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

## Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: MoRo on March 05, 2012, 01:22:17 PM

Title: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on March 05, 2012, 01:22:17 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HX_nnqv9_o (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HX_nnqv9_o)
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: TinselKoala on March 07, 2012, 04:54:27 AM
Congratulations!
You've discovered that the energy in your breakfast can be stored in a flywheel and an oscillating weight, like  vertical pendulum. The major loss mechanism is the noise when the weight bangs against the ground--- but it's easy to resupply that by giving the crank another turn or two.
You probably think that the "overunity" is because the toolbox is being raised up over and over, and that's really hard if you do it by hand. But what you are not considering, apparently, is that your mechanism, through the magnetic coupling, is re-using the same energy over and over, transferring it from the box to the wheel and back and forth. If you had a stroboscope, you'd be able to tell that the wheel slows a bit when the box is raised and speeds up as the box falls.
I'm not sure where centripetal force enters into this. At least you didn't say "centrifugal". That would have really worried me.

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on March 20, 2012, 09:28:25 PM
Congratulations!
You've discovered that the energy in your breakfast can be stored in a flywheel and an oscillating weight, like  vertical pendulum. The major loss mechanism is the noise when the weight bangs against the ground--- but it's easy to resupply that by giving the crank another turn or two.
You probably think that the "overunity" is because the toolbox is being raised up over and over, and that's really hard if you do it by hand. But what you are not considering, apparently, is that your mechanism, through the magnetic coupling, is re-using the same energy over and over, transferring it from the box to the wheel and back and forth. If you had a stroboscope, you'd be able to tell that the wheel slows a bit when the box is raised and speeds up as the box falls.
I'm not sure where centripetal force enters into this. At least you didn't say "centrifugal". That would have really worried me.

First, let me thank you for the congratulations...

Now, let me handle the sarcasm...

You are correct! I didnâ€™t say â€œcentrifugalâ€... As there is no such thing as â€œcentrifugal forceâ€.

The word â€œcentrifugalâ€ is an adjective that only applies to those centrifugal masses experiencing centripetal (center pushing) forces. Since you stated that you donâ€™t understand how centripetal force comes into play in this â€œdiscoveryâ€, let me explain that:

My breakfast supplies energy to my hand. That energy ultimately accelerates the sockets taped to the rim of the bicycle to the desired speed. However, in harmony with Newtonian law, once they are moving at the desired speed, they want to stay at that speed. So, very little energy is required to maintain the desired speed. The sockets want to go in a strait trajectory but the tape holding them to the rim supplies centripetal force, constantly pushing them towards center to hold them in orbit. And while I'm on the subject of centripetal forces, let me also explain that there is no such thing in the universe as a force that emits a pulling force but only forces translating into a push thereby causing acceleration. Even gravity, magnetism and atomic-level week and strong forces, are ultimately pushing forces. The Earth and Moon are PUSHED by gravity towards the center of Earth-Moon mass thus they orbit each other. Since gravitational acceleration is a constant, then if the Moon were moving faster, it would leave Earth orbit, if slower it would spiral into the Earth. The tape however provides sufficient centripetal strength to overcome a great deal of centrifugal activity by the weighty sockets.

Every time I double the speed of the orbital cycle of the sockets, then the required centripetal pushing force is quadrupled.

The Earth is a much heavier mass than the Moon, yet the earth does not stay in the center.

Likewise the toolbox and bicycle, though much heavier than the sockets, want to counter orbit the sockets. The movement of this counter orbital pattern is restricted to a bidirectional linier motion.

After the initial build up, the energy required to maintain the orbital time of the sockets is far less than that required to move the mass of the bicycle and toolbox in there amplitude over the same period of time.

The mass of the bicycle and toolbox can be replaced by a generator, pump or frictional device.

A device based on centripetal force would also be suitable for energy production in a low gravity environment.

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: TinselKoala on March 20, 2012, 11:50:09 PM
Good answer, and almost correct.
The part about pushing forces.... that's not correct, though. I know there are theories of pushing gravity, and I kind of like those, and since gravity isn't fully understood I'm not going to criticise theories of pushing gravity. But other forces, like electrostatics, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces-- those can be attractive, definitely, as well as being repulsive. I don't think this is a matter of reference frame, either.

But that's neither here nor there. It appears that you really are serious... or my own filters need adjustment. Can you implement your idea in a simulator, like Phun perhaps? Or even a more sophisticated one, if you have access to it.
A model of some kind where forces could be measured would allow a better analysis of the situation. Meanwhile, if the system indeed "Yealds Over Unity" rather than being a simple (or complicated) flywheel energy storage system.... just how much overunity do you think it is? I ask because I know some very efficient ways of converting reciprocating motion (the toolbox up and down) into rotary motion (to drive the bicycle wheel). In fact, I estimate that if your system has a "COP" of as little as 1.2, the loop could be closed with a simple piston-crankshaft-pulley arrangement to make a solid self runner. If you have a "COP" of 2 in your system, there would be plenty left over to run a small generator and power a load, as well as being a self-runner.

Why don't you spend some time with the simulator, and also try to make the system out of something other than random junk in your garage--- then we can work on estimating its true efficiency and try to decide whether it's worth attempting to make it run itself.

Or you can continue with your advanced kinematics theories and stick with the bike wheel and toolbox... but I really don't think that's going to get anywhere useful.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on March 22, 2012, 12:26:49 AM
Good answer, and almost correct.
The part about pushing forces.... that's not correct, though. I know there are theories of pushing gravity, and I kind of like those, and since gravity isn't fully understood I'm not going to criticise theories of pushing gravity. But other forces, like electrostatics, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces-- those can be attractive, definitely, as well as being repulsive. I don't think this is a matter of reference frame, either.

But that's neither here nor there. It appears that you really are serious... or my own filters need adjustment. Can you implement your idea in a simulator, like Phun perhaps? Or even a more sophisticated one, if you have access to it.
A model of some kind where forces could be measured would allow a better analysis of the situation. Meanwhile, if the system indeed "Yealds Over Unity" rather than being a simple (or complicated) flywheel energy storage system.... just how much overunity do you think it is? I ask because I know some very efficient ways of converting reciprocating motion (the toolbox up and down) into rotary motion (to drive the bicycle wheel). In fact, I estimate that if your system has a "COP" of as little as 1.2, the loop could be closed with a simple piston-crankshaft-pulley arrangement to make a solid self runner. If you have a "COP" of 2 in your system, there would be plenty left over to run a small generator and power a load, as well as being a self-runner.

Why don't you spend some time with the simulator, and also try to make the system out of something other than random junk in your garage--- then we can work on estimating its true efficiency and try to decide whether it's worth attempting to make it run itself.

Or you can continue with your advanced kinematics theories and stick with the bike wheel and toolbox... but I really don't think that's going to get anywhere useful.

OK. Here you go:

http://youtu.be/B5RvlSIqIwY (http://youtu.be/B5RvlSIqIwY)

Also, on the subject of pushing forces, as for gravity, it has obviously been represented in many illustrations as a warping of the space time field. So, for the purpose of illustrations... if you can imagine dropping a ball into a pool of water such that it is floating, and then open a drain... Officially, the ball is NOT being PULLED towards the drain... It is being PUSHED by the water molecules behind it as they flow...

Likewise all mass acts as a sort of a drain for time and time pushes on objects close to large clumps of mass as it flows towards mass center. Time is actually flowing towards the center of the Earth, causing a constant push on your atoms to hold you down.

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: TinselKoala on March 22, 2012, 06:32:34 AM
Good for you ! Phun is still phun, after all. I've been able to get it to do a perpetual gravity-spring wheel that rotates along stretching a spring and then being pulled back around by it, that keeps on turning and turning and turning.....

It might be the only physics simulator that actually allows you to violate CofM and 2LoT.  It's just a damn shame that Nature doesn't cooperate in the same manner.

Now, instead of sliding weights around, couple that linear motion into a crankshaft and pulley arrangement and feed it back to your prime mover. You should do this in your garage with your bicycle. You could do it with plywood and PVC pipe and maybe an actual pulley or two from an old washing machine.

If time doesn't wash you down the drain towards the center of the planet, that is.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: AlanA on April 01, 2012, 06:43:54 PM
Hi MoRo,

haven't known that you are here also ;-)
Maybe you have seen that I start a thread with about your idea (http://www.overunity.com/12194/centrifugal-force-is-it-ou/msg317221/#new).

Do you have a calculation or a measurement about the input force and the output force? That would help in this discussion.

