energy producing experiments

[greendoor]

Ralph - can I try one more time to explain why I think a similar device CAN be self sustaining.

We know the g-force acting on a mass.
We know the acceleration this will give a mass in freefall.
Therefore we know the final momentum that will be gained after freefall.
We know that (excluding small losses), this is exactly enough momentum to return a pendulum, or a perfectly elastic ball back to where it fell from.
Momentum = Velocity * Mass but it also = Force * Time.

Think about why a pendulum bob returns from 6 to 12. Exclude friction for a moment - because big picture we are looking for massive gains that far exceed friction losses.

A pendulum bob returns to 12 because it has velocity. Unless decelerated by a Force, velocity does not decrease. It is equivalent (relatively speaking) to being at rest. Perpetual Motion is a misnomer, because - relatively speaking - everything is in motion anyway. The point being - we don't have to ask what makes the pendulum bob return. It has been accelerated, and now is effectively at rest - from it's own inertial reference plane.

So the real question is "why does a pendulum bob decelerate while it returns from 6 to 12". Obviously, there is the decelerating force of gravity acting on the bob. The exact same g-force that accelerated it whilst falling from 12 to 6.

Bear with me.

We usually assume that Time is irrelevant because the Time taken to fall equals the time taken to rise. We can make clocks with pendulums. This is because we accelerate from zero to maximum velocity and back to zero. Time is balanced on both sides. The momentum aquired in freefall is all used up in opposing gravity on the ride back up.

But what if it wasn't?

What if the bob fell at a much slower rate? Momentum = Force * Time. G-force is practically constant - but increasing Time means we can increase the Momentum gained. If we want massive amounts of momentum, we can simply fall at a massively slower rate.

Provided we don't waste the Force that is. Friction braking does not apply here - that would defeat everthing (just like a restrained Bessler wheel). The conscious storage of momentum in a freely moving (stress-free) accumulator of some sort is required. A flywheel or Atwoods, etc, etc. Something with a practically unchanging CoG that does not fall and require resetting. A system in which momentum can be accumulated.

So on one side of the system we have an arrangement for accumulating momentum, powered by the fall of a small Driver weight or weights. The whole key to the excess energy available is the fact that all the g-force acting on this weight is available for much longer than it would in freefall. Since the Force is not wasted but stored, and P=FT, we end up with more momentum than an equivalent free-falling weight.

Sorry to labour this point, but it seems to go right over most people's heads. This is your free energy input right there - BUT - it is missed by everybody because of the mistaken assumption that slow velocity momentum is somewhow worth-less than the equivalent amount of high velocity momentum. Using "energy" concepts based on velocity squared will blind you to the truth of this free available energy.

Because momentum can be transformed very efficiently via impact/impulse, it should be obvious that IF we can use this massively excessive slow velocity momentum (acquired from an extended time falling with the force of gravity) for returning the small Driver weight/s, we will have an excess of momentum for use as free-energy.

How much momentum is actually required to return the small driver mass? Since P=FT, it would seem that the quicker we raise the mass, the less time would be required, therefore the less momentum would be required.

When a mass is held up against the constant force of gravity, time tends towards infinity, therefore the momentum required to hold it there tends towards infinity. If we could raise a mass instantly, Time tends towards zero, and the momentum required to raise the mass tends towards zero.

Bessler said the force he observed was used by children playing. I'm sure he was talking about kicking & bouncing balls, and playing with marbles - making small mass rise very quickly.

The historical precendent running gravity wheels (Marquis of Worcester, Bessler, Buzz Saw, etc) appear to exploit this slow-fall/fast-rise principle. Impact/Impulse is a necessary part, because without a transfer of momentum from slow/heavy to fast/light, there is no show. We are right back to trading force for height or other Perpetual Squat non-runners.

A successful wheel design will probably display:
- A heavy flywheel or balanced beams or multiple balanced beams/crossbars (suggested name: Momentum Accumulator)
- Small driver masses that overbalance the Momentum Accumulator (suggest name: Driver Mass)
- A mechanism to allow the Driver Mass to fall and slowly accelerate the Momentum Accumulator
- A mechanism to suddenly release the Driver Mass and apply all/most of the momentum from the Momentum Accumulator to the Driver Mass, sending it very quickly upwards.

I can see a device rather similar to the above proposal meeting these basic requirements.

Or I could be very wrong. Feel free to ignore any or all of this useless information.

[greendoor]

Broli - fair enough. You didn't make it very clear. It seemed to me that you were throwing out the concept of using gravity input.

I don't have much use personally for cylinders & spheres. I'm not saying they don't work, because it's fairly obvious to me that they do work. I think there are many ways to make a PM with these basic concepts.

