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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Gravity CAN do Work  (Read 57925 times)

mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
Re: Gravity CAN do Work
« Reply #45 on: July 23, 2013, 03:46:21 PM »
webby1,
 
Your minipalm is very similar to one sim of what eventually became the PALM device.  However I modeled only one side, so it was not balanced.  I could measure how the weight created a different torque at the upright arm as it was moved in and out on the horizontal member attached to it (the clamp arms in your case).  But it did not lift the weight.  I assumed because a weight cannot create enough torque to lift itself, but now I wonder.  With a long enough lever arm it should be possible?  Though impractical to build a device except in a sim where you can have infinitely long perfectly ridged members with zero mass!
 
Adding a second movable weight as you did instead of a counterbalance is a nice optimization.  Now if the weight could shift back and forth to both sides of each upright it would do even more?

profitis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3952
Re: Gravity CAN do Work
« Reply #46 on: July 23, 2013, 04:40:09 PM »
in order for any overunity device to work it has to circumvent the 2nd law thermodynamics.this does not exclude gravity machines.there must be a point in the cycle of steps where ambient heat intake is going to happen otherwise all energy costs will balance.

rado

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 17
Re: Gravity CAN do Work
« Reply #47 on: July 23, 2013, 05:41:29 PM »
for the sake of sanity (Mine) please have a look through this website
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm

Then come back with some arguments
Mark

"Psychic energy is nothing but pseudoscientific moonshine, unworthy of further comment here. There's no evidence of its existence."
 
Actually, all energy is psychic energy, produced by a mind (in Cosmic terms, God's mind).
 
 
 

Gabriele

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
    • Formerelax
Re: Gravity CAN do Work
« Reply #48 on: July 23, 2013, 06:24:53 PM »
No she cannot

TinselKoala

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13958
Re: Gravity CAN do Work
« Reply #49 on: July 24, 2013, 01:50:16 PM »
mini-facePALM, actually.


Tinman, Finsrud's device has been explained by Finsrud himself. It works by essentially the same mechanism as a cuckoo clock: a slowly descending heavy weight drives an escapement mechanism involving pendulum regulators. The weight needs to be raised up every week or so to keep it running.

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Gravity CAN do Work
« Reply #50 on: July 24, 2013, 02:55:56 PM »
mini-facePALM, actually.


Tinman, Finsrud's device has been explained by Finsrud himself. It works by essentially the same mechanism as a cuckoo clock: a slowly descending heavy weight drives an escapement mechanism involving pendulum regulators. The weight needs to be raised up every week or so to keep it running.
Well i have never heard that one befor?.I was unaware of any such weight within the device.

fletcher

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 399
Re: Gravity CAN do Work
« Reply #51 on: July 25, 2013, 06:55:42 AM »
Thanks for the mail Mondrasek - I'll reply in detail there asap.

Quote from: fletcher in BW.com today

I was clearing out some files recently, some from 15 years ago where I found this one.
 
 I decided I would post it up here for others to look into if they wish - I did do a search here & couldn't find anything on the board about the 'Braess's Paradox' [or on overunity.com] so this may be new for at least a few.
 
 It should be particularly interesting to members like Pete & Trevor who don't discount the possibility of springs playing a major role in a working wheel.
 
 Links below & vids on You Tube of physical experiments with springs I found yesterday.
 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braess%27s_paradox
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiOEYNGV5P8
 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMrYlspifuo


Mike .. this is about as close to a "bootstrapping" device I think I've ever come across - it was nearly 15 years ago when I was a real newb, so I didn't give too much thought how it might be plied inside a rotating reference etc.


IIRC I had thoughts of using it similar to the 'rubber band motor' except the energy to shorten the radial was via releasing the connection & changing dual springs from in series to parallel etc as per Braess's Paradox, seen here in physical form - I naively thought that there would be better examples out there I'd find in time as I got more experience, so quickly moved on to other things.

But it did occur to me at the time that there would probably be an elctro-magnetic equivalent to Braess's Paradox that might be used effectively in some way to cause overbalance or asymmetric torques in a wheel [but I'm no expert in those areas].

If you study the sim you will see a useable increase in height gain just from changing from springs in series to parallel - it is a linear response so can be scaled - I give an explanation of why that is in the attached pic which you can deduce for yourself by studying the Output data in the sim - I guess a type of parametric oscillation.

Whether it is legitimate 'bootstrapping' or has any OU potential I leave you to decide - I do think it is an interesting study of principles.


gyulasun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4117
Re: Gravity CAN do Work
« Reply #52 on: July 25, 2013, 07:22:05 PM »
Folks,  I have found this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMrYlspifuo  which includes a test with springs. The gain in height comes out in practice too.  Question is how it could be utilized advantageously... 
Wandering if height-gain means also energy-gain?