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: Low-Q on April 02, 2012, 12:33:38 PM
Hi MoRo,

haven't known that you are here also ;-)
Maybe you have seen that I start a thread with about your idea (http://www.overunity.com/12194/centrifugal-force-is-it-ou/msg317221/#new (http://www.overunity.com/12194/centrifugal-force-is-it-ou/msg317221/#new)).

Do you have a calculation or a measurement about the input force and the output force? That would help in this discussion.
Hey, just wait a minute ;)
Input FORCE and output FORCE?
You need to calculate the ENERGY in Joules. If the toolbox weights 50N and lifted 5cm each revolution, the energy applied to the box is 2.5Joule in average pr. revolution. Bearly noticable for a flywheel like that.
You see, then the flywheel starts to jump up and down as well, this movement will steal kinetic energy from the rotation. Because the inertia of the tool box will delay the jump so the weight on the wheel loose kinetic energy for each jump.

Vidar
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on April 02, 2012, 05:53:21 PM
Hey, just wait a minute ;)
Input FORCE and output FORCE?
You need to calculate the ENERGY in Joules. If the toolbox weights 50N and lifted 5cm each revolution, the energy applied to the box is 2.5Joule in average pr. revolution. Bearly noticable for a flywheel like that.
You see, then the flywheel starts to jump up and down as well, this movement will steal kinetic energy from the rotation. Because the inertia of the tool box will delay the jump so the weight on the wheel loose kinetic energy for each jump.

Vidar

When you use the word jump, you are talking about energy expended in one direction against gravity. But this device produces force in 2 directions OR each HALF cycle.

Force will accelerate a given quantity of mass to a certain speed within a given period of time when said mass has no other outside influence.

Force is therefore a measure of Energy that takes Joules into account.

If you lean on a tree to exert Force on it, you are expending energy, even though the tree isn't moving away from you. But you would accelerate it if you and the tree where in space.

Over each HALF cycle, after the initial buildup, the Force (energy) required to maintain the speed of the centrifugal mass throughout said half cycle is less than the output Force (Energy) in that direction of output amplitude.

In other words...
Example only not accurate figures:
-------------------
Mass (A) on the centrifuge receives 10 Nm^2 to keep it rotating at a certain rotational speed (regardless of losses) for each half cycle...
The output produces Force that averages 100 Nm^2 over this same time period.

1.) To what speed will  Mass (B), a copy of mass (A), accelerate from 0 mph if 10 Nm^2 is applied over the time that Mass (A) completes one half cycle?

2.) To what speed will  Mass (C), a copy of mass (A), accelerate from 0 mph if 100 Nm^2 is applied over the time that Mass (A) completes one half cycle?
----------------------

I hope you understand the implications.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on April 06, 2012, 12:58:02 AM
Faster acceleration of mass evidences Over Unity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjIIDquFCAU
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: AlanA on April 16, 2012, 02:52:18 PM
@ MoRo

Thanks for the new video. But I don't know what you want to say with the simulation.

But one more question to the bike video "Easy over unity".
You made some calculations on paper in post #8. It would be a great breakthrough if you could do some measurements on the running model. It would convince every skeptics  ;)

AlanA
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: AquariuZ on April 16, 2012, 06:00:42 PM
How about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ERYReuQIrA

DonÂ´t ask me how and what he is doing but the claims that are made are something like:

Two (electromagnet) generators who both drive a single iron construction with weights added will give 2800 rpmÂ´s.

Then when a load is placed on the generated output... The rpms stay the same or briefly go higher.

Designer: Antonio Romero.

There is nothing in english about this btw.

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: AquariuZ on April 16, 2012, 06:11:53 PM
How about this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ERYReuQIrA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ERYReuQIrA)

DonÂ´t ask me how and what he is doing but the claims that are made are something like:

Two (electromagnet) generators who both drive a single iron construction with weights added will give 2800 rpmÂ´s.

Then when a load is placed on the generated output... The rpms stay the same or briefly go higher.

Designer: Antonio Romero.

There is nothing in english about this btw.

Ok a little more info: (use Google translate)

TK Omega RF5000 Generator
http://www.technokontrol.com/en/current-projects/generator.php

TK AMGPP Orion Advanced Magnetic Generator Power Plant
http://www.technokontrol.com/en/products/orion.php

Another movie "proving" the principle: http://www.technokontrol.com/press-media/tk-rf5000-orion.html

DonÂ´t ask me what they are doing.

The claim today is Technokontrol has built the principle into an aircraft which can fly without any fuel.
Delivered, tested and passed.

Who knows?

IÂ´ll open a new thread because I am interested if someone knows them.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on April 16, 2012, 06:59:16 PM
Ok a little more info: (use Google translate)

TK Omega RF5000 Generator
http://www.technokontrol.com/en/current-projects/generator.php

TK AMGPP Orion Advanced Magnetic Generator Power Plant
http://www.technokontrol.com/en/products/orion.php

Another movie "proving" the principle: http://www.technokontrol.com/press-media/tk-rf5000-orion.html

DonÂ´t ask me what they are doing.

The claim today is Technokontrol has built the principle into an aircraft which can fly without any fuel.
Delivered, tested and passed.

Who knows?

IÂ´ll open a new thread because I am interested if someone knows them.

That looks like a simple flywheel, and has nothing to do with this discussion.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on April 16, 2012, 08:17:26 PM
@ MoRo

Thanks for the new video. But I don't know what you want to say with the simulation.

But one more question to the bike video "Easy over unity".
You made some calculations on paper in post #8. It would be a great breakthrough if you could do some measurements on the running model. It would convince every skeptics  ;)

AlanA
The bicycle setup wasn't anything for which I intended to take accurate measurements... It was just something thrown together for my observations of the principals involved. I do want to build a measured model based on my latest simulation as time will allow.  I will however leave the skeptics something to think about for right now though.

Consider this:  Tidal forces are a real world expression of a great deal of energy. This release of energy is caused by none other than moon orbit. Yet,  zero thrust has been  required to maintain the moons orbit since it came into existence. Where then does the tidal energy come from? Is it Over Unity?

The fact is, the "LAW", or more precisely the "Equation"  for "Conservation of Energy", does not apply to the final result here, because this is a 2 stage system or equation.

Conservation of Energy applies only to isolated systems... (Put energy into an "isolated" flywheel and it will keep spinning throughout time.)

The moon is an isolated system... An isolated and imbalanced flywheel in relation to the earth, with no friction. So, it keeps orbiting without any more input... That's Stage One (a fitting Conservation of Energy equation).

Stage Two or the second equation is this: as the moon orbits energy is generated for tides and  heating of the earths interior. This energy is separate and is caused by the change in direction of centripetal forces as the moon orbits, not the speed of the moon's orbit. For If this process required any energy from the speed of orbit or first equation, what then do you think would happen?
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: AlanA on April 17, 2012, 02:34:01 PM
@ MoRo
Ok, it is clear that the bicycle is a setup to show the principle. But for me it is not clear there is an energy surplus. So I asked for the measurements.
What is makes so remarkable too is that the rotation of the bike does not stop where it delivers movement of the toolbox.

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on April 17, 2012, 07:33:12 PM
@ MoRo
Ok, it is clear that the bicycle is a setup to show the principle. But for me it is not clear there is an energy surplus. So I asked for the measurements.
What is makes so remarkable too is that the rotation of the bike does not stop where it delivers movement of the toolbox.
I Agree.
But it won't be easy. And it will probably carry through a number of post. But here goes...

Step 1 - The Fly Wheel:
Conservation of Energy says if I put energy into an isolated system it will stay there forever, AND I can only expect to get that same amount of energy back out before it returns to a 0 energy state.
So, if I put 10 jules of energy into a given mass for acceleration then I can expect that mass to obtain a certain speed and maintain that speed until I introduce friction or other outside influence. Once friction is introduced, then after I have lost the 10 Jules, the mass will have no motion.

The bicycle wheel and the sockets on it are not an isolated system.  So, they lose energy or decelerate constantly, even during the acceleration period. This is the case even when the center is restricted from the bidirectional movement in which we intend to extract energy from the centripetal forces that are created under the centrifugal activity of the mass.

The losses are due to:
1. Air resistance
2. Resistance at the bearings

However we can STILL determine the rate of these regular losses if we restrict center movement and we know:
1. The (total mass) in orbit
2. The (radius) of the orbit
3.  The (speed) or (rate of orbit) at any given point in time.
From that point in time we can determine how many  Jules of potential energy the mass has, because we will know the mass and the speed.