Broli & Pequaid - sorry for any problems i've caused. I've run out of patience, basically. For Ralph at this late stage in this thread to still be saying he can't see anything useful here is shocking to me. Even Fletcher has indicated this seems very close to PM.

I'll shut up now and finish my build (which is going quite well except for freezing weather here which is thwarting my zeal and since i'm using plastic containers of water for mass, the freezing issue is a problem).

I have a device that can demonstrate fairly clearly VARIABLE excess energy output from the same mass falling the same height. This should prove to any observer the fallacy of Potential Energy.

[martin]

Greendoor, thnak you for your broad explanation. Now you made it clear for me, and I have to say there is somethin on what you are saying. I was also coming along the similiar dilema about time of faling and rising.
AM more than sure slower faling and quick lifting will be essantial part of the wheel. Bessler is also stressing that heavy weight fly upward, ..which seems to me he is pointing out velocity of rising weight.

[Michael]

That was a short vacation Greendoor. :)

[Michael]

There have been posters here who didn't want this to progress and you rightfully pointed them out but to now point your gun at me is absolutely insulting.

It's also insulting broli to label someone poorly without merit. There's a difference between not wanting to see something progress and seeing flaws to some of the reasoning.

[broli]

There have been posters here who didn't want this to progress and you rightfully pointed them out but to now point your gun at me is absolutely insulting.

It's also insulting broli to label someone poorly without merit. There's a difference between not wanting to see something progress and seeing flaws to some of the reasoning.

I guess this thread should been closed at ...

That's because coe is based in reality. You can check these facts, a physicist will often say first year physic students often confuse momentum with energy.

Screw pequaide and his experiments right?

This thread went quite fine since the moment you left so don't feel bad about yourself.

[Michael]

broli,
It's up to you then to do the real world model and test it to validate your arguments.
I did and I'm confident in mine. I can post up a picture of the real world test bed I've used and you can easily dissect it to it's many pieces, to find all of its positive attributes as well as any that could hold a valid negative argument to this bed being able to properly test, what I will call the momentum/energy hypothesis; which states that the energy equation is flawless, because it can be found in each and every system, that being, any form of entity can be realized and found.

[Fletcher]

Just build the horizontal setup [cos that's closest to pequiades original puck on an air table experiments as broli says] - then provided you can accurately measure the startup energy required, reset it & either have used the excess energy for work done [measurable] or stored it as potential [measurable] then the theory will be confirmed.

A vertical aligned experiment that uses gravity force as well can come later, since it's conservative by all accounts, it shouldn't affect the basic principle being discussed.

[FunWithGravity2]

I would be willing to assemble this device, believe it or not this thread actually seems to keep my attention for the most part. I believe you guys are on the same train as me but we are in very separate cars right now. I am in the process of taking a small POP model and enlarging it greatly . I have started with a large 300lb base, that stands 5 feet high and is designed for an axeless design. The wheel will be about 6feet diameter. Anyway, i have taken a new job that allows access to unlimited material and machine equipment, CNC's, lathes, vertical mills, plasma beds, threaders etc etc and on and on. I could very easily make what i think i see with scrap that lies around, and make it tuneable with threaded rod and moveable weights. BUT, i must say from the 2 animations/drawings i am not seeing very clearly all the motions, interactions that i would need to complete a model. I could probably experiment and figure it out but those brain cells are currenlty focused elsewhere.

If i can be given an exact dimensionalycorrect drawing, CAD or mechanical would be nice i would be very happy to assemble this for fun. IMHO it will have no extra energy, but don't assume i won't try because of that. I can also help with "that impossible" scenarios. Limitations will be when you guys all say its not working because the weights are to light but then i explain how a 1/2 rod will only hold 5-6 pounds at that distance without a horizontal sag ETC ETC. If someone can come up with an exact drawing then i'm in.

Dave

[Fletcher]

Hey Dave .. that's a generous offer - as broli pointed out earlier there are ratio's to get arms to fully deploy etc but being ratios it doesn't much matter if they are heavy of light sets etc - the ratio is what is important [including rod length to be factored in] - it may be preferable to use reasonable masses rather than very light ones [that don't require the same structural support strength] simply so that if excess usable energy is produced it can be easily identified - JMO's.

[FunWithGravity2]

I'm fine with using 1inch round rod and 15lb weights or 2 inch and 100lb weights. This will be a very skillful build with high quality materials. I just want to alleviate as many, "maybe we should have dones" before i invest my time and mterials. Ratios are ratios and i agree we should make it large enough to get "useable" figures. I need whoever is going to take on the drawing/design to figure before hand if they are wanting a certain size weights, whats the max and min adjustment we want. I don't want to make a 3 foot spinner and have this turn into, " i know it will work but the arm needs to be 15feet with that weight" etc etc

Things to consider.
Heavier the weight heavier the rod.
Longer the rod, heavier the rods.
Heavier the rod, more moving mass, other than weights.
these are not round weights impacting each other, they are rods with heavy weights attached hitting each other. The mechanis has mass to contend with.


