Cookies help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
http://www.overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please leave this website now. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

# New Book

### Statistics

• Total Members: 82254
• Latest: Zapp

• Total Posts: 496636
• Total Topics: 14616
• Online Today: 44
• Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
• Users: 5
• Guests: 237
• Total: 242

### Author Topic: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity  (Read 68374 times)

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3247
##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #45 on: May 11, 2012, 07:46:07 AM »

Hope you don't mind if I disagree with you on this point;
"The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed"
The reason being is that the slower something moves, the more force it can impart. Also, the greater the distance it travels between 2 points gives it a greater potential.
An example of this last part is if point A is 9.8 meters above point B. Either way, via the straight line or if travelling with a radius of 9.8 meters, they are considered to have identical velocities at point B minus resistence.
How ever, with aradius of 9.8 meters, the velocity of m*9.8m/s/s/9.8*3.14 is greater tha work = mass times distance travelled.
By increasing the radii, the amount of work that can be performed increases exponentially. As such, the greater the radius of a weights downward path,the greatness in the amount of work it can perform increases like wise.

Jim

"The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed" is based on using galactic time as the yardstick instead of kilometers or miles.  You were taught to use kilometers or miles as a measure of distance, whereas I'm referring to using galactic time as the yardstick. This is hard to explain to those who are unaccustomed to seeing things from a different point of view. Instead of going into complicated mathematical calculations to determine, let us say, the diameter of the Earth's orbit in the number of kilometers this represents, I'm referring to its equivalent in galactic time.

In other-words, if you're impelled by a force which takes you 100 hours to make a round trip through a galaxy, and I'm impelled by a force which takes 1 hour to make a round trip, then I know the force which is impelling me is 100 times greater than the force which is impelling you.  I could also say, the distance or space you traversed was 100 times greater than the space I traversed, because in reality the force doesn't exist.  All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it.

According to your logic above, the greater the distance between 2 points, the greater the potential is given to it.  If this is true in all cases, then we should be able to raise a ball higher than it's original starting position just by having a greater distance (a slope or curved path) between 2 points as it rolls down a ramp while having a shorter distance (more of a straight path) between 2 points as it rolls up the ramp.

By increasing the radii, the amount of work that can be performed increases exponentially is also false.  Willem Gravesande monumental contribution to physics and discovery involved his experiment in which he would drop a lead ball from varying heights into a bed of soft clay.  From these varying heights the ball would then obtain different velocities into the clay surface.  Willem then discovered that a ball with two times the velocity would leave an indentation in the clay that was four times as deep, and that a ball with three times the velocity would leave an indentation nine times as deep, and so on.  This is exponential.  But you're confusing two different things.  It's similar to the "difference"  between a ball that is moving horizontally in space and the ball that Willem Gravesande used in his experiment (one that is Accelerating as it falls to earth).  It's the difference of the Velocity of Gravity.  A falling weight loses it's acceleration factor as it does work, which is proportional to the amount of work it is doing, thus the exponential factor you are familiar with no longer applies.  A good example is a 10 kilogram weight at a height of 20 meters can't do any more work in lifting a 10 kilogram weight than a 10 kilogram weight at a height of 1 meter.  How is this exponential?  It can't do any work because it has no acceleration to do so.  Even if they both had the same velocity at the very moment of starting the work, it wouldn't be exponential because they will both decrease in velocity at the same rate.  I don't mind if you disagree with me, but at least have a good argument.

Gravock

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #45 on: May 11, 2012, 07:46:07 AM »

#### gravityblock

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3247
##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #46 on: May 11, 2012, 08:10:12 AM »
One example my father gave me a long, long time ago was a weight dropping 1 meter can only lift another weight 1 meter.

Have you ever heard of a block and tackle?  It can also be used in reverse, where a weight dropping 1 meter can lift another weight 4 meters.  The same concept also applies to gears, where a movement of 1 inch on the input will produce a movement of 4 inches on the output or vice versa.  What is taught or passed down to us doesn't necessarily mean it is correct.  You have a mind of your own, so use it instead of having other people do your thinking for you.  This is only a suggestion.