An isolated system would hold this energy state forever, but if we then calculate:
4. The (total time) from (maximum energy state) to (zero energy state) the we will know the (rate of loss).

Once we know the (rate of loss), then we automatically will know how much energy I must put into this restricted system to maintain it.

Also, from all of the above, we should be able to roughly calculate the (centripetal force) required to maintain a perfect orbit over the centrifugal mass.

And remember force, even centripetal force, IS a measure that takes Jules into consideration.

After all this, we can take some other measurements.

I will try to take mass measurements in the best way that I can but I should be able to use video frame rates for timing references.

Do you agree to all of this so far?
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: AlanA on April 18, 2012, 09:22:12 PM
@ MoRo

Thanks for you detailed explanation.
You have also written that you want to make some measurements. That would be great because I am convinced from your bicycle setup :))

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: SkyWatcher123 on April 19, 2012, 06:48:52 AM
Hi folks, Hi moro, thanks for sharing your work.
My brother in law has a fling sock throw toy that he brings over sometimes and it is very easy to use this pendulum action to fling the toy very high and very far with very little effort, so I know exactly what your speaking of here and when i was a kid, i tied a string to a match box car and it went so high and far, i could not believe it.
Though my brother in law can't figure out why he can't find his toy any where anymore for sale, i tried to explain that control freaks don't want people thinking about that toy and getting ideas, though that cannot kill an idea, it is impossible, thank god.
Matthew Jones made something similar to this moro, think he called it the bouncer, it also has a full pendulum rotation.
I can imagine a small model of this with those shake led lights type method to take power off of and if the voltage is not so great, we can use one or many joule thiefs to light leds to show greater power out than in.
Would be a cheap way to prove it and provide some bathroom light, for now, hehe.
peace love light
tyson
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on April 19, 2012, 04:34:19 PM
Hi folks, Hi moro, thanks for sharing your work.
My brother in law has a fling sock throw toy that he brings over sometimes and it is very easy to use this pendulum action to fling the toy very high and very far with very little effort, so I know exactly what your speaking of here and when i was a kid, i tied a string to a match box car and it went so high and far, i could not believe it.
Though my brother in law can't figure out why he can't find his toy any where anymore for sale, i tried to explain that control freaks don't want people thinking about that toy and getting ideas, though that cannot kill an idea, it is impossible, thank god.
Matthew Jones made something similar to this moro, think he called it the bouncer, it also has a full pendulum rotation.
I can imagine a small model of this with those shake led lights type method to take power off of and if the voltage is not so great, we can use one or many joule thiefs to light leds to show greater power out than in.
Would be a cheap way to prove it and provide some bathroom light, for now, hehe.
peace love light
tyson
Hello Tyson:
Tanks for the appreciation.  I had some time ago made videos of a simulation based on Matthew Jones' Bouncer. Thanks to you, I am reposting them for all to see (see below).  The one thing I could see wrong with the bouncer was that the frame was too heavy... The lighter the mass of the frame, the more centripetal push you free up for energy conversion.  But yes... The Bouncer is a very nice peace of work!

Here are my videos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Bl9Ld4310

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FaQ7H0UKF94

Enjoy
MagnaMoRo
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: SkyWatcher123 on April 20, 2012, 02:43:11 AM
Hi moro, thanks for sharing again the videos, I don't see any issues with what your showing, as matthew jones said, looks like 3 or 4 times more work out than in.
I was going to post his video link, but he made them private, so much for sharing freely, i have them saved though, hehe.
I'm trying to think up another way than those gears you show for power take off.
I am surprised nobody is building this device or something along the lines of it, unless they have and are not sharing.
Thanks for sharing anything you have to offer moro, it is the way to true freedom.
peace love light
tyson
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: SkyWatcher123 on April 21, 2012, 08:10:09 PM
Hi folks, Hi moro, just wanted to add a few more thoughts.
I am trying to figure out what to use to build a small test model of something like the bouncer.
Though I would also like to highlight, that we almost didn't even need to test the bouncer or your bike type setup to show greater work out than in, though it was tested to be sure.
Reason i say this, is because when the full rotation pendulum is rotated, there is never any substantial mechanical feedback directed back to the primary drive motor or said another way, there is no reflection back to the source when extracting work from the downward movements created by the triangular structure as a whole.
Someone else had a similar idea, though using a central rotating wheel and at the periphery of this, are fan blades attached to generators and the central wheel is driven by a motor which rotates these periphery wind generators.
When these wind generators power a load and the fan blades slow down, very little mechanical force is reflected back to the main drive motor rotating the whole structure, which should achieve a similar effect of greater work out than in, just as the bouncer and your bicycle tests.
Food for thought, if anyone plans on giving it any, hehe.
peace love light
tyson

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on April 22, 2012, 04:52:42 AM
OK you happy people... Here are some measurements of the bicycle setup:

http://youtu.be/oRrtJg6dkSo

Enjoy... and keep the suggestions coming. ;)

I'd personally love to see someone apply all this to a Bedini motor setup on the input, with extra batteries charging on the output.

And don't forget the output is on the slow side, but it is very powerful... And YES you can have extremely powerful forces at very slow speeds... for example, would anyone doubt the power behind continental drift.

I can't do it all my self.

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on April 23, 2012, 06:40:22 AM
Centripetal force liftoff against gravity.

http://youtu.be/GtwR5BCPdB0

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: AlanA on April 23, 2012, 11:46:07 AM
Hello MoRo,

Thank you very much for your two new videos. In the first new video everybody gets an imagination about the output force. The last question for me is how much power is necessary to get the bike in motion an keep it running. So you make it really exciting  ;)
Jan  :)

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: AlanA on April 26, 2012, 09:13:07 PM
Hello MoRo,

I did't some reseach in the internet because I am thrilled to know how much energy is necessary to get the bike in motion. It is clear that a detailed answer is very difficult. A very easy way would be to measure it on your model because it depends on friction, air resictance (which seems to be in this case not so much) ...
I found a side where the energy for turing a bike with 9.3 miles/hour is 50 watts. I know this is very vague but it could help. I don't think that the tool box or the weights needs so much energy to lift up.

Jan

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: NerzhDishual on April 28, 2012, 01:47:52 AM

Hi OU Persons,

Just one of my (micro) cent.

To me, this guy: 'TinselKoala' or 'Alsetakolin' or any anagram of "Nikola Tesla" is
a very witty and educated person, indeed.

Anyway, IMHO, he sounds like very destructive and negative. And was, BTW.

For my part, I'm amazed and enjoyed by the creativity of 'OU' researchers.
Yes, some (most?) can be wrong. And then?
It can be a pleasure and a lesson, it could also be a clue.
-----------------
About Centripetal?
IMHO, the way official physics is taught is just impeding right understanding.
-----------------
About AquariuZ vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ERYReuQIrA
and this MoRo answer: "That looks like a simple flywheel, and has nothing to do with this discussion."

What a nasty answer!
So, an Hero Member takes time to post some very usefull information, indeed, and you
dare to utter such answer.
Shame on U. Connard !

Very Best

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on May 01, 2012, 05:18:40 AM
Some interesting simulation effects.

http://youtu.be/jswmcdB5M0A
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on May 02, 2012, 05:50:53 AM
-----------------
About AquariuZ vid: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ERYReuQIrA
and this MoRo answer: "That looks like a simple flywheel, and has nothing to do with this discussion."

What a nasty answer!
So, an Hero Member takes time to post some very usefull information, indeed, and you
dare to utter such answer.
Shame on U. Connard !

Very Best
I looked at your video again... Just because you complain about my answer... Still, it explains nothing! No words... Just music...
My decision stands, until you explain what is in the video... It's a simple flywheel.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: johnny874 on May 02, 2012, 09:29:32 PM
I looked at your video again... Just because you complain about my answer... Still, it explains nothing! No words... Just music...
My decision stands, until you explain what is in the video... It's a simple flywheel.

MoRo,
I think what most people miss when attempting over unity is they need to understand where they are generating this extra energy.
If this is understood, then it can easily be calculated. Inertia for the most part is calculated mv^2/r.
By understanding this, the math and mechanics can be diagrammed.

Jim
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: NerzhDishual on May 02, 2012, 11:27:07 PM
@MoRo,

Yes, I agree: not a single word, indeed, a shabby music (IMO) and no explanation. :P

Anyway:
In his very DVD: "Electric Motor Secret", Peter Lindemann made
an experiment with 2 (as identical as possible) electric motors 'classically' coupled.
One as a prime mover the other as a generator.
No 'OU' here. Of course. Just measurements.

