA 2 Woodpeeker? here:http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2008 ... chernobyl/
In any case, thanks for sharing.

[nicbordeaux]

Very nice work perquaide. That alloy (or is it steel ?) wheel you have on the outside frame is a work of art.

Fletcher : by using a variable rim (that means a bike wheel with a quarter of another rim hinged on it and with a compression spring), using a line clip which will let go at force "x" and a load of loose coiled line behind that, a ball can be flung a mighty height. But what's the point ? Nobody would (could) accept OU if there is any, because of the change in dia of the wheel. once you get into CF and other stuff, you're shot. Sure, on the alternative enrgy forums you'd get a bit of attention, but the scientists would tear you apart.

Regarding the ratchet mech some people have discussed apparantly, easiest is to get hold of an old fixed spool reel, remove cover, unscrew brake nut, remove axis complete with washers, put back spool and washers and brake nut very loosely screwed, hey presto you have a two way ratchet spool on a long axle. If it's an anti-return system you need (same as a one way ratchet but full block), that also comes with the reel :-) This gear (the ratchet spool) is another way of forcing the flung mass to do what you want, even if it is ultimately less effective than the line clip stuff.

[Fletcher]

I don't think so Nick - IMO, Cf's are conservative but who cares - fling the weight vertically, calculate how much of that extra gain in Pe must be used to reset initial start conditions i.e. arms in close - if there is Pe left over you have a winner.

[FunWithGravity2]

Dear pequaide,
Be careful, you are starting small but the tentation is coming very fast for a bigger unit.
Like Aldo Costa?: here http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... vity_Motor
or like the Chernobyl russian DUGA 2 Woodpeeker? here:http://englishrussia.com/index.php/2008 ... chernobyl/
In any case, thanks for sharing.

Peq, not to worry yo know what your doing, Path, IMHO size is important(no jokes intended) With the designs such as those based around the principles that Peq has presented to us in the past the larger the wheel the easeir it will be to contol the movement and its speed. The smaller wheels would work but the precision and balancing that would be required to find the sweet spot would be tough to pinpoint. As you get larger its easier to use correctly proportinate weights to match the correct moments of iertia and timing. But that is my 2 cents. I have a test rig outdoors like the wooden frame that peq has shown and use it to test POP when the trying to graph changes over size variations. If hes building a wheel that large i give him all the credit for that he deserves. IMHO the bigger you go the easier it will be (for seeing what happens)

Peq, where are you, my yard looks the same (last month) are those oak trees?


Crazy Dave

[greendoor]

Nobody would (could) accept OU if there is any, because of the change in dia of the wheel. once you get into CF and other stuff, you're shot. Sure, on the alternative enrgy forums you'd get a bit of attention, but the scientists would tear you apart.

I disagree. If the device can fling a mass higher than it needs to fall to reset the device, they will just have to eat their hats and STFU for a change.

Part of my need to understand what is wrong with conservative physics is because I want to have a heads up on the confusion that will reign when one of these devices actually works.

This will be a very interesting point in history - but I sincerely believe that this would be returning to the point in history that Bessler was at. Newton and those around him could have paid much more attention to Bessler at that time, but they chose the path they chose - i'm guessing in arrogance as much as ignorance. Or dare I say it, vested interests may have conspired to pervert the course of history.

[pequaide]

Your two cents is right on; Fun with Gravity. That is pretty much exactly why I built the big wheel. I am trying for a gear ratio of about 20 to one. If my hand crank is moving 1 m/sec then the blue rim will be moving 20 m/sec. It should be easy to hold a uniform speed for the rim (I have a tachometer). Then I can release straight up and measure hang time. I do not own the adjoining farm land, besides I would need about a mile of it.

The little wheel is Aluminum alloy but it is weighted. It can launch BB bags to the tops of the trees; probably around 80 feet.