energy producing experiments

[pequaide]

Fletcher: if you really want to work with the project, please answer this question.

You have 6 one kilogram masses moving in a straight line at one meter per second. You take all the motion of those six masses and give it to one of those masses. Ask your computer what is conserved. If you can’t trust your computer with this how can you trust it with anything.

[broli]

According to my math most setups reach 500% overunity in the first second. After that you have to theoretically wait infinitely long before the speed reaches the desired linear conservation speed.

I cannot say that this is fully accurate. Because I had to use a numerical solution for the differential equation which Mathematica couldn't solve analytical.

A resetting mechanism can be tricky. The most naive method is to have the conserved momentum mass drag something with it that winds up a rotational spring of the main wheel sufficiently. After that is done a little more energy is left ie speed of the mass so it can bounce against some spring at the end of its radial path and come back and restart the process.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher: if you really want to work with the project, please answer this question.

You have 6 one kilogram masses moving in a straight line at one meter per second. You take all the motion of those six masses and give it to one of those masses. Ask your computer what is conserved. If you can’t trust your computer with this how can you trust it with anything.

Note: that the system CoM lowers - if I move the stopper further down so that the parallelogram travels further then more work can get done & it flings the 1 kg weight higher still - even at max distance traveled by the drive weights & lever the system CoM never gets higher [gains Pe] than it started at, which was the zero datum - next I'll try a spring recoil system - an alternative would be to use a pendulum arrangement like a Newton's cradle.

P.S. initial velocities of -1.0 m/s were entered into the Properties box > Vy so that all the 6 weights started immediately with a velocity of 1 m/s as requested.

There are no losses in the sim & it is default & optimal so is overstating the likely result, IMO.

N.B. I would expect that if momentum were an OU energy source to see the system CoM raise up above its starting position !!!!

[Fletcher]

6 weights traveling vertically - comparison between using ordinary spring element [no losses] & dampened spring element [losses built in like the real world].

N.B. all momentum is given back to the system - best case scenario no loss in system CoM - if drive weights were to be locked at bottom of travel you would need a way to use their energy to input into the top weight - at the moment they all drive upwards again - if 5 weights remained at the bottom of travel the system CoM would get lowered.

If you want something different pequiade or I haven't captured the essence of what you are proposing draw a picture & someone here will see what they can do I'm sure !

EDIT : at this time I can't think of a mechanical system i.e. how to use 6 weights falling to put all their effort into raising the top weight, using the recoil system - perhaps someone else can suggest a practical method - one of the builders perhaps ? Gotta get some work done !

[pequaide]

The six masses are moving horizontally.

You have 6 one kilogram masses moving in a straight line at one meter per second. You take all the motion of those six masses and give it to one of those masses. Ask your computer what is conserved. If you can’t trust your computer with this how can you trust it with anything.

[Fletcher]

Broli might like to play with this one pequiade !

The weights in convoy must get their motion & velocity from somewhere - usually this is via a pendulum arrangement where gravity causes acceleration & they loose height & Pe - here I have just applied an initiation force & then used a force to stop the single weight - otherwise a pendulum setup would be much like the ballistic pendulum setup & the 6 weights would swing down & via the catch & shunt mech swing a single weight up a high as it could go - then we would know its Pe afterwards - all of system CoM could also be measured to see if there was a raising of Pe.

In reality it is very hard to have a catch, release & shunt mech where 6 balls all stop & 1 accelerates - Newton's cradle [for example] transfers momentum for 1 ball to 1 end ball or say 2 balls to 2 balls.

N.B. these sims have no additional losses factored in other than default values & no air resistance, therefore are somewhat optimal peformance [according to the program].

A builder with experience may give their opinion about how likely any of this is in reality ?

[greendoor]

Pequaide - I was willing to give Fletcher the benefit of the doubt, but now I really think he is being deliberately obtuse. For what reasons, I can only guess.

Fletcher - WTF!!?? You are simply ignoring and dismissing everything pequaide is patiently explaining. Why are you going out of your way to smear this whole thing in confusion & disinformation ...

For the benefit of onlookers who might wonder what is going on - it would be wise to ignore anything Fletcher has contributed to this thread, because he appears to have an agenda to pervert the basic idea. In my opinion, Pequaides basic idea is probably the closest thing to Bessler's secret that has ever been disclosed. Pequaide has been more than polite and patient - I'm sorry, my politeness & patience has just depleted.