Gravock

#### johnny874

• Hero Member
• Posts: 958
##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #47 on: May 11, 2012, 06:02:27 PM »
"The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed" is based on using galactic time as the yardstick instead of kilometers or miles.  You were taught to use kilometers or miles as a measure of distance, whereas I'm referring to using galactic time as the yardstick. This is hard to explain to those who are unaccustomed to seeing things from a different point of view. Instead of going into complicated mathematical calculations to determine, let us say, the diameter of the Earth's orbit in the number of kilometers this represents, I'm referring to its equivalent in galactic time.

In other-words, if you're impelled by a force which takes you 100 hours to make a round trip through a galaxy, and I'm impelled by a force which takes 1 hour to make a round trip, then I know the force which is impelling me is 100 times greater than the force which is impelling you.  I could also say, the distance or space you traversed was 100 times greater than the space I traversed, because in reality the force doesn't exist.  All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it.

According to your logic above, the greater the distance between 2 points, the greater the potential is given to it.  If this is true in all cases, then we should be able to raise a ball higher than it's original starting position just by having a greater distance (a slope or curved path) between 2 points as it rolls down a ramp while having a shorter distance (more of a straight path) between 2 points as it rolls up the ramp.

By increasing the radii, the amount of work that can be performed increases exponentially is also false.  Willem Gravesande monumental contribution to physics and discovery involved his experiment in which he would drop a lead ball from varying heights into a bed of soft clay.  From these varying heights the ball would then obtain different velocities into the clay surface.  Willem then discovered that a ball with two times the velocity would leave an indentation in the clay that was four times as deep, and that a ball with three times the velocity would leave an indentation nine times as deep, and so on.  This is exponential.  But you're confusing two different things.  It's similar to the "difference"  between a ball that is moving horizontally in space and the ball that Willem Gravesande used in his experiment (one that is Accelerating as it falls to earth).  It's the difference of the Velocity of Gravity.  A falling weight loses it's acceleration factor as it does work, which is proportional to the amount of work it is doing, thus the exponential factor you are familiar with no longer applies.  A good example is a 10 kilogram weight at a height of 20 meters can't do any more work in lifting a 10 kilogram weight than a 10 kilogram weight at a height of 1 meter.  How is this exponential?  It can't do any work because it has no acceleration to do so.  Even if they both had the same velocity at the very moment of starting the work, it wouldn't be exponential because they will both decrease in velocity at the same rate.  I don't mind if you disagree with me, but at least have a good argument.

Gravock

Gravock,
Hope you don't mind but I would prefer to stick with mechanical engineering
To that end, tomorrow I'll see about rebuilding it. I'll be able to have a better go of it this time.
I'll be using 4 - 1 lb. weights with a diameter of about 2 inches. The wheel will be about 30 inches
in diameter. I'll probably try for about 4 - 6 inches of over balance with a block that can be added to reduce the amount of over balance.
This would allow for comparison to acceleration with maximum over balance and with less over balance, and how quickly the weights change their balance in the wheel (move to the inner or outer position). I think this might help everyone to understand why I have some of the opinions that I do.
I'll try to have it done by Wednesday with some videos up on youtube.

Jim

#### johnny874

• Hero Member
• Posts: 958
##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #48 on: May 12, 2012, 05:16:36 PM »
Gravock et al,
Have decided to wait until after surgery next week to build. Don't want to get started and then stop.
Did find out today I am not the only person who is doing wood working where I have my shop at.
I like this as I'll feel a lot more comfortable and will build new work benches  Also will buy some
more tools to work with. This will help me to get better results when I want to build a prototype.
And for something like what I have mentioned, it will be a much better demonstration as the build
will be to better tolerances. And when discussing how the balance of a design is important, it will help
to show it better.
I did mention to Gravock that torque is important and by waiting, I will be better able to show this
specific principle. In the mean time, it will be something for you guys to think about.