But, IMO, it would be worth to see what is going on if these 2 motors were coupled
by this kinda non so 'classical' flywheel (but a flywheel, indeed). Would it not be?

It is not a so complicated experiment.

Would it not of any interest to see whether there were any discrepancy between these 2
experiments? ('classical' coupling VS flywheel coupling)?

No 'OU'. But, perhaps, just any obvious difference could be observed.
If yes, this might open some door. Might it not?

After all, a gyroscope is a kinda flywheel. Is it not?
Please consult Eric Laithwaite about gyroscopes.
For example:
Eric Laithwaite - gyroscopic gravity modification
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlAJ7vySC8 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHlAJ7vySC8)

A gyroscope is behaving strangly. No?

Very Best
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: gdez on May 03, 2012, 12:18:20 AM
@NerzhDishual (http://www.overunity.com/profile/nerzhdishual.340/)
Good post,
eric's stuff has to make you think twice.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: gravityblock on May 03, 2012, 05:37:08 AM
Good answer, and almost correct.
The part about pushing forces.... that's not correct, though. I know there are theories of pushing gravity, and I kind of like those, and since gravity isn't fully understood I'm not going to criticise theories of pushing gravity. But other forces, like electrostatics, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces-- those can be attractive, definitely, as well as being repulsive. I don't think this is a matter of reference frame, either.

Gravity has the properties of being a simultaneous push/pull force according to how we perceive reality, but in the realm of true reality, gravity is nothing more than an effect.  By definition, "free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it.  Free fall in the absence of forces other than gravity produces weightlessness or 'zero-g'.  Any condition of weightlessness due to inertial motion is referred to as free-fall. This may also apply to weightlessness produced because the body is far from a gravitating body (no net force exerted on a body)."

If you're simultaneously pushed from the back and pulled from the front with an equal force, then you will experience zero-g.  Since a body feels no net force in a zero-g or weightlessness environment, then there can be no net reaction force.  This is the reason why a body, regardless of it's mass will undergo the same acceleration rate in gravity.  In other-words, the effect of gravity is the expansion acceleration of mass moving past stationary light (the inverse of how we perceive reality).

If you are stationary (a photon) while I am accelerating and expanding in all directions towards you (mass), then there is no forces acting between you and I.  You will experience zero-g and weightlessness since you're not being accelerated or have a net force acting on you.  However, once we make contact with each other, then you will be continuously pushed by the mass and experience acceleration and g-forces (1-g in the case of earth due to its expansion acceleration rate).  Actually, the electric force is the only force in Nature (+Q and -Q).

Gravock
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: gravityblock on May 03, 2012, 06:47:10 AM
A = Gravitational Acceleration
Z = Time of Particle (Electron) Orbit
A x Z = Velocity of Light (Velocity of Gravity)

In scientific circles, a calculation that has not been known is that the product of;

Wavelength * Frequency = Speed of Gravity
AZ^2 * 1/Z = AZ

is parallel to

Gravitational Acceleration x Orbit Time = Speed of Gravity
A * Z = AZ

The results are exactly equal, however the units are not.

In the true energy equation, Wavelength is comparable to Gravitational Acceleration (A) and Frequency is comparable to Orbit Time (Z). When Frequency (1/Z) is changed into Orbit Time (Z) the Wavelength is not also just flipped to the inverse, rather the AZ^2 of Wavelength is then changed into Acceleration (A). Wavelength is represented by Orbit Diameter (AZ^2)

Earth's Gravity (9.80175174 m/s^2) x earth's Orbit Time (30,585,600 seconds, exact lunar year) = the Velocity of Gravity and Light (299,792,458 m/s).  Earth (mass) is undergoing expansion acceleration while moving past stationary light.

The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Wavelength = Orbit Diameter = Acceleration of Gravity x (Orbit Time)^2

The Scientific Community is not yet aware that Frequency = 1/Orbit Time

Gravock
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on May 06, 2012, 03:28:09 PM
Gravity has the properties of being a simultaneous push/pull force according to how we perceive reality, but in the realm of true reality, gravity is nothing more than an effect.  By definition, "free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it.  Free fall in the absence of forces other than gravity produces weightlessness or 'zero-g'.  Any condition of weightlessness due to inertial motion is referred to as free-fall. This may also apply to weightlessness produced because the body is far from a gravitating body (no net force exerted on a body)."

If you're simultaneously pushed from the back and pulled from the front with an equal force, then you will experience zero-g.  Since a body feels no net force in a zero-g or weightlessness environment, then there can be no net reaction force.  This is the reason why a body, regardless of it's mass will undergo the same acceleration rate in gravity.  In other-words, the effect of gravity is the expansion acceleration of mass moving past stationary light (the inverse of how we perceive reality).

If you are stationary (a photon) while I am accelerating and expanding in all directions towards you (mass), then there is no forces acting between you and I.  You will experience zero-g and weightlessness since you're not being accelerated or have a net force acting on you.  However, once we make contact with each other, then you will be continuously pushed by the mass and experience acceleration and g-forces (1-g in the case of earth due to its expansion acceleration rate).  Actually, the electric force is the only force in Nature (+Q and -Q).

Gravock
The "effect" as you put it (outcome) is generally understood... It is the "cause" (source) to which there is a general lack of understanding. Gravity is not the expansion of space. It is more likely the displacement of the sea of energy in the space field that we call and perceive as TIME. Matter requires this energy for it's existence in the space field. Matter at any point in space uses this energy, causing the surrounding energy to move inward by displacement. The greater the clump of matter existing near a general point in space, the more perceptible the displacement as you approach. The centripetal force that pushes on Earth's Moon to hold it in orbit is caused by this displacement. There is in reality no such thing as a force that pulls.

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: AlanA on May 06, 2012, 07:20:32 PM
@ Moro

Thanks for the theoretical input. This is important but can also curtain the own claims.
What I want to say. There is a lack of input/output calculation of your (impressing) demonstration (bike). Even thought it was a schematic representation so you have not answered to my input calculation  ;)
Alana
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: gravityblock on May 07, 2012, 12:55:55 AM
The "effect" as you put it (outcome) is generally understood... It is the "cause" (source) to which there is a general lack of understanding. Gravity is not the expansion of space. It is more likely the displacement of the sea of energy in the space field that we call and perceive as TIME. Matter requires this energy for it's existence in the space field. Matter at any point in space uses this energy, causing the surrounding energy to move inward by displacement. The greater the clump of matter existing near a general point in space, the more perceptible the displacement as you approach. The centripetal force that pushes on Earth's Moon to hold it in orbit is caused by this displacement. There is in reality no such thing as a force that pulls.

Time should play the part, instead of meters or distance. We should look upon Time as the result of the force that impels a body through space. The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed. Thus, if the force were infinitely great, time and space would be infinitely small, they would cease to exist. If the force were infinitely small and ceased to exist, then time and space would be infinitely great. But, again the force is not everything, because in reality it does not exist. All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it. The body's movement is then only limited by the resistance it has to overcome. What does exist then is the momentum that arises from the impulse of the force, and not the force itself. Again this impulse only exists as a function of a Will that gives rise to it. To sum up, time and space are the outcome of a powerful Will acting on the Universe, that is what we should measure, taking note of its intensity in any given phenomenon. In our Universe this Will manifests itself as galactic time.

In this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QPMO6bo4E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QPMO6bo4E), each path starts at the same height and ends at the same height, so gravity doesn't provide either path with an extra advantage (The net fall is the same for each ball).  Also, take note on how the path which dips the lowest doesn't always win.  The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  However, the shortest time between two points is a curve.  It's the shortest time because the curve provides the greatest force with the least amount of resistance to overcome to impel the body through space (the greatest momentum), and not because time decreased, increased, or was displaced.  Mass moves faster on a curve than it does a straight line.  All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it. The body's movement is then only limited by the resistance it has to overcome.  Gravity isn't a curvature in space-time (if the force were infinitely great, time and space would be infinitely small, they would cease to exist. If the force was infinitely small, time and space would be infinitely great).

Gravock
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: NerzhDishual on May 07, 2012, 02:21:24 AM
@GravityBlock

Thanks for your post.

"galactic time" is over my (left?) mind. :-[

Anyway:
[....] each path starts at the same height and ends at the same height,
so gravity doesn't provide either path with an extra advantage
(The net fall is the same for each ball).
Also, take note on how the path which dips the lowest doesn't always win.
The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.
However, the shortest time between two points is a curve.
................
Gravity isn't a curvature in space-time.

Might evoke something to my right brain. ???

Anyway I have the  feebleness to believe that - apart from any theory- some very simple experiments might be of any help.

