Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.
 Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here: https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

Custom Search

### Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel  (Read 659240 times)

#### minnie

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1244
##### Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #165 on: December 31, 2013, 03:13:24 PM »
Say we need 40 hp.
Say we have 15 weights.
Say they are 5000 lbs.
Say they drop 4 ft.
Say we can do 25 rpm.
Say by magic we get 5 percent  extra from gravity.
40 x 550 x 60 x 20 =26,400,000 ft/min required.
Take one weight 1,760,000 ft/min.
5000 x 4  x 25 divide by 20 because we get 5% = 25,000
Someone who does math needs to work this out
for me because I'm not too hot at it!
John

#### Poit

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 295
##### Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #166 on: December 31, 2013, 03:16:06 PM »
Say we need 40 hp.
Say we have 15 weights.
Say they are 5000 lbs.
Say they drop 4 ft.
Say we can do 25 rpm.
Say by magic we get 5 percent  extra from gravity.
40 x 550 x 60 x 20 =26,400,000 ft/min required.
Take one weight 1,760,000 ft/min.
5000 x 4  x 25 divide by 20 because we get 5% = 25,000
Someone who does math needs to work this out
for me because I'm not too hot at it!
John

Thats a lot of 'says'... just out of curiosity, how is any one suppose to work this out if "magic" is involved?

#### Red_Sunset

• Hero Member
• Posts: 548
##### Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #167 on: December 31, 2013, 03:39:04 PM »
An opinion is worthless... pointing out a fact is priceless..
and the FACT is no one has proven over unity!
Want to argue with that? then you are really stupid! the ONLY counter to that argument is provide actual proof of over unity!
Write your reply, I don't care... you can write and write and write.. doesn't change the fact that YOU HAVE NOTHING!!! NO PROOF!! NOTHING!! so go ahead and try and write and write until your hearts content, its all meangingless drivel!

I thought that the first line in my previous posting was descriptive enough. I am not here to prove anything neither to make anybody believe anything.  Although I do like a good structured argument/discussion that can take our knowledge to the next level.

Minnie,
It all hinges on a principle.  A small "one watt" energy gain cycled and multiplied one million times per second is not to be ignored.
Sure it wouldn't look like the RAR or the ZED, but it could utilize the same principle.

Red_Sunset

#### powercat

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1091
##### Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #168 on: December 31, 2013, 04:33:46 PM »
I have proof, the same kind of proof Euclid had - but someone who can't instantly see the answer to the water and wine problem will be incapable of appreciating it.
I can spell, too.

talk the talk but you can't walk the walk,
how many years have we seen people like you on this forum talking in riddles and promising solutions, and yet nothing real is delivered,  good to talk but you shouldn't promise things you can't deliver.

#### Red_Sunset

• Hero Member
• Posts: 548
##### Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #169 on: December 31, 2013, 05:44:49 PM »
talk the talk but you can't walk the walk,
how many years have we seen people like you on this forum talking in riddles and promising solutions, and yet nothing real is delivered,  good to talk but you shouldn't promise things you can't deliver.
Hi Cat, I can not figure out to what text you are referring to, can you clarify,
1.. The riddle ?
2.. The promise of a solution or delivery?

It appears to me that people are waiting out there with hands open, for handouts.  Maybe I am mistaken, but you give me also the impression that a delivery is required/mandatory for top notch OU blueprints, triple proofed and guaranteed in perpetuity.
I thought this was a incubator forum to share and discuss technical idea's with possible excess energy relevance.

Enlighten me pls,  Red_Sunset

#### powercat

• Hero Member
• Posts: 1091
##### Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #170 on: December 31, 2013, 06:48:53 PM »
@ Red_Sunset
You have never liked my responses, so if you can't figure it out by reading previous posts there is no point in me trying to explain it,

When somebody says they have done it or they can prove it works, then yes I require actual real life evidence, otherwise there is a 99% likelihood that they are talking BS, we saw it all before with your support and belief in Wayne travesty and his BS, stop believing in people's hollow words and request actual evidence.

Nothing wrong with having a good conversation about what might be possible and what has have been tried and what could be attempted but don't tell me you've done it, you know it works, you can prove it, when you have no actual real evidence.

#### Grimer

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 457
##### Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #171 on: December 31, 2013, 07:08:01 PM »

talk the talk but you can't walk the walk,
how many years have we seen people like you on this forum talking in riddles and promising solutions, and yet nothing real is delivered,  good to talk but you shouldn't promise things you can't deliver.

But I can. I can show why and how the Keenie wheel worked.

