energy producing experiments

[Omnibus]

@greendoor,

It's falling right into the hands of the vicious propaganda to assume this hasn't been done before. It's just propaganda that attempts to build what you call an overbalanced wheel have been futile.

As for the other possibility mentioned by you -- to lift a body at the expense of no energy reservoir higher than its initial position, only due to gravity -- you have yet to show me how such miracle can be achieved. The unbalanced wheel is the only proven possibility for perpetuum mobile.

[pequaide]

You a correct greendoor.

Greendoor quote: The principle that pequaide has given to us could perhaps be described in two parts.

A - we use heavy balanced weights to accumulate momentum by virtue of a small overbalance weight.
B - the accumulated momentum is relatively slow (compared to freefall) but massive (compared to the small overbalance weight). This momentum needs to be transfered to the small overbalance weight. If this can be done successfully with minimal losses, the result should be a large increase in velocity (because Momentum is conserved).

Your step A - could stand for Atwood’s. Search: MSU Atwood’s, this will be your first choice. www.msu.edu/~brechtjo/physics/atwood/atwood.html

See the two posts Saturday May 30th, page 13, on this thread.

It is the whole Atwood’s that accelerates but only the small mass is falling. As greendoor stated it is a Force times Time relationship, the overbalanced force is applied to the Atwood’s for a long amount of time. This is where you get your original motion.

[Omnibus]

@pequaide,

This in no way explains the appearance of excess energy which is the goal of this discussion. It was already explained that existence of a momentum to be transferred requires spending of energy from a pre-existing energy reservoir and time for that transfer is of no bearing whatsoever. Transfer of momentum is a fruitless pursuit as far as perpetuum mobile is concerned.

[greendoor]

@greendoor,

I'm afraid we'll divert the conversation if we start talking about the magnetic propulsor. I suggest that we postpone that and focus on the unbalanced wheel we're discussing here. What we need more than anything else is to have someone with a lot of practice in making fine mechanical devices instruct us how to construct it at lowest possible friction levels.

Fair enough. Although I think you will find that most of Bessler's Wheels were balanced, and could be stalled and would require a push to start.

Seriously - if your Magnetic propulsor depends on extremely low friction levels then it's probably not going to have the abundant surplus energy required to be viable. The lowest friction possible would be a magnetic bearing in a vacuum. Can you not incorporate a magnetic bearing into this magnetic device? But you are right - this isn't the thread for it.

The beauty about Bessler's Wheel is that it had so much surplus energy that the obvious friction losses (in the bearings, stampers, impact noises etc) weren't an issue.

I honestly think that the huge gains in momentum that pequaide's concept offer are in a similar league, if you size it right. The trick is being able to capture and transfer as much of that momentum. But it's possible to design such large gains that we could waste more than 50% and still have surplus energy.

I don't think the over-balanced principle you are suggesting instead can promise these gains ... I would like you to surprise me, but i'm confident that there is no gravity wheel designed on the principle you describe that could possibly work.

[Omnibus]

@greendoor,

No, the magnetic propulsor generation of excess energy doesn't depend on extremely low levels of friction but, as I said, the generation of that excess energy is discontinuous.

For a continuous generation of excess energy the friction levels are crucial and the surprise will come about only after a skillful construction of the device. Same surprise occurs when Rolls Royce produces the engine based on known principle rather than a Chinese company let alone someone like myself.

[greendoor]

@greendoor,

It's falling right into the hands of the vicious propaganda to assume this hasn't been done before. It's just propaganda that attempts to build what you call an overbalanced wheel have been futile.

As for the other possibility mentioned by you -- to lift a body at the expense of no energy reservoir higher than its initial position, only due to gravity -- you have yet to show me how such miracle can be achieved. The unbalanced wheel is the only proven possibility for perpetuum mobile.

Omnibus - I'm sorry you can't see what some of us can see. I fail to follow you logic. It makes me suspicious that you might be attempting to pervert this thread with disinformation and "vicious propaganda".

Bessler himself was adamant that classic overbalanced perpetual motion wheels are futile. He cataloged most of the possible designs better than anyone else, and proved that they don't work.