Jim

edited to add; to give you guys something to wrap your minds around, 2 opposing weights have equal lift / drop. One weight rotates around the axis of the wheel 90 degrees, one only 60 degrees yet both travel the same distance.
The weight rotating 90 degrees would be moving 1.5 x's faster. Extra energy. And the better inertia can be nullified, the more potential that might be realized.
« Last Edit: May 12, 2012, 09:09:12 PM by johnny874 »

#### MoRo

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 72
##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #49 on: May 14, 2012, 03:34:58 AM »
Overunity is here!

Have a little fun with this...

http://youtu.be/7Vch0p2VlDY

And I made the music too.

MagnaMoRo

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #49 on: May 14, 2012, 03:34:58 AM »

#### SkyWatcher123

• Hero Member
• Posts: 640
##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #50 on: May 14, 2012, 05:36:12 AM »
Hi magnamoro, thanks for sharing, very nice demonstration.
Now we need to come up with a way to convert that to something .
Maybe some magnets on both sides of a coil with a core or not and it will sweep by coil, back and forth in small movements, though we can use thick wire and step up the voltage to a useable level with some kind of boost circuit.
peace love light
tyson

#### johnny874

• Hero Member
• Posts: 958
##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #51 on: May 14, 2012, 07:20:19 PM »
Overunity is here!

Have a little fun with this...

http://youtu.be/7Vch0p2VlDY

And I made the music too.

MagnaMoRo

Magna,
Haven't kids always been considered perpetual motion machines ?

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #51 on: May 14, 2012, 07:20:19 PM »

#### MoRo

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 72
##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #52 on: May 29, 2012, 05:50:51 AM »

Magna,
Haven't kids always been considered perpetual motion machines ?

Yes so you will like this one too.

http://youtu.be/8UBqYY7IDXc

#### AlanA

• Full Member
• Posts: 117
##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #53 on: May 29, 2012, 04:33:33 PM »
Hi Moro,
The question for me is how can someone use this effect? I think there are various possibilities.

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3084
##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #54 on: May 30, 2012, 06:52:58 PM »
Hi MoRo,

I think that there are other things going on within your testbed that may lead you in a slightly changed direction.

I would like you to run your test backwards, by that I mean for you to use your lever to accelerate your wheel.

To do this you will need the aid of one of your lab assistants and a small mass.  Place the small mass on the lever and place your lab assistant next to the peddles and place yourself on hand and knees over the lever end with your other hand over the mass.

Start by having your lab assistant turn the peddles at a rate that has the mass moving up and down, when it is at this value you will start pushing the mass downwards in a pulse input style, this will take practice to get the timing correct and when you do you will be able to accelerate your wheel with your input.

This demonstrates the feedback component of the system you are playing with and also opens up possibilityâ€™s of things that you may be able to take advantage of.

While doing this try and notice that as you increase the velocity of the wheel your input stroke length can be reduced and still provide a lot of acceleration to the wheel.  Try and notice the increase in torque the wheel has as its velocity goes up, many things to notice.

Try thinking about a gravity slingshot and how it works, you are manifesting the same effect and if it can be used to accelerate a satellite why not a wheel???

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #54 on: May 30, 2012, 06:52:58 PM »

#### AlanA

• Full Member
• Posts: 117
##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #55 on: May 30, 2012, 08:57:01 PM »
@ webby1

That is a good question. But I have no doubt how to improve moros wheel. Have you any idea?

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3084
##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #56 on: May 31, 2012, 12:50:30 AM »

The answer, however, depends on what he is looking for, or which force value he is wishing to use.

By manipulating the forces within a system such as this it is possible to have a short moment within the system where the forces compound, or add together, this takes a small outside force to guide the normal interactions.

When using the "pull" force, in my past experiments, a dual mass system that has 2 counter rotating arms works best and is lightest on the parts, it is also better to have them express the force on a common component, IE a steel ring that both masses are running around the inside of, using bearings as the contact and the steel ring as the point of output, and then you need to limit the motion to a small part of the natural motion the system would have.

IIRC 2 5lbs masses on 12 inch arms rotating at 1200 RPM would generate over 2000lbs of force with a natural motion of close to 2 inches, limit this to 1\2 inch and the system is almost fully conservative but will supply 2000lbs over 100 FT per minute, or 200,000 lbs\ft per minute.  One HP is 33,000 lbs\ft per minute.

