Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Mechanical free energy devices => mechanic => Topic started by: gravityblock on April 12, 2015, 03:50:41 AM

Title: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 12, 2015, 03:50:41 AM
Here's a video showing a crude replication of Linevitch's patent (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSG1nroy_WM), suggesting it may be possible to create a torque on a generator without a counter torque on the prime mover.

Also note, Prof. Karanev's modification of E.I. Linevitch's patent uses an electronically controlled clutch that increases the transfer efficiency exponentially!

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: telecom on April 12, 2015, 04:36:27 AM
Here's a video showing a crude replication of Linevitch's patent (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSG1nroy_WM), suggesting it may be possible to create a torque on a generator without a counter torque on the prime mover.

Also note, Prof. Karanev's modification of E.I. Linevitch's patent uses an electronically controlled clutch that increases the transfer efficiency exponentially!

Gravock
Looks great, did you get any OU?
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 12, 2015, 06:33:53 AM
Looks great, did you get any OU?


The video of the OP was done by Laurence (whoopyjump), and is the only replication I can find on the internet of Karanev's work.  According to my research, Kanarev is using custom electronic clutches from 135o to 180o to overcome any negative torque to reach the efficiencies as shown in the below image.


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 12, 2015, 06:40:09 AM
The mechanism which breaks the third law of Newton (https://www.dropbox.com/s/cbhv4oya81b0tsk/Linevich.pdf?dl=0), by Linevich.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 12, 2015, 06:46:33 AM
Kanarev's "Introduction to Mechanodynamics (https://www.dropbox.com/s/knporzxzh3fc4x3/INTRODUCTION%20TO%20MECHANODYNAMICS.pdf?dl=0).


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 14, 2015, 04:39:17 AM
One could add an additional generator to the left of the motor with a properly orientated one way bearing to capture both the forward and reverse motions without any appearant counter torque.  The left generator can capture the forward motion and the right generator can capture the reverse motion.


Nobody has tried to debunk this yet,....hmmm.....interesting!


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: telecom on April 14, 2015, 05:30:08 AM
I think Vince on this forum built similar machine.
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 14, 2015, 09:19:00 AM
I think Vince on this forum built similar machine.

I don't think you correctly understand the basic working principles and concepts of whoopy's replication.  The motor isn't inducing the net torque on the flywheel.  The net torque on the flywheel is induced by the inertia of the unbalanced gears!

Please study the motionless axis (#6 in the below image and the snapshot in the video by Whoopy).  The unbalanced gears induces an oscillation, and the oscillations causes the motionless axis to oscillate the pulley which it sits on, transferring a net torque to the flywheel via the rope.  The rope/string has no net movement itself, and this is a clear indication that there is no counter torque on the prime mover or motor, thus a violation of Newton's third law.

This is an inertial drive!  Please show me a working inertial drive built on this forum which is similar to the machine found in the video of the OP.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: telecom on April 14, 2015, 04:49:33 PM
I don't think you correctly understand the basic working principles and concepts of whoopy's replication.  The motor isn't inducing the net torque on the flywheel.  The net torque on the flywheel is induced by the inertia of the unbalanced gears!

Please study the motionless axis (#6 in the below image and the snapshot in the video by Whoopy).  The unbalanced gears induces an oscillation, and the oscillations causes the motionless axis to oscillate the pulley which it sits on, transferring a net torque to the flywheel via the rope.  The rope/string has no net movement itself, and this is a clear indication that there is no counter torque on the prime mover or motor, thus a violation of Newton's third law.

This is an inertial drive!  Please show me a working inertial drive built on this forum which is similar to the machine found in the video of the OP.

Gravock
This sounds interesting - I didn't have the time yet to study  papers you referred to.
Regards
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: Low-Q on April 14, 2015, 05:16:26 PM
I don't think you correctly understand the basic working principles and concepts of whoopy's replication.  The motor isn't inducing the net torque on the flywheel.  The net torque on the flywheel is induced by the inertia of the unbalanced gears!

Please study the motionless axis (#6 in the below image and the snapshot in the video by Whoopy).  The unbalanced gears induces an oscillation, and the oscillations causes the motionless axis to oscillate the pulley which it sits on, transferring a net torque to the flywheel via the rope.  The rope/string has no net movement itself, and this is a clear indication that there is no counter torque on the prime mover or motor, thus a violation of Newton's third law.

