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: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%  (Read 415822 times)

#### 2020man

• Newbie
• Posts: 8
##### Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #465 on: November 04, 2014, 12:29:39 AM »
THANKS so much for doing this! Very helpful. Very encouraging.

But friction will be irrelevant with such a high gain . . .

Best wishes

2020

#### thngr

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 82
##### Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #466 on: November 04, 2014, 01:50:37 AM »
How come so easily made mistakes to overcome our wishes?

#### 2020man

• Newbie
• Posts: 8
##### Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #467 on: November 04, 2014, 09:06:04 AM »
some little math on it...

I can't find the post I saw last night redoing this analysis showing COP=1 . . . Which represents the reality?

My gut feeling is that the top of the pole must be directed and not driven, simply loosely following the motion of the arm so that the weight does its work in wanting to fall and the top of the shaft is merely preceding the position to maintain that situation. As the weight wants to fall the top of the shaft should want to move forward and so not provide a backwards force causing work to be needed to be done . . . so no energy input at the top . . . ?

Best wishes

2020

#### MoRo

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 80
##### Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #468 on: November 04, 2014, 06:45:13 PM »
My gut feeling is that the top of the pole must be directed and not driven, simply loosely following the motion of the arm so that the weight does its work in wanting to fall and the top of the shaft is merely preceding the position to maintain that situation. As the weight wants to fall the top of the shaft should want to move forward and so not provide a backwards force causing work to be needed to be done . . . so no energy input at the top . . . ?

Best wishes

2020
The weight will merely pursue balance at a lowest point. It does indeed require energy in the form of torque to rotate the top of the rod around a center point, to cause the imbalance which the weight will continue to pursue. (see my earlier post)

#### ARMCORTEX

• Hero Member
• Posts: 717
##### Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #469 on: November 04, 2014, 07:56:06 PM »
The device never worked, video and claims were wrong.

Who is to blame for all this commotion ?

#### ARMCORTEX

• Hero Member
• Posts: 717
##### Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #470 on: November 04, 2014, 10:10:47 PM »

I want you guys to work on this now.

Mechanical ''pulse shock'' oscillator designs using eccentrics or simply geometry.

And I dont wanna hear about magnets.

Either the lead out effect is true, or somekind of standing wave echo is happening within the belt.

#### 2020man

• Newbie
• Posts: 8
##### Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #471 on: November 06, 2014, 12:06:52 AM »
The device never worked, video and claims were wrong.

Who is to blame for all this commotion ?

Have you tried this device?

Thanks for the maths above but I'm not at all sure it's right. It doesn't seem to take into account the phase difference between top of pole offset and arm/weight offset.

The very simple mockup of the device that I have made up behaves entirely as expected until one leans the top of the pole at 90 degrees to the arm, and then moves in the direction tangential to the weight, it wanting to fall, it wanting to go around in a circle. This device is difficult to picture in 3d and causes difficulties in analysis as a result. Who has actually built one? And who has let the top pole be loose rather than fixed? It's essential also to put direction in at the top but not a driving energy - one has to direct the pole and then allow gravity to do the work.

Please forgive my stupidity in pursuit of this device but the behaviour of the test pole, arm and weight I've put together indicates something unexpressed by the mathematical analysis and indicates also how merely as a driven exccentric flywheel it's not going to do anything but be exactly that. . .

Best wishes

2020

#### 2020man

• Newbie
• Posts: 8
##### Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #472 on: November 06, 2014, 12:52:24 AM »
Yes

I have,, and I have used a single stage as well as the double stage that Skinner showed in the clip.

I have tried it with the shafts locked and unlocked and indexed at various angles relative to the whole setup,, I have even tried things that I have not already shared in this thread.  The upper shaft acts both to transfer a torque through its own twist as well as a leverage via the gimbal,, the lower weight can be small if raised up high or large and left low,, there are very many little things that can be adjusted.

I think there is something with this setup,, but not how it is currently understood.

THanks greatly for this

I have just set a prize for a school DT department to get students to make one with a prize for the best device and an offer to buy a working one for £1000 which I thought to be adequate inducement to inspire . . . . and was worried about leading young people up the garden path. But clearly your hunch and my hunch that there's something capable of happening here indeicates it's worthwhile to direct young people's energies and intellects to examining this.

Best wishes

2020

#### MoRo

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 80
##### Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #473 on: November 06, 2014, 01:22:48 AM »
Have you tried this device?

Thanks for the maths above but I'm not at all sure it's right. It doesn't seem to take into account the phase difference between top of pole offset and arm/weight offset.

The very simple mockup of the device that I have made up behaves entirely as expected until one leans the top of the pole at 90 degrees to the arm, and then moves in the direction tangential to the weight, it wanting to fall, it wanting to go around in a circle. This device is difficult to picture in 3d and causes difficulties in analysis as a result. Who has actually built one? And who has let the top pole be loose rather than fixed? It's essential also to put direction in at the top but not a driving energy - one has to direct the pole and then allow gravity to do the work.

Please forgive my stupidity in pursuit of this device but the behaviour of the test pole, arm and weight I've put together indicates something unexpressed by the mathematical analysis and indicates also how merely as a driven exccentric flywheel it's not going to do anything but be exactly that. . .

Best wishes

2020

The math above also does not appear to consider the reaction of centrifugal forces that would come into play after the mass is revolving at any given speed.

I am currently gathering the necessary items to assemble a very simple first stage unit with the means to accurately measure the static output torque and compare this with the static input torque required to out-of-phase the tilt bar at various angles (an output load state) up to 90 degrees. After this dynamic input/output torque will be compared up to a point where the mass cannot overcome a load.

once I'm done, I'll put it on my YouTube.

MagnaMoRo

#### teamsource

• Newbie
• Posts: 1
##### Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #474 on: November 07, 2014, 06:17:37 AM »
This setup looks similar to me except I could never figure out what the extra weights were for?

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Mann_Gravity_Mover

#### ARMCORTEX

• Hero Member
• Posts: 717
##### Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #475 on: November 07, 2014, 02:55:20 PM »

placement is based on this wedge type arrangement.

But again, you use assumption that the device of Mann worked, wich is unproven.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2769&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

#### 2020man

• Newbie
• Posts: 8
##### Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #476 on: November 07, 2014, 03:46:49 PM »
This setup looks similar to me except I could never figure out what the extra weights were for?

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Mann_Gravity_Mover

How very intriguing

Having the wheel resting on the brick edge would seem to take any gravitational addition out of the system there - it's merely acting as an eccentric flywheel there . . .

Best wishes

2020

#### Genegene

• Newbie
• Posts: 3
##### Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #477 on: November 09, 2014, 05:24:00 PM »
Here is what I have so far, My 12v motor got fried, so I'm using a 24v motor. I built it based on what I have read here on this forum and energetic forum. Tell me what you think so far.
Genegene

#### 2020man

• Newbie
• Posts: 8
##### Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #478 on: November 09, 2014, 06:22:31 PM »
Here is what I have so far, My 12v motor got fried, so I'm using a 24v motor. I built it based on what I have read here on this forum and energetic forum. Tell me what you think so far.
Genegene

You're on the right lines, I'm sure. Your experimental setup is really helpful and most interesting. Kelly suggests running the top motor on a motor controller so that it can build up steam. But from what you've done it looks as thaough it's going to work and that it demonstrates how hard the mathematical analysis really is.

If this works, it's the one device that anyone can understand and can prove that free energy is not beyond imagination.

Best wishes

2020

#### Spirit

• Newbie
• Posts: 41
##### Re: 1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%
« Reply #479 on: November 20, 2014, 11:28:59 PM »