Perpetual Motion Suggestion

[nicbordeaux]

I'll go along with Neptune on that one, to a point. Even if he thinks I'm another one of the deluded nuts with the "almost there" sydrome :)

Lack of funding can't possibly be an obstacle in today's world of throwaway consumer mode, there is enough material contained in "junk" from old bikes to tv's, washing machines, you name it, to put a man on Mars.

You can throw as much money as you want at a donkey, that won't make it a racing horse.

[neptune]

Hi Graham. Pinchbeck is a not uncommon name hereabouts. It is also the name of a local village.

[neptune]

@nicbodeaux. I have good reason to think that you do not fit into the aforesaid category. Basically, I am saying to Kenfree, give us more info, so we know the score.

[nicbordeaux]

That's where I'll agree up to a point, the point being that if Kenfree feels he's onto a winner and it's lack of money stopping him achieveing the "impossible", that's fine. What's not quite cricket is coming along to this forum to troll for followers then point to another "private" blog of his.

There would be a dilemma if you had a "working device" or concept you thought was a surefire winner which you couldn't get to work, you'd want help, money, you name it, but without giving away your "secret". Human nature. So basically kenfree, if he's bona fide, can't reveal anything. I have the distinct feling that this tank of "stagnant" water thing looks like the inside of my toilet cistern with a floater on rod. It can be a good idea, like a spring, but different release characteristics.

Actually, I think I have an idea. Must rush of to the toilet to test it :)

[greendoor]

Enough with the secrets. Chances are, this principle is dead in the water. Sometimes it's more important to find out quickly why an idea won't work, rather than labour under a delusion for years.

OK - so 'stagnant water' is part of this plan. But you say it may be 'replaced'. Careful that the action of replacing the water isn't there source of energy - just like a hydro dam. But I assume 'stagnant' means this is self-contained water, which leaves two options:

1 - the water is just being used as mass. I've thought about using water as mass, and we strike some serious problems. One is that water turns to ice and burst containers. You could use waste anti-freeze, and glycol is heavier than water. But water slops around, has internal friction and erratic behaviour, and generally is difficult to control - compared to fixed masses which can be constrained by mechanical principles. I certainly believe water can be used, but hydro-dynamics is more of an empirical art than a science, and very difficult to experiment with. Look at the efficiencies of water pumps and pipes for example - compared to the efficiency of a bicycle. Once we have established the principles of PM, fluid flow may well be useful, but this is going about it the hard way for making a simple proof of principle machine ...
2 - maybe you have fallen into the trap that buoyancy provides free lift ... I certainly fell for this, and it took me a while to realise that there is no free lift. This is simply the inverse of falling mass - any lift from buoyancy is completely bought and paid for by the falling of the fluid around the float. You simply cannot get free lift in a closed system by using buoyancy. In an open system, sure - but that becomes Tidal Power or something else ...

Please consider putting your idea into the light of day for constructive criticism, or replication confirmation.

[nicbordeaux]

Unless the "stagnant" water really is stagnant water, in which case it has green algae, plancton, mosquito larvae, tadpoles (polywogs when I was in North America, maybe this word is no longer is usage ?) and there is this real ecosystem (you need a big tank to get a self sustaining ecosystem by the way) and sunlight is the prime mover, you know, all that photsynthesis stuff. Or methane gas.

I've seen madder ideas.

[path_finder]

About the use of water in the 'Bessler like' wheels::
If I have a good memory this is the only example of wheel submitted to this forum and using the 'stagnant' water...
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=6220

And in Africa you can add the 'anophèle' (mosquito giving the paludism)
Not very pertinent for this countries.
It can work with the milk also: a good way to get some butter.

[jim_mich]

path_finder, see the David Diamond wheel:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ?p=658#658

After much research I learned to understand WHY these types of wheel DO NOT WORK.

[winkle]

Kenfree

if you do have a working wheel

it may or not run on stink

but you're thinking may have a large stink factor

if i remember correctly you said patented for ten years

if that's true you only have ten years left

that stinks

if you have a working wheel perhaps you should quit dicking around and do something with it before you don't have a patent any more

that stinks too

hope that helps a little

[path_finder]

Dear Jim_Mich
Many thanks for the link.
But the David Diamond wheel is fully based on the Archimedes principle.
This is also the case of the Mikhail's wheel.
I agree with you, this kind of design cannot work.

There is a big difference with my suggested design: I don't use the Archimedes principle for the motion (it is still the gravity, applied on the weights, even if those are constitute with some water on the drawing but can be replaced by any piece of iron with the same weight).
The Archimedes principle is just used for reversing the weights between 04:00 and 06:00, wich is very different.