Very Best
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on May 07, 2012, 07:13:40 PM
@ Moro

Thanks for the theoretical input. This is important but can also curtain the own claims.
What I want to say. There is a lack of input/output calculation of your (impressing) demonstration (bike). Even thought it was a schematic representation so you have not answered to my input calculation  ;)
Alana
Even if it were true tha I was the first to suggest such theory as an explanation of gravity, and I "curtain own claims" by mentioning it here, I would be happy that such knowledge became openly available to all. Just as my MagnaMoRo YouTube channel expresses... "Free Energy For All".  I am unconcerned for my self... The benefit of all is the seat of my motivation.

Also, I am still working out the proper way to demonstrate the input/output with the bicycle setup.  Stay posted.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: johnny874 on May 07, 2012, 08:29:27 PM
Time should play the part, instead of meters or distance. We should look upon Time as the result of the force that impels a body through space. The greater the force, the shorter the time, and the shorter also the space to be traversed. Thus, if the force were infinitely great, time and space would be infinitely small, they would cease to exist. If the force were infinitely small and ceased to exist, then time and space would be infinitely great. But, again the force is not everything, because in reality it does not exist. All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it. The body's movement is then only limited by the resistance it has to overcome. What does exist then is the momentum that arises from the impulse of the force, and not the force itself. Again this impulse only exists as a function of a Will that gives rise to it. To sum up, time and space are the outcome of a powerful Will acting on the Universe, that is what we should measure, taking note of its intensity in any given phenomenon. In our Universe this Will manifests itself as galactic time.

In this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QPMO6bo4E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2QPMO6bo4E), each path starts at the same height and ends at the same height, so gravity doesn't provide either path with an extra advantage (The net fall is the same for each ball).  Also, take note on how the path which dips the lowest doesn't always win.  The shortest distance between two points is a straight line.  However, the shortest time between two points is a curve.  It's the shortest time because the curve provides the greatest force with the least amount of resistance to overcome to impel the body through space (the greatest momentum), and not because time decreased, increased, or was displaced.  Mass moves faster on a curve than it does a straight line.  All that exists is the impulse that is applied to the body in space and imparts momentum to it. The body's movement is then only limited by the resistance it has to overcome.  Gravity isn't a curvature in space-time (if the force were infinitely great, time and space would be infinitely small, they would cease to exist. If the force was infinitely small, time and space would be infinitely great).

Gravock

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
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on May 07, 2012, 11:41:28 PM

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
It seams to be a common mistake that people make, to say "work = mass times distance travelled", but this simply is not accurate.

Work = The average applied Force over a given period of Time.

A given quantity of mass will accelerate or deccelerate at a certain rate over the Time of applied Force and then forever maintain that state so long as there is no other outside force or resistance. This also applies to gyrational and centrifugal activity.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: johnny874 on May 08, 2012, 12:33:48 AM
It seams to be a common mistake that people make, to say "work = mass times distance travelled", but this simply is not accurate.

Work = The average applied Force over a given period of Time.

A given quantity of mass will accelerate or deccelerate at a certain rate over the Time of applied Force and then forever maintain that state so long as there is no other outside force or resistance. This also applies to gyrational and centrifugal activity.

MoRo,
One thing scientists agree on is that if a 1kg weight drops 9.8 meters regardless of it's path will have the same velocity at the bottom of it's drop.
If one weight circles as in a wheel, then it will take more time to arrive at the same destination at the same speed all things being equal.
The difference is torque. A weight taking a longer path generates more torque which can be converted into force or work.
One example my father gave me a long, long time ago was a weight dropping 1 meter can only lift another weight 1 meter. In a wheel, this is all that is required. A simple wheel of 4 weights might work. What would be missing is this understanding, the path downward would need to be longer to generate extra potential. This would mean that speed or velocity would not be as important as someone would think in a basic design.
It might have the opposite effect and reduce the efficiency of converting potential into work or spin of the wheel. This is because the amount of time a weight is over balanced would be reduced because of the wheel rotating. Einstein's equal and opposing effect. The faster a wheel spins, the less over balance it has.
Jim
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on May 08, 2012, 04:25:29 AM

MoRo,
One thing scientists agree on is that if a 1kg weight drops 9.8 meters regardless of it's path will have the same velocity at the bottom of it's drop.
If one weight circles as in a wheel, then it will take more time to arrive at the same destination at the same speed all things being equal.
The difference is torque. A weight taking a longer path generates more torque which can be converted into force or work.
One example my father gave me a long, long time ago was a weight dropping 1 meter can only lift another weight 1 meter. In a wheel, this is all that is required. A simple wheel of 4 weights might work. What would be missing is this understanding, the path downward would need to be longer to generate extra potential. This would mean that speed or velocity would not be as important as someone would think in a basic design.
It might have the opposite effect and reduce the efficiency of converting potential into work or spin of the wheel. This is because the amount of time a weight is over balanced would be reduced because of the wheel rotating. Einstein's equal and opposing effect. The faster a wheel spins, the less over balance it has.
Jim
I do not dispute you on the above points... But the point you may not be considering, AND what you should have asked your father, is this...

How high can a 1kg mass be lifted by another 1kg mass dropped from 9.8 meters if that 1kg mass was already traveling at 9.8 meters/sec at the time you drop it?

See... that's the point... once the mass on my bicycle wheel has been accelerated, then, at the top of each cycle, the â€œdropâ€ already has a certain start speed. Think of it as a state or level of energy. It is only this energy level that needs to be maintain against losses.  I don't have to start from a zero energy state each drop. The curved path of the wheel conserves the energy and swings it back 180Â° each half cycle. The bicycle jumps up and down because of centripetal forces generated by the speed of curvature of the orbiting mass.

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: AlanA on May 08, 2012, 02:17:01 PM
@ MORO
Sorry, it was not my intention to insult or to be unpolite.
Althought I was a little bit confused because I get no anwer from you (energy for turing a bike with 9.3 miles/hour is 50 watts).
What I meant with "curtain the own claims" is not you work generall but the very theoretical discussion about it. My suggestion: To show facts: input versus output. This spares all theoretical discussions.
But thanks for you interesting demonstration: There is no other idea like this.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: johnny874 on May 08, 2012, 04:07:52 PM
I do not dispute you on the above points... But the point you may not be considering, AND what you should have asked your father, is this...

How high can a 1kg mass be lifted by another 1kg mass dropped from 9.8 meters if that 1kg mass was already traveling at 9.8 meters/sec at the time you drop it?

See... that's the point... once the mass on my bicycle wheel has been accelerated, then, at the top of each cycle, the â€œdropâ€ already has a certain start speed. Think of it as a state or level of energy. It is only this energy level that needs to be maintain against losses.  I don't have to start from a zero energy state each drop. The curved path of the wheel conserves the energy and swings it back 180Â° each half cycle. The bicycle jumps up and down because of centripetal forces generated by the speed of curvature of the orbiting mass.

MoRo,
I think the attached diagram will help you to understand my perspective. One thing I thought of is that Bessler said to make 3 weights fly as one and then go lightly. The reason i mention this is the daigram is a form of basic algebra, -A + A = 0. No extra force and no extra resitence.
By considering this, if a weight is 10 inches from center at it's inner position, then it's movement from 45 degrees before top center has as much resistence as force is generated by it's opposing motion.
Like wise, when a weight moves to it's over balanced postion, it's movement down has the opposing effect when it passes bottom center. This allows for a space centered at the level of the axle (if the devicxe is stopped every 90 degrees of rotation to allow the weights to shift) where one weight will be lifted the same as the opposing weight drops.
What this basic design allows for is that if the over balanced weight is 2 times further from the center, it will have twice the potential during it's period of over balance. Outside of this period, the motion and potential of the weights would average out having no extra force or resistence. If springs were used or if the wheel rotated slowly, then it might work without stopping every 90 degrees.
I guess in it's simplest form, this design allows for the wheel to accelerate even if the drop and lift are the same for all weights.
Hope you like   :)

Jim

forgot the diagram   :o
modified the diagram by adding 2 X's, they show the beginning and end point of the weight's over balanced position in the -B and B sections.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: gravityblock 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 (http://www.members.shaw.ca/warmbeach/ACCELERATION.htm).  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
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: gravityblock 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? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: johnny874 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 (http://www.members.shaw.ca/warmbeach/ACCELERATION.htm).  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
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: johnny874 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  :D 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.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on May 14, 2012, 03:34:58 AM
:D Overunity is here! :D

Have a little fun with this...

http://youtu.be/7Vch0p2VlDY (http://youtu.be/7Vch0p2VlDY)

And I made the music too. 8)

MagnaMoRo
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: SkyWatcher123 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 ;)
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: johnny874 on May 14, 2012, 07:20:19 PM
:D Overunity is here! :D

Have a little fun with this...

http://youtu.be/7Vch0p2VlDY (http://youtu.be/7Vch0p2VlDY)

And I made the music too. 8)

MagnaMoRo

Magna,
Haven't kids always been considered perpetual motion machines ?   :o
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on May 29, 2012, 05:50:51 AM

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

Yes so you will like this one too.

http://youtu.be/8UBqYY7IDXc ;)
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: AlanA on May 29, 2012, 04:33:33 PM
Hi Moro,
thanks for charing your ideas especially your videos.
The question for me is how can someone use this effect? I think there are various possibilities.