#### tim123

• Hero Member
• Posts: 509
##### Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #172 on: December 31, 2013, 07:56:58 PM »
An acceptable proof for me, for the Brazilian machine, would have to include one or more of the following:

1) A clear explanation of the principle - so i could build one myself.
- I've read the patent - it's vague, & built the mechanism - it shows no possibility of OU, as far as I can tell.

2) Independent verification by some respected experts.
- Nothing to date - many, many months after #1 was completed...

3) Coverage in the media / interchat
- Months pass by... Still no news or verification...

Number (1) being the most important...

There's no point in filling up pages with unsubstantiated opinions. They're worthless.  Grimer, if you have any proof for any OU device then you would have already shown us it.

#### Grimer

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 457
##### Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #173 on: December 31, 2013, 09:32:53 PM »
An acceptable proof for me, for the Brazilian machine, would have to include one or more of the following:

1) A clear explanation of the principle - so i could build one myself.
- I've read the patent - it's vague, & built the mechanism - it shows no possibility of OU, as far as I can tell.

2) Independent verification by some respected experts.
- Nothing to date - many, many months after #1 was completed...

3) Coverage in the media / interchat
- Months pass by... Still no news or verification...

Number (1) being the most important...

There's no point in filling up pages with unsubstantiated opinions. They're worthless.  Grimer, if you have any proof for any OU device then you would have already shown us it.

I have.

#### tim123

• Hero Member
• Posts: 509
##### Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #174 on: December 31, 2013, 09:47:41 PM »
I have.

#### Grimer

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 457
##### Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #175 on: December 31, 2013, 09:50:43 PM »

For your convenience I've pasted that post below:
==================================

The prime mover on the Keenie is the weight which is release on the right hand side, impacts the weight below and recoils to reset in its original position.
But the really important action is that of the one way clutch, the mechanical valve, which prevents the rest of the coupled weights rising up to meet that single weight. That valve allows the jerk energy, the angular momentum to be partitioned, one part remaining within the wheel and the other part going to earth.

It's massively ironic that Keenie brought the slingshot, the gravity, assist to earth long before Michael Minovitch in 1961.

In the Milkovic pendulum we also have a counter weight sitting on  the "earth" apparently doing nothing but in fact being prevented from falling.
Raymond Head has shown that the Milkovic can deliver over-unity.  In the RAR there are plenty of pictures showing weights sitting on the floor doing nothing. It is that action that is the key to the asymmetric action of gravity.

It's a pity that cognitive dissonance is too strong for people to recognise it.

#### Grimer

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 457
##### Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #176 on: December 31, 2013, 09:53:58 PM »

#### tim123

• Hero Member
• Posts: 509
##### Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #177 on: December 31, 2013, 09:57:04 PM »
The prime mover on the Keenie is the weight which is release on the right hand side, impacts the weight below and recoils to reset in its original position. ... That valve allows the jerk energy...

Can you please provide a link to a full description of the device & how it works. I've not heard of it before, and those few lines aren't enough for me.

I'm open minded to OU coming through 'jerk' - or the 'rate of change of acceleration'. In fact i think it's probably *the* route to OU...

Quote
It's a pity that cognitive dissonance is too strong for people to recognise it.

Mate, most of us are old and cynical - with good reason... Have you noticed just how many frauds there are in this field?

#### Grimer

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 457
##### Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #178 on: December 31, 2013, 10:06:45 PM »
Can you please provide a link to a full description of the device & how it works. I've not heard of it before, and those few lines aren't enough for me.

I'm open minded to OU coming through 'jerk' - or the 'rate of change of acceleration'. In fact i think it's probably *the* route to OU...

Mate, most of us are old and cynical - with good reason... Have you noticed just how many frauds there are in this field?

Go to BesslerWheel.com and you will find oodles of stuff on the Keenie, its history, etc.

I'm encouraged to see you are open minded about the 3rd derivative of position with respect to time. When ever I talk about Jerk on the Bessler forum I get a very frosty reception. As for Snap, Crackle and Pop - that makes them loose it completely.

#### tim123

• Hero Member
• Posts: 509
##### Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #179 on: December 31, 2013, 10:15:36 PM »
Go to BesslerWheel.com and you will find oodles of stuff on the Keenie, its history, etc.

For the sake of the leettle cheeldren, a link - not a trawl please.

Quote
I'm encouraged to see you are open minded about the 3rd derivative of position with respect to time. When ever I talk about Jerk on the Bessler forum I get a very frosty reception. As for Snap, Crackle and Pop - that makes them loose it completely.

Lol

I think deferred reaction - or 'critical action time' - is probably where it's at... Do before you think... Leap before you look. That kinda thing...

I'm a big fan of Davis and Stine... What a breath of fresh air & common-sense to read physicists saying 'nothing can react to an input in zero time'...

So reaction may be opposite and equal, but it *cannot* be simultaneous...