I'll try to explain this concept in terms that even a pig-ignorant Kiwi might be able to understand. Later ...

[greendoor]

On second thoughts - why bother.

N.B. I would expect that if momentum were an OU energy source to see the system CoM raise up above its starting position !!!!

This is the kind of pig ignorance that really annoys me. Fletcher is demonstrating several things in this sentence:

1 - he has no clue about Pequaides principle of operation (or he is deliberately spreading confusion & disinformation - which suggests he knows this will work, and has an agenda to smear this for whatever motive).
2 - he is going into this with absolutely no expection this could work
3 - he appears to be going out of his way to devise mechanisms that skip the essential core steps

Nobody is suggesting that "momentum is an OU energy source "! If Fletcher genuinely believes that this is what Pequaide is proposing, he is wilfully ignorant. Or spreading confusion & disinformation and trying to make Pequaide look stupid.

I can't believe this guy! I expect the site admin will have to ban me if I say what I really want to say. But I honestly think that this is wilfull sabotage of a passive resistance type. IF there are conspirators with vested interests in suppressing free energy - would they behave like Fletcher? Would they be paid to frequent free energy sites, and try to waste time and divert attention and screw up the most promising ideas??

In case there is any genuine inquirers reading this thread - it should be fairly obvious by now that nobody is proposing that Momentum is a source of over unity or free energy. Momentum is mass in motion, and ultimately any successful Bessler wheel is all about mass in motion. We can never get away from momentum.

But to suggest that we are trying to get anything for free out of momentum is just ignorant. To propose designs that deliberately side-step everything Pequaide is suggesting is just ignorant. To continue to base arguments on a buggy and problematic piece of software is ignorant. To avoid testing the software with a simple and obvious test is ignorant.

There is more than enough truth in this thread to get a serious Wheel builder on the right track - in my opinion. As long as you ignore anything Fletcher has thrown at it.

I think I will take a long break from this site. If that was Fletchers intention, I guess he's succeeded.

So long for now. It's been fun. Let's hope that if I come back, i'll have some working proof of concept.

I'm keen to present my own solution to the gravity powered free energy problem. I'm fairly sure I have the Bessler secret, but I can see that anything short of a running wheel will fall on deaf ears.

I can see this is probably not the forum to release running wheel. I would be interested in any arguments to convince me otherwise, but not in this thread.

[pequaide]

You are correct Greendoor. Fletcher is evading a very simple question that a high school student could do in his head.

Question: You have 6 one kilogram masses moving horizontally in a straight line at one meter per second. You take all the motion of those six masses and give it to one of those masses. Ask your computer what is conserved. If you can’t trust your computer with this how can you trust it with anything?

Fletcher is avoiding the question because the answer does not fit his conceptual frame work.

The answer of course is 6 m/sec, but at 6 m/sec the energy of the system increases six fold. ½ * 6 kg * 1 m/sec *1 m/sec = 3 joules; and ½ * 1 kg * 6 m/sec * 6 m/sec = 18 joules.

Then Fletcher has the audacity to say “A builder with experience may give their opinion about how likely any of this is in reality?�

Fletcher knows that I claim to have done something identical to the 6 to 1 transfer hundreds of times. I have given dozens of pictures, a video, sighted NASA doing it, and given detailed descriptions on how to build $25 machines that can do it. Then Fletcher has the impertinence to imply that the 6 to 1 transfer can’t be done.

It amazes me that on a site dedicated to investigating a free energy source; that some people refuse to look into a cheap, simple, and clean method of making energy.

I agree with you Greendoor “it would be wise to ignore anything Fletcher has contributed to this thread, because he appears to have an agenda to pervert the basic idea.

[Fletcher]

LOL, sort it out yourselves guys !

[ruggerodk]

The dog creeps out of his kennel
just as far as his chain will stretch.
He knows how to please by playing
with his toys and knick-knacks.
He wags his tail, creeps through the hoop,
and is rewarded with a pat on the paws
by the stiff fops who watch him.

I believe Bessler chooses his words very carefully ...

The public CityBus of Copenhagen (HT) has a logo that people allways associated with a Dog (an icon of a Fox Terrier).

It also reminds me of a Jack's Toy...and a Seesaw.

With a little help from my graphic mind (and Photoshop) it could very well fit the Bessler quote.
(see drawing)

But: What is going to 'pat' the Pawns?
– maybe the circle (rim) itself?
Or are the 'Stiff Fops' just stationary Pins?