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: AlanA 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?

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: johnny874 on May 31, 2012, 03:26:29 PM
A short answer is yes.

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
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: johnny874 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

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: johnny874 on June 01, 2012, 08:27:54 PM
@MoRo and Webby1,
A quick drawing about off sets. The wheel isn't, but think of an oil darick.
A weight could be placed at location A, on the wheel or both to work with
the counter weight.
One of the things about it is the pivot on the wheel would come up beneath
the bike/cross beam. One thought is if the wheel rotates clock wise, then
before it is to top center, A would be wanting to drop and most of the acceleration
of the wheel would be side ways at first, then downwards.
Not sure if it would change things much, but thought I'd see what you guys think.

Jim
fprgot the pic  :o
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: Rafael Ti on June 05, 2012, 07:22:32 PM
Jim
Here is a simple "centrifugal accelerator"  ;D . It enables to utilize centrifugal forces of rotating freewheel and convert them to additional rpms... Beam with pivots and lever on rotates separately and free on axle.  Two arms lever system is separated from the wheel to prevent any influence on it.
If it is possible to utilise centrifugal/-petal forces this wheel should accelerate when rotating. But I don't think so...
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on September 30, 2012, 04:05:03 PM
My response to a device under construction in a YouTube video posted by YouTube user: gdez1000 (http://youtu.be/Tc6VT2XPTuA)

See my responce here ---> http://youtu.be/zq6mXxEQJpc (http://youtu.be/zq6mXxEQJpc)

MagnaMoRo (http://www.youtube.com/user/MagnaMoRo)
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: SkyWatcher123 on October 01, 2012, 07:12:22 AM
Hi folks, Hi moro, thanks for sharing the link and information.
I have been pondering this device for some time now, thinking up a simple way to extract work from it and you've shown a nice idea.
The most recent idea i had, was to use a free wheel sprocket form 10 speed and have the end of that lever you show, interact with the sprocket and turn the wheel, with the bicycle wheel either having magnets attached or a generator touching outside of tire or a chain going from sprocket to a sprocket on a generator.
I know matthew jones built what he calls the 'bouncer' and it uses the same principles of a full rotating pendulum.
peace love light
tyson :)
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MoRo on October 01, 2012, 11:54:38 PM
You guys might like this idea too...

>>> http://youtu.be/LNPR2foT2J4 (http://youtu.be/LNPR2foT2J4)

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: AlanA on November 10, 2012, 06:43:45 PM
@ moro
I like your demonstration videos more. An animation is not real.
Since some weeks I am thinking how it is possible to generate power. The big advantage of your invention is that there is nothing which stops the ratation of the bike. The construction makes an up and down movement. Why not using a linear motor?

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: johnny874 on November 10, 2012, 09:37:04 PM
@All,
here is a test I'll be doing, it's to conserve momentum.
With a round cog, the distance from the fulcrum to the weight becomes longer as the weight swings upward.
For every inch of radius, the retraction is 9/16th's of an inch. To figure the max retraction, add  the radius
to the radius times .57. That number will ned to be less than the radius the weight is traveling in the wheel.
An example is, with a 10 inch radius, a 6 inch radiused cog has 3.42 inches of retraction for a total or 9.42 inches.
This means that by the time the weight is level with the axle, it would be almost 3 1/2 inches closer.

Jim
Title: Re: Centripetal Force measurements
Post by: norman6538 on December 17, 2012, 03:03:14 PM
It seems to me an excellent way to measure the forces is to cascade the lifting
to a second or third bicycle turning its wheel and see what it then lifts...
Cascading to two would be clear OU proof to me.
I'll try that when I can get to it but family and Christmas activities will have first priority.

Norman
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: Magnethos on December 17, 2012, 11:49:24 PM
Well, at the moment I'm waiting to buy new hardware for my computer to install a CAD program to desing some pieces for an energy device I want to replicate.

Of course, I think all energy devices need to work in some moment implementing implosion because if you want add excess energy to the system it's impossible to do using explosion. If you want to add you need to introduce not to expulse. That is 100% basic and critical to understand.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: norman6538 on December 31, 2012, 03:33:44 AM
I have a physion simulation file that takes off and runs and runs. Dwon load it
and run it. It yaws back and forth till about 100 seconds and then takes off clockwise.
Any ideas what its doing? It was designed to  be a bicycle wheel off balanced on a board like the MoRo bike and a weight on the other end....It does have a certain speedup and slowdown
cycle to it.
The file is a .scene file but I had to add .zip to get it to upload so download it and then
remove the .zip and it should work.

You will need to remove the second green pivot point for the circle before you run it.

It really puzzles me.
I think I see why it takes off and spins. It is the motor enabled for the circle's pivot point
because when I turn that off it does not spin after 100 seconds. Sorry but it is interesting
to play with.  One would have to measure the force to rotate the circle with the force that
results.

Norman
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: norman6538 on January 01, 2013, 02:57:48 AM
Here is a better physion bike wheel to play with. You can change the motor speed of
the wheel pivot point and
make it kick in centripital force and you can change the mass of the wheel and
the weight so that is will and will not work.
Remember the file is not a zip file. You have to remove the dot zip and
physion will then see the .scene file.

If someone has a better simulation program that has work/forces in it we can
nail this thing real soon otherwise I have to make and vary things to test them
out. I have a few ideas of how to do that but it would be so much faster with a
good simulator...

Physion is easy to use and taught me some of the basic principles that I thought
would be a factor.

have fun,
Norman
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: norman6538 on January 08, 2013, 04:33:46 PM
Here are the numbers in my latest simulation..

The leverage on the arm varies as the wheel rotates
because the weight shifts left and right.

to the left the max leverage would be 9:16 = .5625
and to the right 5:16 = .3125 min leverage

So if the weights were equal the leverage alone would not lift
the weight on the right and with very little rotation or none
the weight does not lift....

But the density/weight ratio is wheel= 5 and weight= 10 which makes
it even doubly worse....
so the combined disadvantage would be .5625*.5 = .28125  = 3.55
so dispite a 3.55 mechanical/weight disadvantage it lifts the weight which means
the weight on the left has to become 3.55 times heavier than it really is...

So there is no mathematical way for the wheel on the left to lift the
weight on the right with both a leverage and weight disadvantage BUT IT DOES.

But when adequate rotation is used the weight goes up and down...
How can that be?  Where does the extra work come from?

Think about a rotating bicycle wheel with a 1 lb weight on it. That wheel
would drop from noon to at least 9 oclock by itself so all that is
needed for rotation is to lift that 1 lb back up to noon...
which would be about 1.5 ft lbs at most...now suppose that
then lifts even 5 ft lbs? ie 20 lbs 3 inches....there is overunity
right there.....
But remember it does have to have a minimum rpms to do this.
Does that require more then 1.5 ft lbs.  to get the min rpms ???

Norman

P.S. remember that this is not a zip file but a .scene file and the .zip has to be removed
by renaming the file after downloading.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on January 17, 2013, 02:40:04 AM
Ummmm... for all those who believe that gravity is a pushing force please explain the tidal bulge in the oceans as the moon is dead over center of that bulge. this is clearly an attraction.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: norman6538 on March 15, 2013, 01:36:34 AM
This group seems dead. I have something to post if anyone is there to read it.

Norman
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: tim123 on August 16, 2013, 05:21:50 PM
Hi Folks,
I think it's very likely that centrifugal force is an avenue to OU. I've done some research & calcs.

