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.

GDPR and DSGVO law

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.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

Tesla Paper

Free Energy Book

Get paid

Donations

Please Donate for the Forum.
Many thanks.
Regards, Stefan.(Admin)

A-Ads

Powerbox

Smartbox

3D Solar

3D Solar Panels

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 84255
  • *Latest: romeos69

  • *Total Posts: 898140
  • *Total Topics: 15837
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 2
  • *Guests: 13
  • *Total: 15

Author Topic: Big try at gravity wheel  (Read 594755 times)

Offline Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #150 on: December 29, 2013, 05:35:53 PM »
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

Since it is NOT an extraordinary claim that a machine/device is NOT over unity, it does NOT require extraordinary proof... on the flip side though, ANY one claiming over unity, IS claiming something extraordinary, so there for WOULD need extraordinary proof...
...


Whether or not the RAR device works you've got to admit, it's extraordinary.   ;D

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #150 on: December 29, 2013, 05:35:53 PM »

Offline Liberty

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 524
    • DynamaticMotors
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #151 on: December 29, 2013, 06:04:04 PM »
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

Since it is NOT an extraordinary claim that a machine/device is NOT over unity, it does NOT require extraordinary proof... on the flip side though, ANY one claiming over unity, IS claiming something extraordinary, so there for WOULD need extraordinary proof...

in other words, the onus is ALWAYS on the person/s claiming over unity to prove their case and not the other way round.

Poit

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

What is the difference between a proof and extraordinary proof?

Can a woman be kind of pregnant?  She either is pregnant or she is not.  There is no in between.  So it is for Over Unity.  It is OU or it is not.  It is self evident with an accurate standard proof for those that are willing to admit it as a truth.  It becomes as muddy waters and endless proofs (extraordinary proof) for those that refuse to acknowledge a true proof.

Offline Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #152 on: December 29, 2013, 09:59:31 PM »

... 
Proof is in what YOU can figure out, sort deduct, interpret, reach to a logical conclusion, put to the test as truth, compare as facts. But that takes some work.
...


Very true.


"Proof" has certainly come to me from the mental stimulus of the imminent RAR demonstration.


Thanks to BesslerWheel.com forum discussions over the four years since I joined, I've been able to link up all that "work", all that collection of concepts relating to the Keenie wheel mechanism.


I now understand why the Keenie generates an asymmetric gravity action and how the increments of that action are integrated by a succession of fall and recoil pulses of weights on the active side of the wheel.


I can illustrate this more specifically by quoting from a recent BW thread.


Quote from: Grimer
Quote from: jim_mich
...
The problem with gravity being the 'prime mover' force is that gravity is symmetrical.
Gravity is symmetrical but its effect on both sides of the wheel is not
necessarily symmetrical.


Quote
Gravity force is the same on both sides of the wheel.
But its effect on both sides of the wheel is not necessarily the same.


For example. If the wheel has a one way clutch at its axle then there will be a force opposing gravity on one side of the wheel and not on the other. In effect gravity will be switched off, neutralized, balanced on one side of the wheel and not on the other.


In these circumstances gravity will be acting asymmetrically and provide a torque which will drive the wheel. Gravity will be partitioned into two equal angular momentum components, one which is driving the wheel one way, clockwise say, and the other which is "driving" the wheel supports connected to earth, anticlockwise.


This is how and why the Keenie wheel works.


Quote
And gravity force acts the same on a rising weight as on a falling weight.

Indeed it does.


But the action of the one way clutch does not have the same result on a weight on one side of the wheel as on the other.


Quote
This symmetry of force is the reason that gravity cannot be a prime mover force for a PM wheel.
The asymmetry of the effective gravitational action introduced to the wheel by the use of a one way clutch is the reason that gravity can be a prime mover force for a PM wheel.
« Last Edit: December 30, 2013, 08:36:43 AM by Grimer »

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #152 on: December 29, 2013, 09:59:31 PM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Poit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #153 on: December 30, 2013, 06:49:28 AM »
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Marcello Truzzi

What is the difference between a proof and extraordinary proof?