I have not tried the acceleration part too much so am not sure what works better yet, however I have noticed that the input stroke length decreases with RPM, torque output to input increases with a smaller mass on a longer arm as compared to a larger mass on a shorter arm.  Simple tests I have done show me no real numbers as of yet but when I take a mass 10x or more the size of the other mass I am playing with but on a 5 inch arm I can bring it up to approx. the same RPM as the smaller mass on an 11.5 inch arm and stop it with my finger rubbing on a gear really quick and easy, not so with the smaller mass on the longer arm which also "feels" like it takes less input.  I have also seen that I can use a spring to assist in storing and returning some of the force so that the input force from me goes down, in this case I "help" the arm compress the spring at the right moment and then I have the spring "help" me change the angles of interaction to accelerate the mass,again at the right moment.

Does he want to make a drive force thing out of it? you can do that as well, the trick to that one is that you need to waste a bunch of force and put it back in in the correct orientation for both of these events.

#### johnny874

• Hero Member
• Posts: 958
##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #57 on: May 31, 2012, 03:26:29 PM »

The answer, however, depends on what he is looking for, or which force value he is wishing to use.

By manipulating the forces within a system such as this it is possible to have a short moment within the system where the forces compound, or add together, this takes a small outside force to guide the normal interactions.

When using the "pull" force, in my past experiments, a dual mass system that has 2 counter rotating arms works best and is lightest on the parts, it is also better to have them express the force on a common component, IE a steel ring that both masses are running around the inside of, using bearings as the contact and the steel ring as the point of output, and then you need to limit the motion to a small part of the natural motion the system would have.

IIRC 2 5lbs masses on 12 inch arms rotating at 1200 RPM would generate over 2000lbs of force with a natural motion of close to 2 inches, limit this to 1\2 inch and the system is almost fully conservative but will supply 2000lbs over 100 FT per minute, or 200,000 lbs\ft per minute.  One HP is 33,000 lbs\ft per minute.

I have not tried the acceleration part too much so am not sure what works better yet, however I have noticed that the input stroke length decreases with RPM, torque output to input increases with a smaller mass on a longer arm as compared to a larger mass on a shorter arm.  Simple tests I have done show me no real numbers as of yet but when I take a mass 10x or more the size of the other mass I am playing with but on a 5 inch arm I can bring it up to approx. the same RPM as the smaller mass on an 11.5 inch arm and stop it with my finger rubbing on a gear really quick and easy, not so with the smaller mass on the longer arm which also "feels" like it takes less input.  I have also seen that I can use a spring to assist in storing and returning some of the force so that the input force from me goes down, in this case I "help" the arm compress the spring at the right moment and then I have the spring "help" me change the angles of interaction to accelerate the mass,again at the right moment.

Does he want to make a drive force thing out of it? you can do that as well, the trick to that one is that you need to waste a bunch of force and put it back in in the correct orientation for both of these events.

Webby1,
I was wondering if he had 2 weights that were not opposite of each other but similar to a gyro (165 degrees?). One thing about it is I think
the axle of the wheel would need to be off set. What do you think ?

Jim

#### webby1

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3084
##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #58 on: May 31, 2012, 05:59:14 PM »
In re-reading what I wrote I made a small error, the large mass was on a 1.25 inch arm, but it still did not perform as well at the 5 inch length but was closer.

Jim,

Not sure, I would need to play with to get a feel for it.

#### johnny874

• Hero Member
• Posts: 958
##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #59 on: June 01, 2012, 03:15:36 PM »
In re-reading what I wrote I made a small error, the large mass was on a 1.25 inch arm, but it still did not perform as well at the 5 inch length but was closer.

Jim,

Not sure, I would need to play with to get a feel for it.

Webby1,
I can move the axle location for the 4 weighted wheel to give you and MoRo something to think about.

Jim

#### Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

##### Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
« Reply #59 on: June 01, 2012, 03:15:36 PM »