This is an inertial drive!  Please show me a working inertial drive built on this forum which is similar to the machine found in the video of the OP.

Gravock
I understand it completely. If you're right about the oscillation is the only reason why the CD-motor spins, you don't need a motor at all. You could just make a gear between the two purple flywheels and start spinning it by hand and released them. They would then power the CD-motor with its frictional loss forever. However, that will not happen. If you try it you will soon enough understand that you are some how mislead to think this is OU.
When you load an oscillation system, the initially 180 degree phase shift between inertia and movement will reduce to less than 180 degrees. Therfor this oscillation system will stop oscillate.


A good demonstration of this is to be found in my video here. As soon as I load the oscillation the wheel stop sooner:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV3RAL-SWjc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV3RAL-SWjc)


Vidar
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: noonespecial on April 15, 2015, 04:39:23 AM
I understand it completely. If you're right about the oscillation is the only reason why the CD-motor spins, you don't need a motor at all. You could just make a gear between the two purple flywheels and start spinning it by hand and released them. They would then power the CD-motor with its frictional loss forever.

Vidar

Apparently you don't understand. There already is a gear between the two purple flywheels.
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 18, 2015, 06:57:29 AM
We can replace the one way bearing with a scrollerwheel.  A scrollerwheel doesn't have the kinetic friction inherent in most mechanical bearings.  We can then convert the full reciprocating motion of the motionless axis by attaching a mechanical arm to it and the scollerwheel, or to one of the rollers inside the scrollerwheel.  This also eliminates the rope/chain and the friction associated with it.


References: 


Scrollerwheel, http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrollerwheel


Scroller Mechanics, http://erikbrinkman.com/Scroller/Home.html


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 18, 2015, 07:16:59 AM
We can replace the one way bearing with a scrollerwheel.  A scrollerwheel doesn't have the kinetic friction inherent in most mechanical bearings.  We can then convert the full reciprocating motion of the motionless axis by attaching a mechanical arm to it and the scollerwheel, or to one of the rollers inside the scrollerwheel.  This also eliminates the rope/chain and the friction associated with it.
...
.....

Gravock

According to Linevich's publication on page 4, Newton's third doesn't apply in this case (because: action is always equal to counteraction along one general straight line and is not distributed to a perpendicular direction).

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 18, 2015, 07:30:15 AM
While we're at it, let's replace the two unbalanced purple gears with two unbalanced scrollerwheels to eliminate nearly all of the kinetic friction of the device.


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 18, 2015, 07:42:16 AM
By using the scroller wheels, eliminating the rope/chain and nearly all of the kinetic friction in the device, along with converting all of the reciprocating motion to rotary motion, we may achieve higher efficiencies than the electronically controlled customized clutch used by Karanev!


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 18, 2015, 09:12:27 PM
4v .064 spinning the disc

4v .049 free hanging

I am not sure where f=ma is not being observed.

Mondrasek has a nice sim of something very similar to this and he was able to show what I could not measure,, that was the balanced nature of the input forces to output.

The input torque is in accelerating the weights,, the transfer torque is passed through the string.

The amps were slowly dropping during the entire duration of the spinning disc test.  The difference between the spinning disc and the free hanging test is due to the friction of the bearings that the motionless axis is sitting on, along with the friction and tension of the rope.  The rope is actually sliding on the one way bearing during half of the cycle, and this kinetic friction is acting as a slight load on the system.  This is why I suggested to replace the one way bearing with a scroller wheel, in addition to converting the full reciprocating motion to a rotary motion.  This is also the very reason why Karanev is using custom electronic clutchs and is how he's achieving the exponential efficiencies in his modified device. 

The only load this system will experience is in the kinetic friction that is inherent in the system.  However, this doesn't mean a counter torque is being transferred from the flywheel to the prime mover, due to reasons we find in Linevich's and Karanev's publications. Whoopy's crude replication is more of a proof of concept in how to bypass Newton's law.


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 18, 2015, 09:58:03 PM
If there was a counter torque in this system, then there would be a net rotation of the prime mover. There was neither a net rotation of the prime mover in the free hanging test, nor a net rotation of the prime mover in the spinning disc/flywheel test, thus Newton's third law doesn't apply in this case.


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 18, 2015, 10:40:34 PM
Also, let's not forget the electric motor that is driving the unbalanced purple gears is also acting as a generator itself.  Solve this issue, and it may be possible to self loop the system.