These are Industrial Vibration Motors, designed to provide large centrifugal forces. They're used in vibration testing, moving stuff around, lots of uses:
http://www.venanzettivibrazioni.it/cataloghi/manuale_uso_standard.pdf

For example, model code V2017 from the above pdf:
- 3000 PM (50 RPS) @ 50Hz
- Centrifugal Force: 520Kg
- Power Rating: 430Watts

The attached diagram (sorry it's badly drawn), shows two of the above motors, facing each other - to give a purely up & down motion. They're mounted on a base plate, which is attached to springs suspending it from something - not shown. Below the base is a big magnet, and a coil. As the motors rotate the magnet goes in and out of the coil - generating electricity.

- The input power is 2 x 430 Watts - i.e. 860 Watts.
- The output force is 1040Kg max.

The coil, under load, reacts against the magnet producing an opposing field - as per Faraday's law. This means you have to push the magnet hard into the coil. The force required can be (roughly) calculated from the simple solenoid equation:
Force in Newtons = AmpTurns * CoreFaceArea / CoilLength

I've done some rough calcs for a generator coil - aiming to produce over 10,000 Watts from this arrangement - and this is what I came up with. It is totally impractical - as the current would burn out the wire on the first swing, (it'd need to be broken up into many smaller coils) but I think it's true to say that it's a fair indication of how much power you could get out - for how much force in:

- Coil Length: 50mm
- Inside Diam: 75mm
- 1650 Turns of 2mm copper
- 4.8 Ohms DC resistance

Moving a 1 Tesla permanent magnet in and out (i.e. 50mm movement), at 50 cycles per second, gives the following values, by Faraday's law:
- 364 Volts
- 75 Amps
- 27,000 Watts

The max force required, by the solenoid equation above, is 560Kg. About half of what our two motors can produce.

So, by these figures, this setup would have a COP of about 30. A more practical arrangement might be to connect the sprung motors / baseplate directly to a standard generator via a crank... Also, the spring tension would really need to be tuned to the running frequency. Maybe springs aren't even necessary...

Calculating output power a slightly more standard / obvious way:

If we assume an average force of 500Kg from the 2 motors, and a crank of 25mm, the Torque is:
500 * GRAVITY * 0.025
= 122 Newton / Meter

Power at 50 Hz = TORQUE * TWOPI * 50
= 38,000 Watts

The big assumption here is that the motor can provide 50mm of movement. I'm guessing that 50mm is at the outside range of what it might do at 50Hz - and it'd depend on how it was attached I guess. Maybe the springs (tuned for resonance), would give us any extra throw required.

Maybe - to make it really easy - you could just mount the motor(s) on the crank itself? If the motor was attached so it stayed horizontal, I think the forces on the crank would be the same as if it was connected via a con-rod. But I'm not sure... Also - the rotary motion of the eccentrics in the motors is exactly the same as the crank - so the power transfer should be close to 100%?

Update: Here's a design which I think should work. Attached below. The eccentric motor is mounted on a plate, attached to a connecting rod - connected to the generator crank. The con-rod can move up & down & side to side - and it transmits the power from the eccentric to the crank.

Note - I drew the eccentric mass in the wrong position - it should be down in that position. The eccentric leads the crank by 90 degrees - thus providing force tangentially to the crank - which is just what you want to maximise power transfer.

It's more fun than watching telly. :)
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: Kator01 on August 17, 2013, 12:11:59 AM
Hello,

when I follow this discussion it remembers me of Alan Cresswells ( England) work,  ending 2011. Unfortunately his website is abandoned but still can be found here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120825132748/http://unifiedtheory.org.uk/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20120825132748/http://unifiedtheory.org.uk/)

Pay attention to the similarity of the planetary drive of Alan and TechnoKontrols device here:
http://www.technokontrol.com/en/products/orion.php (http://www.technokontrol.com/en/products/orion.php)

and than the work of pequaide which ended in 2009. I had long participated in the discussion of his setup:

http://web.archive.org/web/20120825132748/http://unifiedtheory.org.uk/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20120825132748/http://unifiedtheory.org.uk/)

Study of these two threads might help to aquire additional viewpoints.

Regards

Kator01
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: tim123 on August 18, 2013, 04:36:41 PM
Hi Kator,
I'd not seen Alan Cresswell's stuff before. I tried to replicate his 'PERPETUALLY RESONANT DAMPED AND FORCED SPRING' today, using meccano, springs and string - but could not get it to oscillate for more than a few seconds. I can't see how it would be OU TBH, but thought it worth a go... It's not a centrifugal device though, and that's where the interest lies.

His water-turbine - similar to Shauberger's Trout Turbine, or the CEACU has some interesting features, but none of it's well explained. I can't, for example, see how the 'stationary impact vanes' would increase the reaction force from the wheel... Shauberger had vanes, but they were designed to direct the water back at the wheel, ahead of the nozzle - thus pushing it forward - I believe.

I can't understand how his 'STEEL INERTIA QUANTUM DRIVE' is designed to work at all. :(

Pequaide's work is interesting, I had a read. I am a bit confused about kinetic energy TBH... Wikipedia says this:

"Since the kinetic energy increases with the square of the speed, an object doubling its speed has four times as much kinetic energy. For example, a car traveling twice as fast as another requires four times as much distance to stop, assuming a constant braking force. As a consequence of this quadrupling, it takes four times the work to double the speed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

...and here's my confusion. What Wiki says above isn't true: "it takes four times the work to double the speed".

Ignoring friction, it takes twice the work to double the speed.

- If I provide a force of 1 Newton, on a 1Kg mass - it gives it an acceleration of 1 m/s
- If that force is applied for 1 second - the mass's velocity is 1 m/s
- To double the speed to 2 m/s, we have to apply the force for 1 more second. Not three.

Is Wikipedia just trying to pull the old Jedi mind-trick here? Or am I missing the point?

I guess that is the basis of Pequaide's work - that there is an anomaly there - and trying the extract that extra. It's difficult to imagine how to do it so the motor keeps spinning - unless you're using an eccentric mass - and harvesting the centrifugal force
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: MileHigh on August 18, 2013, 06:47:49 PM
You are missing the point.  Work is force times displacement.  Think about it.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: PiCéd on August 18, 2013, 07:46:26 PM
In fact I have something with the centrifugal force but unfortunately I am not sure that it work.
made the better dynamic balance (when you have dynamic balance you have static balance), approximately equalize the (three?) tensors
Have less air friction (lesser surface in the direction of the turn)
Using a power starting to the center of the axle
place a strong target on the field line of one of the largest mass of the trick and see what happens.
I don't know if a very good dynamic balance give a total mass close to 0, but I know that a moving mass in the path of a fixed mass, the colision transmitted energy is always (1/2) mv².
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: tim123 on August 18, 2013, 09:11:36 PM
Thanks MileHigh, I get it... :)

BTW - I've done a Phun simulation of the eccentric motor, connected to the generator via a crank I drew (on previous page). It does not produce any overunity. The power delivered by the eccentric to the crank is exactly what's put in. Makes sense... Phun's a useful tool - it's good to clarify these things, and great to be able to test ideas without getting the saw out.

Oh well, it's back to the drawing board I suppose...
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: Kator01 on August 19, 2013, 12:00:30 AM
Hello ,

just realized that I put the wrong link fpr pequaide. Here ist the correct link:
http://www.overunity.com/1995/free-energy-from-gravitation-using-newtonian-physic/255/ (http://www.overunity.com/1995/free-energy-from-gravitation-using-newtonian-physic/255/)

Special attention to page 8: here the graphic and the fotos in succesion show the process of what he made in his first experiment.

You may read again page 1, Reply 8 paragraph 7: it is all about conservation of momentum ( ! ) and not conservation of kinetic energy.
The momentum of the cylinder-mass is fully transfered to the steel-spheres thus increasing their kinetic energy at the end of the process when the momentum of the cylinder is zero.

I really regret that the discussion stopped in march 2009. The problem I saw in his setup was a practical one. What kind of a machine can be build based on his findings ?

Any ideas ? If so we may continue at his thead.

Long ago in 1972 a script was published ( unfortunately only available in german language ) by Otto Stein with the title : Die Zukunft der Technik ( the future of technology ) dealing with a mechanical unbalanced motor-concept
I found it today ( for those who can understand german) , reposted by a german guy living in paraguay:
http://wolfganghann.fruchtesser.de/ (http://wolfganghann.fruchtesser.de/)
http://wolfganghann.fruchtesser.de/zukunft.pdf (http://wolfganghann.fruchtesser.de/zukunft.pdf)

On page 7, Abb.6 you can see that the velocity of the earth ( orbiting the sun ) is considered as additional parameter for gaining energy in accellerated systems at the earth surface-level.
One page 30 a picture of a prototyp is shown which was sucessfully tested. Energy-gain was prooven by measuring the energy used to stop the machine after accelleration.

