Fancy vs. reality...
Moderator: scott
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2413
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:37 am
- Location: costa mesa /CA/US
- Contact:
Fancy vs. reality...
.....can be a face to face ,a comparative reflection between your "new thing " and the claims of the actual technology.
To be more precisely,you can find an interesting essential condition,at:
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Gravity_Motors
This is: "...to achieve a full 360 rotation,with acceleration between each complete turn".
If we notice a full up-down (180*) pendulum fall,with small friction in the fulcrum,it can rise up to ~330*.
If we "add" in the top/starting/position a certain push/starting velocity...we can "...achieve more than a full 360 rotation".
Thinking so,it appears that ,for a pendulum-like arrangement ,we have a single problem:how to imagine,get away a "self-addition" ?!
All the best! / Alex
To be more precisely,you can find an interesting essential condition,at:
http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Gravity_Motors
This is: "...to achieve a full 360 rotation,with acceleration between each complete turn".
If we notice a full up-down (180*) pendulum fall,with small friction in the fulcrum,it can rise up to ~330*.
If we "add" in the top/starting/position a certain push/starting velocity...we can "...achieve more than a full 360 rotation".
Thinking so,it appears that ,for a pendulum-like arrangement ,we have a single problem:how to imagine,get away a "self-addition" ?!
All the best! / Alex
Simplicity is the first step to knowledge.
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2413
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:37 am
- Location: costa mesa /CA/US
- Contact:
re: Fancy vs. reality...
...can be expressed,with the help of two short "sliced" fragments from :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG02MjqBk7s
So,you can test again and again,two elementary up-down (0*-180*) falls in gravity field:
-of a constant arm pendulum (23-29 sec.)
-of a variable arm pendulum (41-60 sec. )...let's say the classical hinged end mass.
The whole movie is confusional,but these fragments can help us to imagine the next step(s) for a useful test...of your "fancy"!
All the best 2012 ! / Alex
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FG02MjqBk7s
So,you can test again and again,two elementary up-down (0*-180*) falls in gravity field:
-of a constant arm pendulum (23-29 sec.)
-of a variable arm pendulum (41-60 sec. )...let's say the classical hinged end mass.
The whole movie is confusional,but these fragments can help us to imagine the next step(s) for a useful test...of your "fancy"!
All the best 2012 ! / Alex
Simplicity is the first step to knowledge.
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2413
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:37 am
- Location: costa mesa /CA/US
- Contact:
re: Fancy vs. reality...
Hi !
Sorry...the correct address is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ02MjqBk7s
All the best! / Alex
Sorry...the correct address is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ02MjqBk7s
All the best! / Alex
Simplicity is the first step to knowledge.
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2413
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:37 am
- Location: costa mesa /CA/US
- Contact:
re: Fancy vs. reality...
Hi Jim!
Many thanks for your assist.
You said something about leverage.
I agree...it seems for me as a main road: Archimedes stated the statics of lever(age),including in gravity.
Our problem,regarding a possible PM motor is to imagine and test the dynamics of leverage in the same frame of acceleration.
All the best! / Alex
Many thanks for your assist.
You said something about leverage.
I agree...it seems for me as a main road: Archimedes stated the statics of lever(age),including in gravity.
Our problem,regarding a possible PM motor is to imagine and test the dynamics of leverage in the same frame of acceleration.
All the best! / Alex
Simplicity is the first step to knowledge.
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2140
- Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
- Location: France
From that same site linked to above, at http://pesn.com/2012/01/05/9602001_Free ... _Launched/
Isn't that Murilo's "Avalanche drive " ???
Isn't that Murilo's "Avalanche drive " ???
re: Fancy vs. reality...
LOL....
"He claims it has been proven to work, providing 1.5 kW from 300 kg of weights."
"He claims it has been proven to work, providing 1.5 kW from 300 kg of weights."
re: Fancy vs. reality...
http://pesn.com/2012/01/05/9602001_Free ... _Launched/ ... same as Nick's Link above.
See article by Frank Mills & Sterling Allan.
1. Inventor says he knows of at least 3 reproductions that Work as claimed.
2. Easy to replicate.
3. Has used simulation software to improve it.
Nowhere does the article say that either Frank or Sterling saw a video or have other proof of the 'inventor & businessman's' claims, no proof supplied as yet - just wants to open source.
The extract from the Skype interview has reasonable English construction suggesting the inventor speaks English as a first or second language ... OR ... that someone else was Skyping on his behalf if he does not.
IMO, looking a lot like the 'Georg Kunstler' approach to eliciting development input [to iron out the engineering bugs] by saying you already have a POP working prototype or had one recently ?!
I hope this was an accurate report by the PesWiki.com Guys & not an interpretation of the inventors words.
These guys have been burnt before & should do a bit of investigation before taking inventor statements as gospel, unless you just want traffic to your site.