According to Linevich, there's a similar case of default of the third law known in electrical engineering at the interaction of two mutually perpendicular elements of a current (or charges). 

Reference: 

http://www.tts.lt/~nara/amper/neutron.html

http://scripturalphysics.org/4v4a/motion_couplers.html

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 19, 2015, 08:43:10 PM
Ask Mondrasek for the sim,, and ask him to explain it.

There is an oscillation between the prime mover accelerating the weight and the weight accelerating the prime mover.

The prime mover  is seeing a force in both directions, this is the resistance from the string, a net zero condition if you will,, and so it will pass on some of its force into the string,, as well as the weight will pass on some of its force,, but the weight gets its force FROM the prime mover.

Speed up the motor and what happens??  with this change in reactionary distance what then??

Webby,

Starting around 4m15s in the video of the OP, Whoopy moves the gear set and motionless axis back and forth by hand to simulate an oscillation.  This hand movement in no way causes the unbalanced gears to rotate and in no way causes the spindle of the motor to move.  However, the hand movement does induce the flywheel to rotate.  We can clearly see there is no reaction force on the prime mover or motor during the hand movements and rotation of the flywheel.  Also,  the volts/amps remain at 0 during the hand movements, thus another indicator for the absence of a reaction force. 

P.S.  My ex g/f has been holding my computer as hostage, and I doubt their is an android app to run the sim.  Also, my home internet connection has been down since my last post.  I had to use a free wi-fi hotspot to make this post.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 20, 2015, 03:15:23 AM

Mondrasek has a nice sim of something very similar to this and he was able to show what I could not measure,, that was the balanced nature of the input forces to output.

Webby,

A sim is only as good as the theories and laws in which the coded program is based on.  For example, physicists have observed a violation of one of the oldest empirical laws of physics at the University of Bristol.  If you had a sim which was coded based on this law, then the sim would never show a violation of this law. 

We can then take the theory in how this 150 yr. old physics law was broken and recode the sim based on this new theory and the sim would then show a violation of this particular law in order to be inline with what the emperical evidence shows.

Same thing applies to Newton's law.  The sim will never show a violation of Newton's law if the sim is coded based on the laws of Newton, even if it's contrary to other emperical evidence.  If we recoded the sim according to Linevich's theory on how to break the third law of Newton, as found in his publication, then we would see a violation of Newton's third law in a simulation of Whoopy's replication.

Reference:  150-Year-Old Physics Law Broken, http://phys.org/news/2011-07-bristol-physicists-year-old-law.html (http://phys.org/news/2011-07-bristol-physicists-year-old-law.html)

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 20, 2015, 04:44:32 AM
Webby,

I hope you realize Whoopy's replication is emperical evidence of a possible violation of Newton's law, and a sim is totally meaningless in trying to refute this emperical evidence.

You are wrongly inverting the process by putting a sim ahead of any new empirical evidence.  Or should I say, you're putting the cart before the horse.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 20, 2015, 06:10:31 AM
Webby,

I would like to also add, in the free hanging test the device isn't constrained like it is in the flywheel test, so it has more freedom to take the path of least resistance as it oscillates freely in space.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 20, 2015, 05:10:04 PM
Let me give you a small clue,, I have built and tested MANY of these setups,, hence why I said that Mondrasek could measure in the sim what I could not.

I also can change the setup and make an additive device,, that is you can bolt it onto an axle and nothing else and add a torque to the axle,, I can and have done lots of things,, BUT there is a feedback into the prime mover via the extraction of force.

You can get rid of the string and replace it with and arm or two,, if you set it up just right you can use a crankshaft instead of the one way bearing,, I have made lots of these kind of systems.

As a matter of what the heck,, I am right now playing with a variation of all these kind of systems,,  that would be all the ones I have played with,, and am looking to see if I can "break" the distance hook.

We can clearly see during the hand movements to simulate the oscillations that there is no feedback mechanism from the rotating flywheel to the unbalanced gear sets or to the motor itself.  You haven't provided one reference link to support your assertions that there is a feedback in Whoopy's replication.  Let me give you a small clue.  Your unsupported assertions are also totally meaningless in refuting the emperical evidence we observe in Whoopy' replication.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 20, 2015, 05:57:53 PM
Well. then I guess that since you can oscillate the arm that is holding the gears  and get the gears spinning and that in turn will turn the motor means nothing to you.