AB Hammer

  • elite_member
  • Hero Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1253
Re: Gravity CAN do Work
« Reply #53 on: July 25, 2013, 10:03:22 PM »
It is an interesting effect. Now all you have to find is how to reset it automatically. 

mondrasek

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1301
Re: Gravity CAN do Work
« Reply #54 on: July 25, 2013, 10:07:21 PM »
I believe I have figured out the error with the sim.  There is an Advanced Accuracy parameter called Overlap Error that defaults to 0.01 mm.  My belief is that is a value for how far objects are allowed to interfere/overlap with others before causing some reaction in the sim (like motion) to relieve that condition.  The smaller this value is set the more accurate the sim becomes but also the slower it runs due to being more CPU intensive.
 
Here is my interpretation of the sim events during the "rise" portion after the weight was moved to the right.  The 0.01 overlap parameter was allowing the roller wheels to cross over the arms they are pushing on by a larger value more than that amount due to the greatly increased torque.  This was allowing the arm with the weight to DROP ever so slightly (also more than before the weight shifted to the right).  Once that overlap limit is met the sim reacts by moving the weight and lever arm back up slightly to alleviate that condition.  But it will then drop again.  This is repeated over and over in the calculations of the sim, but not visible in the video rendering due to being so miniscule.  It is the larger value of continuous dropping of the weight that caused the upward motion.
 
I had actually changed the Overlap Error parameter from 0.01 mm to 0.001 mm before making the video.  This was because the default value caused the sim to be a bit jerky and that change smoothed it out.  But by upping it to 0.0001 and then 0.00001 the motion became less and less.  Once below 0.000001 the upward motion of the sim in the second half stopped and in fact it would fall just like in the first half.
 
Broli may have come closest to pointing out the error early on when questioning the accuracy of the models.  Fletcher helped a great deal with his annotations and analysis.  The rest was ferreted out while trying to make the sim travel through a full cycle.
 
M.
 

gyulasun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4117
Re: Gravity CAN do Work
« Reply #55 on: August 22, 2013, 11:26:41 AM »
...
I say "looks like", because it is not all hands free at the moment,  ...

Hi Webby1,

So how does it look like now?   :)

Gyula

tim123

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
Re: Gravity CAN do Work
« Reply #56 on: August 22, 2013, 08:48:04 PM »
Hi Webby,
  could you model your build in Phun? (Algodoo, I know, but it's a terrible name)

I'm on your side, I currently think gravity-power is possible, for the following reasons:

 1) I think Bessler was genuine.
 2) I can't believe RAR Energia would waste $X million.
 3) I think Eric Laithwaite was onto something.
 4) I think the programmers of this reality put 'cheat-codes' in all sorts of places.
 5) Most things we're told by the GovernmentScientistChurch is the opposite of the truth.

:)
Tim

tim123

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
Re: Gravity CAN do Work
« Reply #57 on: August 22, 2013, 09:46:08 PM »
I do not do "sim" work,, that is for others,, got to share the fun:)

Fair enough. Sims are no substitute for the real thing. :)

I read that Eric Laithwaite tried to mechanise his 'anti-gravity gyroscope' arrangement, and failed. I've wondered if it's because it requires a kind of movement that comes naturally to people, but is difficult to mechanise. When you or I lift a gyroscope, we can feel how it reacts and compensate, but to make a machine to do that - not easy.

Could you explain how your device is designed to work? What's the mechanism that should deliver the OU?

tim123

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 509
Re: Gravity CAN do Work
« Reply #58 on: August 23, 2013, 11:21:13 AM »
It sounds interesting. Good luck. :)

I just did a bit of research on Laithwaite, and found that he did 'crack' the gyro problem before his death, resulting in this patent for a reactionless drive:
http://www.gyroscopes.org/patents/5860317LaithwaiteDawson.pdf

'It became more exciting than ever now because I could explain the unexplainable. Gyroscopes became absolutely in accordance with Newton's laws. We were now not challenging any sacred laws at all. We were sticking strictly to the rules that everyone would approve of, but getting the same result -- a force through space without a rocket.'

'Sadly Eric Laithwaite died in 1997. His device remains in prototype form, comparable perhaps to the Wright Brother's first aircraft or Gottlieb Daimler's first automobile. '

tinman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5365
Re: Gravity CAN do Work
« Reply #59 on: August 23, 2013, 01:42:14 PM »
Simms are an important tool,, if a sim can not duplicate what I am doing then I would assume that I am missing something.

I wouldnt go assuming that Webby,as sims are based around know factor's. As we are looking for the unknown,then i hardly think a sim would be able to replicate it correctly. They are a great tool,but they are not absolute-just as the laws that they are designed around are not absolute.
The only accurate measureing tool tool is an actual device and you-providing you know how to measure correctly. I know for fact that rotating wheels with specialy designed weight's,can create a force greater in one direction,than it dose in the other.This seems to circumvent the" every action has an equal reaction in the opposite direction. Every force used to project or move something in one direction,is suppose to create the same amount of force in the opposite direction.
An example-Take a boat in water,and inside that boat there is a motor that rotates wheels and weights. One would think that no uni directional motion could be achieved,but it can be.How is it that force can be greater in one direction,than the force it took to create it in the opposite direction?.