2 Years ago I did  extensive research about the author but unfortunately without success.

So many concepts exist and somehow silently they disapear

By the way: The Wuerth-Machine ( also a german inventor)  was not a success

Regards

Kator01
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: tim123 on August 23, 2013, 07:02:09 PM
I've figured out why Phun will never give OU - and why the sims I make in it don't feel right: It's using the standard equations for force, which don't include the *third derivative* of motion: The rate of change of acceleration.

I know from my experiences in a human body that it's relevant, so the fact that it's missing from the textbooks is, I'd like to say bizarre. Given the state of the world though, it's just normal...

So the 'centrifugal generator' I drew could well work - if it's linkage was a bit loose. It explains why pulses of power can yield OU.

Fifth Element:
http://www.halexandria.org/dward124.htm

Davis and Stine:
http://www.halexandria.org/dward138.htm

I think the thread still has legs... Might have to make it an *oscillating* centripetal force... :)

It's interesting that pequaide noticed OU - with a large rate of change of acceleration...
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: tim123 on August 29, 2013, 10:37:24 AM
This looks to me like experimental proof of concept:
http://www.pureenergyblog.com/2013/08/28/1761/8502373_another-academic-paper-concluding-overunity-in-the-milkovic-two-stage-oscillator/

So, the Milkovic 2-stage oscillator is measured as OU. Imagine that the pendulum keeps going round - so is an eccentric mass - surely that should also be OU, and should produce much more power out than the simple pendulum..?

I think it's worth trying to build something. I'm putting this at #2 on my list...
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: DreamThinkBuild on September 11, 2013, 02:50:58 AM
Hi Kator,

This is an interesting robot design.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNM2MiyZ5fw

I like how the arms fold inward on themselves. This design could be attached to a flywheel using a gyro sensor and weights at the ends. If four motors are used you would only have to activate the one in the 12:00-3:00 position. The arm would push the weight out at the 12:00 position than pull it back in as it nears the 3:00 position. So each motor would be given a 90 degree quadrant to work in depending on it's orientation. Would be interesting to see.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: zoelra on September 12, 2013, 12:42:22 AM
A Milkovic 2SO is NOT OU.  It may be break even at best (excluding friction and air resistance).  The paper presented in the previous link is not credible.  Read some of the comments.  To date there is not one credible, peer reviewed analysis of the Milkovic 2SO showing OU.  If OU was there, closing the loop would not be difficult.

However, the 2SO (non-Milkovic style) is still my chosen path of experimentation.
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: Kator01 on September 12, 2013, 01:43:37 AM
DreamThinkBuild (http://www.overunity.com/profile/dreamthinkbuild.18527/)  interesting design indeed. Thank you for this link. The problem with pequaide´s discovery is a practical
version or better prototype which is able to collect the kinetic energy gained when the steelballs have flung out and the main inner body hast stopped moving. How can we do this ?

I regard his discovery at that stage a scientific experiment which must be veryfied by scientists with focus in kinetics.

Kator01

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: lightend on December 27, 2013, 11:59:58 AM
Thinking about this design, or more specifically using centrifugal focre.
Couldnt you just get a funnel, cut away the bottom, put a spiral in the inside, spin it at a fast rate and let said force pick up the water and take it to the top with little effort (need to use water so a to keep the weight spread evenly and prevent extra work).
collect the water as it flys out the top and use an alternator on the waters return to the starting chamber, thus harvesting electricity). you could test the theory with a 1 watt motor spinning at xxx, and a 2 watt generator powering the motor, you would need to hand crank it to start then see if it can power its self, if it can, its o.u. if not.... you learn another way how not to do something.

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: tim123 on December 27, 2013, 01:16:49 PM
Hi Lightend,
this can be done with a simple funnel. No need for spiral vanes... There's a paper on it somewhere I read once...

If you spin a cone with it's tip in the water - the water is drawn up the sides by cenrtifugal force.

I've often wondered about the efficiency of this. The paper I read indicated it might be OU.

The traditional view, I think, is that the work done by the spinning cone on the water - to accelerate it outward - should result in drag on the cone...

Regards, Tim
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: lightend on December 28, 2013, 09:30:56 AM
hey Tim.

really? I will have a search for the paper online.
I had a think about it last night in bed and decided it would probably be better to have horizontal grooves to help speed up the spin of water and have the groves going up at a 45 degree angle so while the water is on its way up and out some of its energy can be used to counter some of the drag of the water getting up to speed.

If it worked it would definitely be an easy one for people to reproduce. at the very least I expect it to be a more efficient way of move water up than a conventional water pump. Unfortunately I am on the move at the moment and cant start playing around with the concept until I get back to the uk in early may 2014. if you had the time and a 'liberated' traffic cone, you could give it a go. also coating the out side of the cone with oil would help it pass in water with less resistance. the only place resistance would be wanted would be in the inside.
regards
mark
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: tim123 on December 28, 2013, 11:34:12 AM
I had a look for that paper, but couldn't find it...

Summary from memory:
- They tried various angles of cone
- at various depths of insertion into the water
- at various speeds

Results:
- Angles between 25 and 40 degrees best (I think)
- Best results with just the tip of cone in the water
- Existing models of efficiency not accurate - the system seemed to move much more water than predicted.

It's not a simple experiment to perform - finding / making the cones - mounting them with an appropriate motor & bearings - measuring the water moved etc...

A traffic cone would be too sharp an angle. Some household funnels might be perfectly conical, and the right angle... Attaching the cone securely to a motor in a way that doesn't interfere with the water flow is a bit tricky.

As a thought experiment - replace the water with ball bearings... Work must be done by the cone to accelerate them up the sides... There is a back-force on the cone as it does that...

How much work does it take? Probably as much as the fluid gains in kinetic + potential energy... Or maybe less. I don't know. :)
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: lightend on February 14, 2014, 07:49:32 PM
hey tim,
long time no speak.

Im now in ireland and ready to start inventing again, so if you want to put our heads together and see if we can make one of these machines that would be great (I have made a few things in the past, but this one i will need help with,  its a bit more precise than im used to).
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: CANGAS on February 15, 2014, 08:23:11 AM
Congratulations!
You've discovered that the energy in your breakfast can be stored in a flywheel and an oscillating weight, like  vertical pendulum. The major loss mechanism is the noise when the weight bangs against the ground--- but it's easy to resupply that by giving the crank another turn or two.
You probably think that the "overunity" is because the toolbox is being raised up over and over, and that's really hard if you do it by hand. But what you are not considering, apparently, is that your mechanism, through the magnetic coupling, is re-using the same energy over and over, transferring it from the box to the wheel and back and forth. If you had a stroboscope, you'd be able to tell that the wheel slows a bit when the box is raised and speeds up as the box falls.
I'm not sure where centripetal force enters into this. At least you didn't say "centrifugal". That would have really worried me.

QUOTE...."At least you didn't say "centrifugal".

Yeah, I came late to this party. Bla, bla, bla,. But..Lets establish something right now (actually kind of time-shifted into this threads past). Do you disagree with the word "centrifugal force"?

I remind you that the idol of many wannabee Physicists, Sir Albert Einstein, used the word "centrifugal force" in a manner completely acceptable to Himself in many of his writings.

PS I personally do not agree with very much of Sir Alberts view of Physics but I want to know what you think about the validity of centrifugal FORCE..

CANGAS 15
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: tim123 on February 15, 2014, 10:07:13 AM
hey tim...

Hi Lightend,
I found that paper on spinning cone pumps - attached... :)

Regards, Tim
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: lightend on March 04, 2014, 12:44:44 AM
Hi Lightend,
I found that paper on spinning cone pumps - attached... :)

Regards, Tim

hey tim,

Thank you for the paper,
I didnt understand a whole load of it, I get the 40 degree angle would be best. However I didnt understand the equations or the part about electricity that they talk about.

I will look at it again over the weekend when im less tired. If you understand whats going on there could you calculate the probability of OU?
cheers
mark

Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: lightend on August 16, 2014, 04:18:54 PM
hey tim,
im thinking a 3d printer is in order. (Left Ireland and now in the uk lol)
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: lightend on August 16, 2014, 04:31:31 PM
Anyone have a 3D printer I could have something printed out on?
Title: Re: Centripetal Force Yealds Over Unity
Post by: lightend on August 16, 2014, 04:38:50 PM
also, anyone any good with 3d cad and STL files??? If i could give a picture and spec could someone draw me up a 3d design? (found a 3d printers near where i live, maybe a bit expensive but if someone here can 3d design, it would be cheaper.