Can a woman be kind of pregnant?  She either is pregnant or she is not.  There is no in between.  So it is for Over Unity.  It is OU or it is not.  It is self evident with an accurate standard proof for those that are willing to admit it as a truth.  It becomes as muddy waters and endless proofs (extraordinary proof) for those that refuse to acknowledge a true proof.

Do you have this "rar" over unity built in your garage? do you have the blue prints to build one? or at least get an engineer to build one? No you don't...

Lets say I was to tell you I saw a rat in my basement... I took a picture of it... even a video... that would be ordinary proof... its common place.. no real reason for you to doubt I saw a rat in my basement...

What if I said to you that I have captured an alien and have it tied up in my basement..... would a picture or a video suffice? of course not... because it is an extraordinary claim.. you would either need to come over and see it for your self or go capture your own alien!

SEE THE DIFFERENCE?!

Offline Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #154 on: December 30, 2013, 09:01:37 AM »
Poit


I don't have to prove that the square on the hypotenuse is always equal to the sums of the squares on the other two sides by constructing physical right angle triangles for you to measure because you could always claim, and you would be right, that I had not constructed all possible right angle triangles.


Likewise, I don't have to prove the extraordinary claim that there are an infinite number of primes by counting them, another impossible task.


Of course, if through lack of education a person is incapable of appreciating the arguments of both claims then there is no way one can provide proofs to them.


In the case of the Keenie wheel for example, simple logic can show how and why it worked. There is no need to prove it by building one although no doubt someone who was not confident of their powers to reason correctly would take the same line as Didymus.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #154 on: December 30, 2013, 09:01:37 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #155 on: December 30, 2013, 09:08:48 AM »

===================================
The art of reasoning consists in getting hold of the
subject at the right end, of seizing the few general
ideas that illuminate the whole, and of persistently
organizing all subsidiary facts around them. Nobody
can be a good reasoner unless he has realized the
importance of getting hold of the big ideas and
hanging onto them like grim death .


A.N.Whitehead

Presidential Address to the London Branch of the
Mathematical Association., 1914
====================================

Offline TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13968
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #156 on: December 30, 2013, 10:32:10 AM »
Alas, Frank. I see your appeal to authority Whitehead quote, and I'll raise you one Wiki article on logical fallacies:

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

The fact that nobody has made a Keenie wheel work means that your reasoning, which leads you to believe it should work, is flawed. Not the other way around.




Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #156 on: December 30, 2013, 10:32:10 AM »
Sponsored links:




Offline Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #157 on: December 30, 2013, 12:09:55 PM »
They will dear boy. They will.


And when they do your naive belief in the dogma that there is no such thing as a free lunch will be consigned to the scrap heap.   8)

Offline Poit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #158 on: December 30, 2013, 07:38:33 PM »
Alas, Frank. I see your appeal to authority Whitehead quote, and I'll raise you one Wiki article on logical fallacies:

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

The fact that nobody has made a Keenie wheel work means that your reasoning, which leads you to believe it should work, is flawed. Not the other way around.

Well played sir :)

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #158 on: December 30, 2013, 07:38:33 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Poit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #159 on: December 30, 2013, 07:39:56 PM »
They will dear boy. They will.


And when they do your naive belief in the dogma that there is no such thing as a free lunch will be consigned to the scrap heap.   8)

"They will....".... so you admit there is no proof then!!
like you said, you either have proof or you dont.. and you just admited you don't.. so case closed until "they will"!

Offline minnie

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1244
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #160 on: December 30, 2013, 09:05:22 PM »
Hi,
   for Grimer and those with similar thoughts I'm sure that you'll find that the Koala
will be one of the first to endorse the machine if it's proven to work. He'll make one
in his laboratory and show the video for all to see.
    Just look at the effort that went into the Tinselzed which was inspired by Wayne
Travis, and to proving Ainslie's circuit.
   Steve Weir and Poynt99 also tried hard with the Ainslie thing. One thing that did
transpire was that Steve Weir knew more about the Ainslie circuit that did either
Rose herself or her partner!
                   John

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #160 on: December 30, 2013, 09:05:22 PM »
3D Solar Panels

Offline Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #161 on: December 30, 2013, 10:55:31 PM »
"They will....".... so you admit there is no proof then!!
like you said, you either have proof or you dont.. and you just admited you don't.. so case closed until "they will"!
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.