What are these "proven" perpetuum mobile that you speak of? All the historically significant gravity wheels (e.g. Bessler, the BuzzSaw Wheel) would appear to work on a different principle that seems (to me) to be much more similar to what pequaide is proposing. Specifically - all the wheels that worked seemed to use Impact - which I see as evidence of requiring a transfer of momentum.

I am not saying gravity wheels don't work. Quite the opposite - I am saying that pequaide has given us a very solid base to work on.

You appear to be rejecting this with no logical explanation, and proposing a known-to-be-flawed method with no proof to back it up. That smells fishy to me ...

You seem to be wilfully misquoting me. I did NOT suggest a way "to lift a body at the expense of no energy reservoir ". I suggest very strongly that Gravity and Time are the "energy reservoir" (to use your term) that provide a constant source of Mass Acceleration hence Momentum.

Force * Time

Consider this very carefully before you reject this for emotional (or worse) reasons.

[greendoor]

@greendoor,

No, the magnetic propulsor generation of excess energy doesn't depend on extremely low levels of friction but, as I said, the generation of that excess energy is discontinuous.

For a continuous generation of excess energy the friction levels are crucial and the surprise will come about only after a skillful construction of the device. Same surprise occurs when Rolls Royce produces the engine based on known principle rather than a Chinese company let alone someone like myself.

There is no problem at all with 'discontinuous' energy production. All internal combustion engines are examples of discontinuous power strokes.

I am fairly convinced that the Bessler Wheel developed power with many discontinuous power strokes. ("a hamer receives many blows" ...).

Let me spell this out further:

Force creates Acceleration - or we can lose that force by diverting it to earth by stressing the resisting materials. Use it or Lose it. IF we are to maximise the Force of gravity, we have to allow it to Accelerate a mass. NOT constant velocity. Anything short of Acceleration is a LOSS of g-force (for our purposes).

Obviously constant acceleration up to infinite velocity is not possible. So the implication here is that we have to allow the mass to Accelerate (probably from zero) up to the designed maximum velocity, and then Decelerate to allow a continuous production of Energy. I am suggesting that energy flows into the system while the masses accelerate, and then we use some of that power to return the overbalance mass to the top, and the surplus is consumed by friction and the load.

I see analogies between pequaide's concept and a Heat Pump. A Heat Pump uses energy input to create a cold zone. Having created a cold zone, ambient heat energy flows into the system - far more energy than was required to create the cold zone. (Not a perfect analogy - because we aren't yet making Heat Pumps self sustain. But I have 100% confidence that self sustaing Heat Pumps can be built - but that's for another forum).

I also see analogies between pequaide's concept and a Vertical Axis turbine being used to propel a vessel INTO the prevailing wind. The turbine appears to be mainly balanced, but the small difference between them is where the energy comes from.

I believe that people can have strong emotional and spiritual reasons for not wanting to deal with certain information. So I won't push this any further. If you don't want to deal with this, please don't worry about it.

[greendoor]

Before anyone points it out - yes, I'm aware that Bessler Wheels have a constant axle speed. Or as far as the witnesses of the day could ascertain with their stopwatches. Maybe the speed was oscillating but they didn't pick up on it? But basically I believe the internal masses were constantly accelerating and decelerating - with the object of raising mass higher. There would be a basic resonant frequency, like a pendulum, that this process would work at - although the wheels did slow down under load.

[Omnibus]

@greendoor,

Gravity and time are not an energy reservoir in any possible way. Only proper construction which would allow gravity to induce displacement can give rise to energy. Time is irrelevant.

The problem is that not I but you are not giving a logical explanation and are trying to replace it by just statements which aren’t even correct, as the above energy reservoir statement.

We can’t really judge as to whether or not these wheels have really worked in the past so it’s counterproductive to cite anything in that connection. What is needed is providing strict scientific arguments leading to a working device. Never mind what someone said or what one can read in the propaganda books.

[Omnibus]

@greendoor,

There is no problem at all with 'discontinuous' energy production. All internal combustion engines are examples of discontinuous power strokes.

That's incorrect. Internal combustion engines are in no way producing discontinuously excess energy, thus violating CoE.

[Omnibus]

I see analogies between pequaide's concept and a Heat Pump.

A heat pump is not perpetuum mobile and if there is such analogy in any idea then that idea should be abandoned when discussing violation of CoE and perpetuum mobile.