See article by Frank Mills & Sterling Allan.
1. Inventor says he knows of at least 3 reproductions that Work as claimed.
2. Easy to replicate.
3. Has used simulation software to improve it.
Nowhere does the article say that either Frank or Sterling saw a video or have other proof of the 'inventor & businessman's' claims, no proof supplied as yet - just wants to open source.
The extract from the Skype interview has reasonable English construction suggesting the inventor speaks English as a first or second language ... OR ... that someone else was Skyping on his behalf if he does not.
IMO, looking a lot like the 'Georg Kunstler' approach to eliciting development input [to iron out the engineering bugs] by saying you already have a POP working prototype or had one recently ?!
I hope this was an accurate report by the PesWiki.com Guys & not an interpretation of the inventors words.
These guys have been burnt before & should do a bit of investigation before taking inventor statements as gospel, unless you just want traffic to your site.
re: Fancy vs. reality...
Oh yes!
Take it from an old whiskery cuss like me! They have been burned many times and have been known to burn others like me!
The PESWiki Energy Congress leaves room for improvement;
Take it from an old whiskery cuss like me! They have been burned many times and have been known to burn others like me!
The PESWiki Energy Congress leaves room for improvement;
Re: re: Fancy vs. reality...
We all know I do not do math, but if I am correct 300 Kg = 661.38 pounds, then they wish you to believe that is .44 pounds or 0.1996 Kg per watt.Tarsier79 wrote:LOL....
"He claims it has been proven to work, providing 1.5 kW from 300 kg of weights."
I once took a self guided tour of the Washington State Nuclear Plant located in Hanford Washington. One of their exhibits was an ordinary stationary bicycle connected to a small generator. This in turn fed a 25 watt light bulb. One would have to experience how much oomph it takes just to light the bulb let alone sustain it!
Ralph
re: Fancy vs. reality...
Hi you guys!
Sterling sent me a msg AFTER this matter goes on.
If they are to be serious and decide to move on this... why not?
Maybe they will be able to send me the hands I asked for... why not?
The first shown draw from that anonymous inventor is not complete and is not of mine, as anyone may see!
Best!
M
Sterling sent me a msg AFTER this matter goes on.
If they are to be serious and decide to move on this... why not?
Maybe they will be able to send me the hands I asked for... why not?
The first shown draw from that anonymous inventor is not complete and is not of mine, as anyone may see!
Best!
M
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2413
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:37 am
- Location: costa mesa /CA/US
- Contact:
re: Fancy vs. reality...
.....can be a simple dilemma,but an opportunity for inspiration,also.
For some people,a pleasant illusion is better than a "harsh" reality.
For other people,a pleasant ride at a fair is the best way to understand the relation between reality and our imagination.
So,take a look at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyb236-KLbk
All the best! / Alex
For some people,a pleasant illusion is better than a "harsh" reality.
For other people,a pleasant ride at a fair is the best way to understand the relation between reality and our imagination.
So,take a look at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iyb236-KLbk
All the best! / Alex
Simplicity is the first step to knowledge.
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2413
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:37 am
- Location: costa mesa /CA/US
- Contact:
re: Fancy vs. reality...
.....or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODf49HtC ... re=related at 01/08/2010 ,a simulation ("fancy") on paper or computer,face to face(vs.) with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKGBkc77sDw filmed in 2004 in Montreal.
The simulation and the wonderland's show suggest a possible simplicity of a gravity engine.
This time,we can talk easy about the lever.
However the simulation has a certain redundance (number of spare parts) and is questionable if it can realize a self motion.
The acrobat plays on a minimized spare parts see-saw (fulcrum-lever -moving mass).
Here,we have to solve a single question :to replace the motion of the acrobat,with "something" self-moving.
All the best! / Alex
The simulation and the wonderland's show suggest a possible simplicity of a gravity engine.
This time,we can talk easy about the lever.
However the simulation has a certain redundance (number of spare parts) and is questionable if it can realize a self motion.
The acrobat plays on a minimized spare parts see-saw (fulcrum-lever -moving mass).
Here,we have to solve a single question :to replace the motion of the acrobat,with "something" self-moving.
All the best! / Alex
Simplicity is the first step to knowledge.
-
- Addict
- Posts: 2413
- Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 1:37 am
- Location: costa mesa /CA/US
- Contact:
re: Fancy vs. reality...
.....can meet in a proximity,in my opinion,if we add a feature word to the definition of a gravity motor: "For a rotary device to work it has to achieve a full 360* rotation,with acceleration between each complete turn". ( see at: http://peswiki.com/energy/Directory:Gravity_Motors ).
This "feature" word,in my opinion can be: "...,with POSITIVE acceleration between each complete turn".
All the best! / Alex
This "feature" word,in my opinion can be: "...,with POSITIVE acceleration between each complete turn".
All the best! / Alex
Simplicity is the first step to knowledge.