Offline Grimer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 457
    • Frank Grimer's Website
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #162 on: December 30, 2013, 11:03:10 PM »
Hi,
   For Grimer and those with similar thoughts I'm sure that you'll find that the Koala
will be one of the first to endorse the machine if it's proven to work. He'll make one
in his laboratory and show the video for all to see.
   
It's called climbing on the bandwagon.


Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #163 on: December 31, 2013, 12:38:49 PM »
You guys like to bitch like a bunch of OU (xxxx)!

We all can have an opinion, but that is not equal to fact. Neither does a view necessarily paint the whole picture.

If you did figure out the workings and found the forces not capable enough for the system to do as said,  a specific finding does not nail the door shut,  it only gives an indication that it is not exactly easy to open by just turning the handle. Knowing something is not necessary ALL the knowledge there is to know. 

I am not trying to make everybody believe that I got all the answers or would state that the RAR system shown works as stated. What matters more is the principle behind this system that could open the door to other design approaches. 
My intrigue is “why does an experienced designer/inventor thinks this can work”.  If the principle is sound, then working or not working is just a matter of engineering ability and available technology.

It is clear for this category type of OU design, we have a process that descends/drops a potential energy and then we expect (due to a process alteration) for the energy to be more during descend than what is required for ascent (one or a combination of both).
What Ribeiro is trying to achieve here is clearly follows a similar thought pattern, using a mechanical leverage alteration in the drop cycle to refocusing force vectors onto the same hardware (a hardware setup that did not expect that under normal con-rod conditions).  This results in a greater force than expected for a given energy drop distance. Resulting in more energy out that was held by the weight drop distance.

What Ribeiro’s design is doing, is manipulating the forces transmitted towards the crankshaft through the con-rod.  For a given gravity down force, he adds a similar value lateral force. The cost of this value verses the benefit to be had is critical.
 In a standard con-rod driven wheel, the transmission of force is a trig sin/cos function for the gravity down force. Now we introduce a selective applied lateral force to the crank that is 90dgr out of phase.
In regular crank/con-rod, with a 1:1 ratio, the weight drop height is equal to the crank wheel diameter. We know that the actual path of the con-rod attachment is more than that distance by ~1.5 since it follows the circumference.  If we now supposedly can keep the force vector at full force for that distance, we introduce an additional total torque energy of 1.5 times the drop energy.
Renato is aiming to apply this force for somewhat more that 90 dgr but at double the force (the result vector).  To supplement this, using connection locks in the system that can be engaged at specific times, in the region where the force is in-line with rotation, the down force is increased without sacrificing stored lateral potential energy, by engaging an extended lever force.  Cost saving is achieved by using weight balancing during the triangular tilt storage increase process to minimize overhead. 

The theoretical gain is limited, so any additional advantage by optimization would improve the energy balance and I believe that being the reason for diverse weight manipulation models seen.  Although the patent application gives a fair account of the working process, it sure is not the whole story and neither would we expect this to be the whole story.

What Ribeiro is trying to achieve here is in many principle aspects similar to the principle behind Wayne Travis zed described in a previous tread in this forum.  The basic difference is that Wayne uses an hydraulic leverage and Renato uses mechanical leverage.
Both principles use effectively a differentiation process between the down & up strokes with the result of an altered (increased) force over the same distance.  The differentiation is in how the properties of the same physical device are used, so that the use of a different property impacts and alters the energy balance
The result is a net energy gain.

Any constructive input is appreciated
Regards,  Red_Sunset
« Last Edit: December 31, 2013, 03:44:52 PM by Red_Sunset »

Offline Poit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 295
Re: Big try at gravity wheel
« Reply #164 on: December 31, 2013, 02:00:45 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!

 

OneLink