And what are in dog's mouth/teeth?

regards
ruggero ;-)

[JohnnyD]

And doesn't this look like the see saw men on the toys page....

JohnnyD

[ruggerodk]

Exactly JohnnyD,

And think about the Anvil-Quote...
Maybe we are NOT supposed to make the prime-mover turn more than a seesaw...?

(see drawing)

regards
ruggero ‚-]

[jim_mich]

Question: You have 6 one kilogram masses moving horizontally in a straight line at one meter per second. You take all the motion of those six masses and give it to one of those masses.
(snip)
The answer of course is 6 m/sec, but at 6 m/sec the energy of the system increases six fold. ½ * 6 kg * 1 m/sec *1 m/sec = 3 joules; and ½ * 1 kg * 6 m/sec * 6 m/sec = 18 joules.

Pequaide is right and Fletcher is right. Let's see if I can explain this in very simple terms. Momentum is additive motion. If you take the motion (momentum) of the six masses and transfer them to the one mass then the motion speed will be 6 times. The available kinetic energy will increase six times. In most all cases when the motion of six masses is transferred to one mass the motion will NOT be a speed of six times. It all has to do with HOW the motion gets transferred. To transfer motion requires force. Force usually requires something to push against AND something to push off from. After the first mass transfers its motion to the single mass then the second 1 kilogram mass must push for a greater distance and greater speed because the single mass is now moving away. As each one kilogram mass tries to add its motion to the single mass the mass is moving even faster away. In the end conservation of kinetic energy is maintained in most all situations where someone tries to transfer the motion momentum from a number of weights to a single weight.

Computer software uses conservation of energy to model most all motion except for collisions. Such motion is almost always the result of leverage in one form or another. For collisions it uses conservation of momentum. Fletcher is correct that the results will thus mimic real life situation in most all cases.

Pequaide shows a situation where momentum motion gets transferred from a heavier mass to a lighter mass by way of inertia. This results in a gain of kinetic energy. Please always remember that kinetic energy is fictitious energy that is simply the result of the motion of one object relative to another object and it depends upon the speed difference of the two objects. It is derived from the fact that in order to speed up (or to slow down) a moving object an ever increasing amount of force and time is needed. This is because the force must push off from a stationary object (usually the Earth) that is moving (relatively) away from the object being pushed.

Pequaide shows the extra kinetic energy after weights move outward. The real problem is that when anyone attempts to extract this extra gained kinetic energy from the motion of moving weights the extracted energy reduces back down to the same energy as at the start or it requires the same energy as is harnessed to move the weights back to a start position and speed. It has been stated here that it should be easy to harness the extra energy brought about by the increased speed of faster moving weight. If someone thinks that this is an easy solution then PLEASE show all of us HOW it can be done so that we can close the loop and the system can cycle again while producing extra free energy. So far, many people have tried and to my knowledge all have failed, except maybe Bessler.

This is NOT a new idea. The extra energy of faster moving weights has been known for hundreds of years. But so far no one has been able to harness this energy in such a way as to close the cycle and cause perpetual motion. Pequaide and others here have implied that it should be easy. If it is so easy then why hasn't someone done it already?

[broli]

For now it's enough to prove without a shadow of a doubt that one can experimentally show momentum is conserved. As pequaide keeps mentioning, this is not hard. A wheel of known moment of inertial and a weight that can increase its radius on the wheel are enough. You give the system a certain amount of initial energy and release the weight in the sytem and measure its velocity as its radius is increasing. This velocity and its mass will give you the amount of kinetic energy it has.

Then a comparison can be made of this experimentally obtained speed between energy conservation and momentum conservation. If after repeated experiments and making sure no mistake was made in initial values then one can conclude energy was created.

The setup is quite primitive, there's really no excuse to ignore this besides ignorance.

As a side note. You can use any complex wheel you have. You can find the moment of inertia of any wheel through some experiments. You then use this value in the I=mr^2 formula and solve for r. Where m is the mass of the wheel which you can find using a scale. So r=sqrt(I/m).

Now what does this r tell us? Well if we replaced our wheel by a single mass this would be its radius. Measuring the initial angular speed with a RPM meter and using this r we can find a "virtual" velocity, v=w*r.

Finally multiplying by the mass of the wheel we get the linear momentum of the wheel. This all is used in the above comparison as we would be able to predict the final velocity based off these values.