I do not have any magic materials that aren't avialbe in mass production, no unobtaium, carbon fiber molding equipment or the like, just good old fashion DOM steel.

Someone/ or the group needs to come to some agreements as to dimension/size/ratio and then create consise drawings. I don't care if they are on a napkin but be specific.
lenght. size, weight. bearing, hollow, solid etc etc.

[greendoor]

broli,
It's up to you then to do the real world model and test it to validate your arguments.
I did and I'm confident in mine. I can post up a picture of the real world test bed I've used and you can easily dissect it to it's many pieces, to find all of its positive attributes as well as any that could hold a valid negative argument to this bed being able to properly test, what I will call the momentum/energy hypothesis; which states that the energy equation is flawless, because it can be found in each and every system, that being, any form of entity can be realized and found.

Michael - yes please. I would like to see your experiment - just a drawing of the basic principle would suffice. I would like to see if you were testing a genuine free energy principle or not.

I'm not sure what side of the fence you are sitting on. Do you believe the 'energy equation' is flawless, or not?

Equations can be mathematically flawless, and applicable to real world experiments. But sometimes a valid equation can be misapplied to other situations, based on assumptions. I would never deny that in many situations E=MV^2. In fact, this becomes self-referencing. If we say that the word "Energy" is defined as MV^2, then in all cases this has to be true. BUT - do you not think it is possible to make assumptions about when and where this concept of "Energy" should or shouldn't be applied?

Most people firmly believe that a mass falling X distance can only acquire a maximum amount of energy (ability to do work), and no more. Most people also firmly believe that this maximum amount of energy can never exceed the amount of energy invested in returning that mass to the height from whence it fell. This of course is CoE - the mantra of the brainwashed majority.

But how would you explain an experiment where the "ability to do work" of a small falling mass is obviously greatly increased by changes to a mechanical system that slow down the Time of fall?

It is perfectly explainable if you believe that Momentum = Force * Time. And if you believe that Momentum is the "ability to do work" ....

But wait - that can't be correct ... if Momentum can "do work", and Energy can "do work" - but Momentum does not equal Energy, that which one accurately quantifies this ability to "do work"?

And does it matter 1% what it's called if it can "do work" ...

[broli]

FunWithGravity2 that is a very nice offer.

I cannot tell you the specific ratios but pequaide can. He has done the small experiments so he knows what masses and radius it takes to make the heavy wheel/rim/weights stop.

We can use the data from his sphere and cylinder experiment and scale it up to a reasonable size including the headroom for adjustments in radius and mass. What I can say off the bat though is that a heavy wheel/rim/weights can be stopped by light weights if the rod length is long enough. You probably can stop 100kg with 1kg but then the rod length should be quite long. The good thing is that there's no real wrong thing one can do with this setup. The bear minimum should be 1kg for small masses in total and 10 kg for the big masses. But if the radius is made adjustable the heavy masses can increase, without increasing the small masses, and so would the net energy gain.

As for accurate cad designs I want to get an engineer in here who can help with improving the design engineering wise. The 3d animation shows a single rod stuck to a bearing, but this isn't very smart as gravity and leverage can bend the rod or axle of bearings.

If that doesn't happen I'll just crack open my old structural engineering book and do it myself. I used CAD about 7 years ago so I may be a bit rusty. But so far I had to do everything myself so this will probably be no exception.

[FunWithGravity]

Don't bother breaking open the books, CAD is nice but i've built many thin gs of napkins, they just need all the details. Other than the rods the only issue i see also is the size of the centralhub/bearing in relation to the weight/rod setup.

Lets assume we use a 3/4 Round rod for the large weight. the hub should be 1 inch thick top to bottom, and if we use a 1inch cetral axle then the overall size of the central hub if we need a bearing to fit would be 5-6 inches in diameter. Taking into account threading the rods into hub 3/4" and the size of the bearing.

I am still willing to build but i must admit i thought that this was closer to semi-perpetual, than just a one hit wonder. But either way the appeal to me is the structural symetry that this model has and the separate but connected aspect of the weights.

[broli]

I will try to add dimensions on a rendition. We then can discuss it better. And yes this is obviously not a perpetuation design. This just serves as a blown up version of pequide's small cylinder and sphere design. This setup is suited for scientific verification.

Just out of interest in which country do you live?