I am doing the experiments  and not only in simulation.

Have you??

Hans von Lieven

Well, no one asked for my opinion but I feel compelled to respond.  The same science and physics that brought us supersonic planes and put us on the moon still says that a bumblebee can not fly.  According to the math, it cannot beat its wings fast enough to lift its mass.  Well, it does, I have seen it.

Hans has done more on this site to keep folks from going down dead-end streets, myself included, than anyone else on here.  So, when he publishes his own ideas about something "impossible", I listen.  Whoever said that this venture of Hans' could be historic, I agree.  I, for one, am glad to be able to be here to witness it.

Hans has never been one to go off "half cocked".  So, when he says this might be indeed possible, my money is bet on him.

@ Hans:

You have my complete attention.  If there is any way that I might be of help, please let me know.

Bill

Hi Hans,

Thanks for sharing your ideas and efforts.

If the correct formulas describing every important phase of the total process are at hand (or in computer), then it boils down to "playing with numbers" until y = x (I can say this now that we have learned from your teachings of course  )

Then building the model could come with the calculated (and hopefully practical) masses and distances and speeding up the wheel by hand or an aux motor to test the sphere is able to reach height x again (in fact a bit higher than x to make gravity roll the sphere back to C).

Thanks again and keep up your excellent work.

rgds, Gyula

Greetings Hans

 Glad to see this string thumping. I looked at your wm2d s, I find them similar effects to one of mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhskB-0SjKI
 With the weighted arm It ran twice as long with the weighted arm than without. This is just a little addition to the story.

Can you test the rundown times, with and without the weighted arm, using a calibrated input spin?
I illustrate what I mean in my video of testing the Mondrasek magnet-assisted gravity wheel. This method imparts exactly the same input energy to a wheel each time, and allows run-down time comparisons to be made easily and meaningfully.
It's easy to do and will be much more informative and accurate than a video of "Mr. Hand" giving a wheel a good spin.
Please feel free to download my video and try the method outlined.
http://www.mediafire.com/?wuldel0syug

Hans,

I forgot to mention in my last post that I made some calculation errors at that time and  I had stored in my mind a wrong formula of momentum.

But most important for your understanding  is the attwood-machine. Just only read this and test the simulation-software.

But the calculation-formulas are clear. Up to the point you will release the ball at the bottom-dead-point in your second simulation you will have two seperate systems with the energy split. No gain at that point.

This is the reason why pequaide then suggests that in a second step the left rotating mass must then be stopped by transfering all of its momentum to the ball ( of steel-spheres in his setup )

If this really works ? I do not know. There is a test-setup- I had in mind at that time, but he was reluctant to try it.

I mean I believe him that he has had succes to stop the rotating cylinder but I doubt the claim that there is an energy-gain with the spheres. It has to be tested

Regards

Kator

@ kator,

I have had a look at the atwood machine simulation and at your calculations. The big question is what happens at really high velocities. So what if the energies are split if the centrifugal force component is part of it and that grows EXPONENTIALLY.

@ Bill,

Don't worry about gravity, its not there. Einstein said it is a fictitious force. That's why falling out of an aeroplane does not hurt you until you hit the ground. It's the ground that kills you not gravity.     

Hans von Lieven

Hi, Hans!
I like your professional approach to the question. It's good to see a systematic, intelligent and persistent work, backed up with a plain explanations, experiments, drawings. Very good!

Still I think it's very bold to switch from the particular device (alleged PM as this particular "Keenie's gravity wheel" design) to a general claims as >Why Overunity and therefore Perpetual Motion is possible.< Mind you, science  is based on a hundreeds of years old foundations, like clearing up the centuries long quest for "Perpetuum Mobile".

Von Helmholtz, Meyer and  Joule are considered as fathers of (modern) Energy law. Two medicine doctors and an enthusiastic experimentor. Science recognised, accepted (and "cleared" up (!)) their work. "Joule" became a basic energy unit, and both doctors acchievements are a classical science history.
One of a most popular quotes from Helmholtz's original paper (at least used by the 'FE' researchers) talks about the impossibility of perpetual motion which must be a consequence of some natural law which prevents it (CoE). (A centuries long search for a Perpetual Motion was not successful, therefore it must be some natural obstacle which prevents this from happening... ).
Fascinating, but a modern version says: Because of the Law of Conservation of Energy, "Perpetual Motion" is impossible... Hmm...?
Von Helmholtz was a brilliant man, but he couldn't be better in his reasoning than thousands of people which continued the work later. One of a more obvious misunderstandings was that he mixed up the concepts of force and energy (which were still fresh at his time!) (this is the most frequent mistake which tinkerers make nowadays, too...OK, together with the concept of "Power"..)