[greendoor]

Omnibus - please stop polluting this thread with your nonsense. Take your emotional issues elsewhere. This is pequaide's thread, and if you can't understand or deal with these concepts please just leave it alone.

I did NOT state that an Internal combustion engine producies discontinuously excess energy. You raised the issue of "discontinuous energy" as though it was some sort of obstacle to your invention. Maybe i've misunderstood what you mean by "discontinuous". I interpreted it to mean "interupted" or otherwise non-continuous. Which any reciprocating engine happens to be.

I also did not state that a heat pump is perpetual motion. I made it very clear that it wasn't - BUT - that I believe I know how to do this. That subject is for another forum. Or at the very least another thread. It's related to pre-WWII Air Car technology, and strictly speaking it is solar power which heats the ambiant air.

CoE has already violated itself. We are just exposing it.

I believe you are trying to cloud the issue with these emotional outburts. Are you paid to interupt free energy forums? Do you have a hidden agenda or vested interests that could be hurt by successful gravity wheels?

If so - your agenda would be best served by at least giving rational logical reasons why you believe pequaide's theory is wrong. I don't think you can, because I think he is right.

[pequaide]

Fletcher, you don’t consume energy if you produce more than what you put in. You do of course need motion to produce more motion.

Fletcher quote: a FE machine is an engine that consumes energy & outputs work.

[Omnibus]

@greendoor,

You'd do better not to utter qualifications.

Like I said, if you didn't mean that heat pump and the internal combustion engine are violating CoE then you shouldn't have mentioned them in this thread at all. This thread only discusses machines violating CoE through the production of excess energy which neither the internal combustion engines nor the heat pump do.

Also, it isn't true that "CoE has already violated itself." Most machines don't violate CoE. CoE can be violated only by machines of special construction under very special conditions.

[greendoor]

@greendoor,

Gravity and time are not an energy reservoir in any possible way. Only proper construction which would allow gravity to induce displacement can give rise to energy. Time is irrelevant.

The problem is that not I but you are not giving a logical explanation and are trying to replace it by just statements which aren’t even correct, as the above energy reservoir statement.

We can’t really judge as to whether or not these wheels have really worked in the past so it’s counterproductive to cite anything in that connection. What is needed is providing strict scientific arguments leading to a working device. Never mind what someone said or what one can read in the propaganda books.

Can't you see you are embarassing yourself?

You say "Gravity and time are not an energy reservoir in any possible way." But then you go on to say "Only proper construction which would allow gravity to induce displacement can give rise to energy. "

So what are you trying to say? You believe a 'properly constructed' gravity wheel would work? Is that not the same as saying that gravity is a "reservior of energy" (to use your own expression)?

You say "Time is irrelevant."

Time can never be irrelevant. Time is integral to velocity (meters per second), and Velocity is integral to Momentum & Kinetic Energy. Which ever way you look at it, Time is completely relevant.

I think this upsets you because it is too close to the truth for comfort. So let me re-irritate:

Time is the missing link in the Bessler Wheel quest.

Momentum = Force times Time. Just like a rocket thrusting for time.

A small mass freefalling X height acquires a known quantity of momentum. If we use the exact same small mass to overbalance a massive balanced beam or flywheel - the force of gravity acting on the small mass is redistributed into accelerating the Total massive system.

Force = Mass times Acceleration. Agreed? In a balanced massive system the upward & downward forces sum to zero. The force of gravity acting on a small over-balancing mass gets distributed over the total mass of the total system.

If F=MA then A=F/M

This means that the force of gravity acting on the small mass is SHARED by the total mass in the system. The Acceleration is therefore much smaller than freefall. This is why the massive balanced weights move much slower than freefall.

Due to this slower velocity, the small mass takes much LONGER to fall to earth. And the total system aquires far more momentum than the small weight alone would acquire during freefall.

It's not intuitive. Greed is an Evil Root. But by diminishing velocity we have increased the TIME it takes for the small mass to fall to earth.

Momentum = Force X Time. It's still the same Force acting on that small mass, whether it freefalls or whether it is used to accelerate a massive balanced system.

So the consequence of taking much longer TIME is that massive amounts of Momentum (Force times Time) are acquired! Far more than is necessary to return the small overbalancing weight.

Do the maths. Pequaide is right.