This is a false assertion and a blatant attempt to mislead the reader!  During the hand movements to simulate the oscillations of the unbalanced gears, the unbalanced gears do not rotate around their own axis in order to turn the motor.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 20, 2015, 06:33:59 PM



I wonder what would happen if there was an AC meter put across the motor,, no feedback would mean no AC reading,, :)  it is after all a DC motor.

This is another blatant attempt to mislead the reader.  By reversing the polarity, the DC motor will reverse its rotation direction.  Likewise, if there was an oscillating feedback in Whoopy's replication, then a DC meter will still show a reading that changes between positive and negative values at low frequencies.  I'm 100% sure that DC meter is able to keep up with Whoopy's slow hand movements. 

The unbalanced gears do not rotate around their own axis in order to turn the motor during the hand movements, thus there is no feedback to generate a voltage/current

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 20, 2015, 06:42:19 PM

I would then also guess that you could not place a weight on a bicycle wheel and move its axle back and forth and make the wheel spin,, right??


This comment, along with your previous comments is highly suggestive that you either don't correctly understand Whoopy's replication, and/or you're trying to blatantly mislead the reader.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 20, 2015, 06:57:19 PM
Why would I do that?  Why would I want to mislead anyone?

I posted the evidence from the video itself that showed there was a load seen by the motor.


Most people will say or do anything not to be wrong or not to make themselves look bad.  It's called pride, and this is one of the many reasons for people to intentionally mislead others. 

You did not post evidence from the video itself that showed a counter torque per Newton's third law on the prime mover or motor itself.  The only thing you showed was that there is kinetic friction and resistance inherent in the system.  I even showed how to eliminate most of this kinetic friction that represents itself as a slight load prior to you posting in this thread.  This slight load you're speaking of isn't evidence of a counter torque from the flywheel to the motor.  This was another blatant attempt by you to mislead the reader.


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 20, 2015, 07:00:41 PM
I am also assuming at this point in time that you yourself have not in fact ever tried to make a wheel with a weight on its edge spin by shaking its axle back and forth.

This is another wrong assumption made by you!

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 20, 2015, 08:23:53 PM
You are showing all of your own pride.

Your suggestion of using the scrollerwheel would stop the driven disc from being turned,, it is the action of the one-way bearing that turns the driven disc.

You can't be serious!  The scrollerwheel would not stop the flywheel if the full reciprocating motion is converted to a rotary motion.  There are many ways to achieve this.  If it wasn't for the one way bearing in Whoopy's replication, then the flywheel would also oscillate back and forth without a net rotation.  In other words, the one way bearing is needed in Whoopy's replication only because the full reciprocating motion isn't being utilized.  Utilize the full reciprocating motion, and the one way bearing will no longer be needed for a net rotation of the flywheel.  Your pride has now fully manifested into stupidity!

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 20, 2015, 08:42:12 PM

So,, by the way,, since you are insinuating that you have run a few of the basic experiments and can manage to make the wheel spin,, how hard is it to see that the the frame holding the axles for the gears is moving back and forth.

Simple stuff really.

Believe as you wish.

The frame holding the gears do move back and forth, but this back and forth movement in no way causes the gears to rotate around their own axis, and this rotation of the gears around their own axis is needed in order for the gears to have a negative or positive influence on the motor.

It really is simple stuff, and it's sad you're not able to correctly understand it.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 20, 2015, 09:19:22 PM
Here's another way to look at this.  If we rotated the flywheel by hand,  then the motionless axis and the frame holding the gear set and motor would then fully rotate in the same direction as the flywheel.  However, the rotation of the frame in no way will cause the gears to rotate around their own axis in order to provide a forward or counter torque to the motor.

It would be interesting to see if we could combine the principles of Tusk's paradox engine to provide a forward torque in Whoopy's replication.  I haven't yet fully analyzed the forces involved with such a combination.  More than likely, if we could provide a forward torque in such a combination, then it would open the door back up for a counter torque.

Paradox Engine:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG8YOp_njFs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dG8YOp_njFs&feature=youtu.be)

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 20, 2015, 10:38:06 PM
If you use both motions of the oscillation you will double your input costs and double your output.

No, it will not double the input costs to use both motions in this case.  For one, it will reduce the kinetic friction of the rope sliding on the one way bearing during half of the cycle.  Secondly, the motor is already providing the torque to both of the unbalanced gears to induce both motions.  Third, the torque from one of the gears that was previously encountering the kinetic friction of the rope sliding on the one way bearing during half of the motion can now be used to torque the flywheel.  This additional torque on the flywheel will then cancel the opposition between the two unbalanced gears that was present in the one way bearing configuration.