Which brings us to the question of "fictitious" forces - the ones present only in a moving frame of reference, The ones which "pop's out of nowhere",  like with a combination of e.g. linear/rotational ones..  CP/CF,Coriolis,.. Take a pendulum, as you've suggested... A rigid string connecting a pendulum weight/bob and the axle of rotation, in a gravity field...

 The mechanics is known. A 'fictitious' force bulds up in the (linear) frame of reference of a connecting string. This force is there, it's "pumping" while the pendulum swings. The (connecting string) material is stressed with this Force (i'm sitting on a chair and pressing it with the gravity induced force right now, but - obviosly - i'm still not doing any "real" work......).

In an ideal environment, a pendulum would swing forever... (no losses - air, mech.  friction,etc). But, according to (modern) definitions of Energy, no work (energy) is done (if you look at the "fictitius" Centripetal Force) if there is no a change of position (in any observable "frame of reference"). A basic A=Fd (Work equals to Force times Displacement). A book sitting on a shelf, a magnet sticking on the fridge door, ,.. - they all produce Force but they're not "providing" the Work (or expendng the Energy)....

Now, try to use a CF/CP force - replace a "rigid" string of a pendulum with an ellastic one (spring) - the behaviour of such pendulum would be very different... A conservation of momentum (and all other known mechanical stuff) would kick in...
Point is - if you try to tap the "fictitious" CP force, it will be payed off with a "Conservation of Momentum/Energy" budget. One way or the other.

Part 2:

...
So, according to science that’s not really there either, it’s fictitious!
....
Fictitious forces and work
Fictitious forces can be considered to do work, provided that they move an object on a trajectory that changes its energy from potential to kinetic.

All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity. This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to formulate a theory with gravity as a fictitious force; attributing the apparent acceleration of gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein's theory of general relativity.

What this says is fascinating. On one hand they say it’s not really there and on the other hand they admit that is also a very real additional force that emerges independently of the forces involved that brought the prerequisite conditions about and can do work!

In other words FREE ENERGY!

So, why is science obscuring this fact with convoluted concepts and obscure language?

Simply put, the acceptance of these forces as real rattles the very foundation on which current scientific thinking is based.

If the forces are real that means either that the Conservation of Energy laws are wrong, because these forces manifest out of nowhere, which is believed impossible. This is not a premise science is prepared to accept and quite rightly so in my view.

The only remaining alternative is equally impalatable to science. It would mean that there is an underlying energy field that can exchange energy with the observable “reality”. In other words an ether (aether for the purist) of sorts.

So they are caught between a rock and a hard place and have to resort to this sort of crap because the existence of these forces is undeniable whether science can explain them or not.

Hmm, why all the hard questioning about the "Science"? What kind of crap "they" produced? Where are the real  facts opposing the "orthodox" views? Any solid, verifyable proofs?

If you're so sure about the "free energy", just do the experiments. Marctwo expressed some very reasonable concerns. And Kator's evaluations are "a must read". Pequade's ideas are intrigueing, indeed... It seems that a physical, real proof is all that is missing at the moment.....

I've looked at your "WM2D" videos. I'm not convinced, sorry.... What makes you think that a ball (after the release from the wheel would roll (slide?) up the incline? Because of a "tangential" momentum? What makes you think that this action is not payed with the reduced wheel momentum/energy?
By the time the ball stops at the top of the incline, the wheel is left with less kinetic energy than it was originally imparted by the ball dropping for a height "Z".  I just see the classical "mgh" stuff... Sorry.

You could make an incline in a spiral shape (to bring the ball back to the position near the wheel, where the ball could be picked up again)...
Or, a carefully "tuned" device consisting of two such wheels/balls/inclines, working in sinhronicity could work perpetually... With a little "luck", each ball would be picked up by opposite wheel, and lifted up and over into a new cycle... Or not...??

An undeniably Working Prototype would instantly clear all the misunderstandings...  Why the hell it never happens???

I hope you'll succede!
Cheers!