[kenfree]

You guys are great. You got me thinking. I truly wish we were all in one room and working together because this is the kind of atmosphere required to bring something into fruition. I appreciate constructive criticism.
I am in an awkward position. I am not enjoying the waiting game either. I have waited too long. My patent is eleven years old to be exact because I was issued with it in the year 1998. You can be sure I have not just been sitting around with it, but all my efforts to bring the invention to a better stage has not been easy. So far I have managed to build two experimental prototypes. One in 1999 to show the motion of the weights involved and I video taped it. I finished building the second one two weeks ago and I have been testing it. The second one has four weights and is capable of making movement but not complete turn but clearly demonstrates the mechanism and force produced which was my intention. The results were exactly as I had anticipated. It is a small device measuring slightly more than half a meter in diameter. The device produces force to rotate which is directly proportional to the weights used and also to its physical size. The bigger the device, the more the energy produced, however the energy to sustain its own running reduces relatively. If the device is too small, it may not produce enough to drive itself- but the prototype already demonstrated enough force to drive itself. If placed in water, it began moving on its own -not requiring to be pushed. The force produced is not a constant force but fluctuates between a maximum and almost zero after every 45 degrees rotation. so increasing the number of weights ensures there is always enough force at any one time to cause rotation but at the expense of some of the force produced.
The main challenge is that building of the parts requires precision. The parts include gears which have to be accurate in shape and design. Since the prototype is made by hand in a 'backyard' workshop, it is very hard to position the gears accurately.As a result sometimes some of the gears get jammed or slip while in motion and they have to be released or repositioned for the motion to continue. As a result, I figure it a tall order to try and build a complete wheel which will run continuously and satisfy the conditions set by most who want such prove. I have used much money so far and I know building the complete wheel with eight wheels will require more than I can afford as of now as the wheel also will have to be bigger.
The best way forward is to invite teamwork. But first I have to prove I have a strong case since it is somehow beyond me to present a fully functional prototype with the resources I have. This is best done in an exclusive site were I can arrange my arguement in a way I see best to make it understood. I am not so much interested in owning the invention, but you don't expect me to just throw everything in the open without a good deal. I want the money but I also want it clean. I am not out to defraud anybody.
I will clarify that I don't necessarily need money sent to me for building the machine. If I have a good deal,I can submit complete description of the machine and drawings as well as assist where necessary in building it without being given a single cent- But with guarantee of reward upon successful demonstration of the device.
I truly have so much confidence in the principles used because they provide a way of increasing power output by adjusting some of the machine parts, weights used and the general physical size of the machine.

My wheel is not close to what Jim_Mich has suggested. on the other hand, I am beginning to get worried of greendoor:D. You seem to be closing in. You are a genius.Though I considered the bouyancy issue and did experiments. What he says is true. But I have used bouyancy in a different way.Well once successful, we can see how to deal with the water problems-keeping away the mosquitoes, frogs etc..... much better if we eliminate the water all together! Just to give those interested food for thought, before the idea of the water came, I had figured out how to use weights hung on strings, but the hitch was that the strings cold get entangled onto some of the machine parts. After much thought, water became the next option. But the water can still be replaced by something else. I think I have exposed much already.

I am thinking of consulting well with other legal advisers to see what I will do. At the end of the day what is important is to have it working. Maybe I may put it all in the open-but let me not promise.

[kenfree]

Sorry guys. I intended this reply for a different thread.

[neptune]

OK kenfree. My last post here may have seemed a bit harsh, along the lines of "Piss or get off the pot" . Not meaning to be abusive, sometimes we all need a harsh kick of the arse, especially me. There are people here with imense skills who can help you. No need to be paranoid, you have a patent. Succes will bring its own financial reward. Paid media interviews, film rights, autobiography etc. Like I said, you need to help us to help you.
You make an intriguing claim on your blog, about harnessing gravity directly without using falling weights. Can you point to an example of this in the real world?

You need to take some chances. Just repeating what you did for the last 11 years will bring the same results....Zero. Regards, Neptune.

[kenfree]

Oh! All is okay. Sorry for the mix-up. After writing the last reply and submitting it I thought it had landed on the wrong page because I found new threads that were not there when I began typing the reply. But I realise now all is okay.

[jim_mich]

kenfree, you state that you have a patent. Is this a United States patent or is it a Kenya patent? In either case, if you have a patent then the patent somewhat protects your idea, for that is the intent of having a patent. Can you tell us the country and the patent number?