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 20, 2015, 11:24:22 PM
I added a poll to this thread.  Only one vote per user.  However, you may change your vote at any time during the discussion.  The results of the poll will only be shown to those who have voted.


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 20, 2015, 11:35:07 PM
:)  you can guess which way I voted :)

Yes, you voted the wrong way, lol!

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 21, 2015, 01:05:09 AM
I added a third option to the poll, for those who may be undecided at the moment.


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 23, 2015, 10:36:15 AM
Below are a few excerpts and screenshots from Kanarev's publication on mechanodynamics, which is key in understanding how there is no counter torque between the induced flywheel and the motor.

In old dynamics, an inertial component of deceleration bi was a part of a deceleration bp being generated by the forces of mechanical resistances to motion.  This hindered an analysis of the forces acting on all types of motions (accelerated motion, uniform motion and decelerated one). It was considered that the inertia force Fi, which also hindered the accelerated motion of the body, was not a part of the sum of all forces of mechanical resistances. It is the main fundamental error of Newtonian dynamics, which has remained unnoticed during 322 years.  Automatically, the inertia force was a part of the aggregate force of mechanical resistances, but everybody thought that it was not there. As a result, all experimental coefficients of mechanical resistances to body motion prove to be erroneous.

If a sum of the body motion resistance forces is determined during its accelerated motion, the inertia force Fi is automatically included in the sum of the motion resistance forces, and a result of the determination of resistance forces will be completely erroneous.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 23, 2015, 12:03:24 PM
Below are a few excerpts and screenshots from Kanarev's publication on mechanodynamics, which is key in understanding how there is no counter torque between the induced flywheel and the motor.

In old dynamics, an inertial component of deceleration bi was a part of a deceleration bp being generated by the forces of mechanical resistances to motion.  This hindered an analysis of the forces acting on all types of motions (accelerated motion, uniform motion and decelerated one). It was considered that the inertia force Fi, which also hindered the accelerated motion of the body, was not a part of the sum of all forces of mechanical resistances. It is the main fundamental error of Newtonian dynamics, which has remained unnoticed during 322 years.  Automatically, the inertia force was a part of the aggregate force of mechanical resistances, but everybody thought that it was not there. As a result, all experimental coefficients of mechanical resistances to body motion prove to be erroneous.

If a sum of the body motion resistance forces is determined during its accelerated motion, the inertia force Fi is automatically included in the sum of the motion resistance forces, and a result of the determination of resistance forces will be completely erroneous.

Gravock

Webby pointed out earlier that the current draw is higher in the flywheel test than in the free hanging test.  I then pointed out that the current draw during the flywheel test was slowly dropping during the entire duration of this test.  This continuous drop in current is evidence of a decrease in the acceleration rate of the unbalanced purple gears.  In other words, the device never reached uniform motion and was undergoing acceleration during the entire test, albeit slowly.

Due to the additional resistance forces in the flywheel test, it takes much longer to achieve uniform motion than it does to achieve uniform motion during the free hanging test which has less mechanical resistance and has more mechanical freedom to take the path of least resistance as it freely oscillates in free space.

 The inertia force is part of the sum of all forces of mechanical resistance during acceleration.  However, during uniform motion, the inertia force is no longer a resistant force, and it will then be pointing in the same direction to that of the constant active force or prime mover.  Below is a snapshot shot of Kanarev's publication for a quick reference.

Don't confuse the mechanical resistance in the device as a counter torque from the flywheel to the motor.  If a sum of the body motion resistance forces is determined during its accelerated motion, the inertia force is automatically included in the sum of the motion resistance forces, and a result of the determination of resistance forces will be completely erroneous.  This is the error Webby is making.  Webby is making a determination of the resistance forces during an accelerated motion, which includes the inertia force, and erroneously coming to the conclusion that this inertia force is a counter torque from the induced flywheel to the motor.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 25, 2015, 03:20:57 AM
I will read this paper in due time,, I have not read it yet.

The assumption is not really correct,,

Again I will strongly suggest that you build and test,, when you do you will see that there is indeed a feedback due to f=ma,, those weights do not just spin force-less.

I have built and tested these kind of systems,, I know that the load is reflected back onto the prime mover,, BTDT

What assumption are you referring to that isn't really correct?  Once again you have put the cart  (effect) before the horse (cause) by assuming Newton's laws are correct! 

