Building a Gravity Engine

[VANDUGEGS]

This is the most important part of my Gravity Engine.

To build a Gravity Engine, you must overcome the problem of moving the weights on thier own spokes.
With my twelve spoke wheel, I had to use 240 lbs of movable weight. This amount was divided up among the 12 spokes. this would be 20 lbs per spoke. These weights are moved in towards the hub, withen 15 degrees of rotation and moved back to the end of the spoke, withen another 15 degrees.
The important thing to remaimmber, is the 4.5 lbs of accumulated weight and the leverage, is required to move the 20 lbs along the curved incline plane, withen 15 degrees of rotation, one spoke at a time.
Top ramp, then the bottom ramp, withen 30 degrees. Then it starts all over again. Top then bottom, top then bottom and so on.

You said that you would like to move 4 lbs with 1 lb.

Horizontal leverage will overcome Vertical lift.
Use the accumulated weight of one side of the wheel, which at three oÂ’clock will use the leverage to its advantage. 4.5 lbs at three oÂ’clock will raise a 20 lb weight, if you use a curved incline plane between 6:30 and 7:00 oÂ’clock. At the same time the weight is being raised; it also is partly removed from the spoke that it is on. Its weight is on the incline, not the spoke.
To return the weight back to its original position on itÂ’s own spoke, all you do is use another curved incline plane between 12:00 oÂ’clock and 12:30.
This will move the weights were they belong during its rotation and keep the wheel of balance at all times.
Move the bottom weight 1.80 inches and lock it at that location on the spoke.
Then when that spoke gets to the 12o;clock location, move the weight back to the end of itÂ’s spoke and lock it at that location.
This took over 20 years to figure out.
If you can understand this, great, if not, it is probibly the way I try to discribe things. Maybe that has been the problem all along.

Darrell Vandusen Sr
VANDUGEGS
P.P.

P.S. Have a nice day.

[ovyyus]

What you just describe is exactly this...

[Fletcher]

Darrell,

A couple of years ago I experimented with a setup almost identical to your description. In fact I still have most of the wheel & parts in my garage. They've been canabalised since then. I had folding arms which were almost frictionless sliding & locking on 8 spokes that looked a bit like a spider & its 8 legs.

The important part is, I used top & bottom ramps / inclines also (they were mounted from the wheel frame stand). It was a bit like 'Boruts' wheel except I lifted the weights from just after 12 o'c & again coming off the bottom just after 6 o'c (CW). I could get the weights (about 6 lbs per spoke) to lift part way up the incline but then they always reached the "neutral" torque point & stopped travelling. If I moved them manually up past the neutral (midway) point of the incline then the wheel would actually run backwards & settle at the mid point once again.

The point was the torque was insufficient to complete a segment & regauge itself to start over. This is what really set in my mind that trading horizontal width for vertical height at very best was a zero sum game. If you then took frictional losses into account it could not regauge itself & would settle into the position of LEAST POTENTIAL (mid point or neutral torque) as I have described.

'Stevins' describes it as one of his proofs about PPM's. Paraphrasing - if something looks the same after completing one segment of rotation then zero work was done.

I'd sincerely like to know why you think your arrangement has succeeded where others have failed ? What's the bit that we have all missed IYO ?

-fletcher

[ovyyus]

Fletcher, I absolutely agree. Almost every wheel enthusiast has had a go at this type of ramp system in one form or another. I think your own conclusion is typical of the outcome, mine included.

The crux of the matter here is that the claim of success can not be supported. But it gets worse, the offered 'evidence' appears completely aimed at creating only the impression of a working machine in order to solicit funding. A person can't go around making misleading claims of success in order to dupe money from unsuspecting investors - that's a criminal offence where I come from! It's called fraud.

[Jonathan]

As I understood it, he claims it works because the ramps aren't 180 degrees apart; that is, only one weight is being lifted along a ramp at a time.

[Trev]

Darrell, would be good if you could post a clear video of the whole wheel doing at least a couple of revolutions, that would really help your case and as you've now told us all how it's meant to work there shouldn't be anything to stop you. If you dont know how to put one up on the web I can do it or I'm sure Scott wouldn't mind doing it.

Trev.

[ovyyus]

Hi Trev, that's the problem, the best video shows only about a 1/4 turn of the wheel - otherwise we'de all be having a very different conversation here.

[jim_mich]

Here is a WM2D display of the torque on one spoke. Both inner and outer paths are graphed here for comparison. The path marked with yellow highlight is the weight's path. Those trapzoid notches are the weights on the ramps. Contrary to what Darrell says it takes more energy to push the weight up the ramp than is removed by the weight being on the ramp.

[VANDUGEGS]

I have been keeping track of the number of views in the fraud section.
Among the seven posts, their has been about 842 views, in the last 3 weeks. If you are interested in getting envolved, say so.
If you have any questions, just ask.

VANDUGEGS@YAHOO.CA

[ovyyus]

SCAM ALERT - Darrell Vandusen (aka VANDUGEGS) is still fishing and waiting for more nibble$

[VANDUGEGS]

Hello Bill,

I was thinking back to the days when i was sending you, pictures and video, of my machine. I do not know what I did to you, to get this kind of attention.

Mr Vandusen

[ovyyus]

Don't take it personal Darrell, I'd do the same for any fraudster.

[scott]

OMG this is hilarious.

Mr. Vandusen, :-)
The reason the Fraud Forum gets a lot of views is the same reason a lot of people still like to see a circus side show. It's interesting and kind of alarming and exciting at the same time. It's fun! But why would anyone in their right mind want to "get involved" with someone they found on a "Fraud Forum?"

Bill,
I think you underestimate the common sense of the average Bessler enthusiast. Darrell's recent flurry of posts in this forum probably just reinforced his fraudster status in most people's minds. I understand your desire for me to ban Darrell, but I'm pretty sure that if do that he will be back on the board in a heartbeat under a new name. Then we would forever be on the alert to try to "out" him. This could create an atmosphere of suspicion here on the board that I'd really like to avoid.

I think that if Darrell were assigned the reputation of "Fraudster" by a fair and democratic reputation system (which I am working on), then the whole problem might just go away.

At least I'd like to try it first.

Best,
Scott

[Jonathan]

When you get it worked out and he is branded a fraud, could you make it so that the title "FRAUD" appears under his name as "Site Admin" appears under yours?

[ovyyus]

Bill,
I think you underestimate the common sense of the average Bessler enthusiast.

Scott, Hmm, I think there are a lot of smart cookies on this board and I agree that most people here should have enough common sense to see where this is going. Still, I do find it difficult to refrain from adding footnote reminders under Darrell's, or any other fraudsters, constant trolling.

Difficult or not, I will refrain from now on.