Newton's first law violates the principal of cause and effect!  Newton's first law of dynamics states, “Every body continues in its state of rest, or of uniform motion in a straight line, unless it is compelled to change this state by forces impressed upon it”.  In this statement, we see at once a violation of the principle of the cause and effect relationships.

Any motion is a cause of an action of a force, but it is missing in Newton’s first law; there is no mathematical model of this law, which describes its constant movement in space, but a body ignores it and moves with constant velocity V. The discrepancies being described are a cause of a violation of the principle of sequence of an analysis of the phenomenon or the process being described. This principle requires a description of the process or the phenomenon from its very beginning, not from the middle. 

An accelerated motion is the beginning of any motion, and a uniform motion is its cause. Thus, in order to return the principle of the cause and effect relationships into the former Newtonian dynamics, it is necessary to put the law of the accelerated motion of a body to the first place.  As a result, we’ll get a new dynamics. In order to differentiate it from the old dynamics, Kanarev calls it “Mechanodynamics”.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 25, 2015, 02:36:03 PM
Webby,

My statement isn't an assumption.  It's based on logic, common sense, and rational reasoning.  Your belief that we should start in the middle and not from the very beginning in order to violate the principal of cause and effect is based on nothing more than some kind of nutbar logic and irrational reasoning.  Newton's inverted way of thinking has persisted for more than 322 years, and your a co-conspirator in perpetuating this nutbar logic in order to bamboozle and hoodwink the general population.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 25, 2015, 11:52:14 PM
You aserted that my assumption isn't really correct , and you won't even say what that assumption was.


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 26, 2015, 12:14:22 AM
Webby,


If there was less tension on the rope, then this would equate to less kinetic friction and resistance in the system,  thus the current draw would decrease.  The resistance in the system has nothing to do with there being a counter torque from the flywheel to the motor.


You can hold the flywheel stationary and the unbalanced purple gears will still rotate and the frame will still oscillate without much influence on the motor.  Like I said before, you can rotate only the flywheel, and the unbalanced purple gears would not rotate.


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 26, 2015, 12:36:27 AM
What makes the gear frame move backwards?  remember that question??

solve for it and YOU will solve the riddle of the feedback system.


The unbalanced rotating gears causes the gear frame to move forward and backwards.  Please explain how rotating the flywheel only, will cause the unbalanced gears to rotate in order for their to be a counter torque on the motor itself? 


When the motor is driving the unbalanced gears, and the gear frame itself is held stationary, then the  gears themselves will continue to rotate at relatively the same rate after taking into account there is less kinetic friction because the rope wouldn't be sliding on the one way bearings.


Tusk as already shown through empirical evidence that an object that has a force applied at the center of its mass will travel the same linear distance as an object that has a force applied at the perimeter of the center of mass, which results in both a linear and rotational acceleration.  The rotational acceleration is free, and MIT has published a document that supports this also.


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 26, 2015, 04:11:44 AM
Webby,

I'm currently in the process of motorizing a bicycle.  This has a much higher priority for me at the moment.  My car was totalled out and I need transportation.  You lose alot of freedom without a vehicle.  So yes, I am currently building something.  Contrary to what you may believe, I have built alot of devices and done a lot of experimenting.  Oh, and I have plans to use this motor as a small generator also.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 26, 2015, 04:48:24 AM
MIT also showed that the total momentum is the same whether or not a spin is induced.
Webby,

The conservation of momentum applies only to a system and not to individual bodies.  In addition to this, if the momentum is conserved, then the conservation of energy can be violated.  If the conservation of energy holds, then the conservation of momentum can be violated.  It's known by top physicists that Newton's zeroth law is invalid.

A good example in how COM holds while COE is violated can be seen in transferring the momentum of a heavier object to a lighter object, according to KE = 0.5 * mv2.

A 5 kg mass moving 1 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 2.5J.  A 1 kg mass moving 5 m/s has 5 units of momentum and has a kinetic energy of 12.5J

12.5J > 2.5J !!!  <------ Conservation of energy is violated while the 5 units of momentum is conserved!

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 27, 2015, 01:32:27 AM
I tell you what,, you choose to see it your way and I will choose my way,, no problem.

Good luck on that conversion,,

Are you going to use the gas engine in the picture?

Now days you can buy an actual kit to do that job,, when I was really young we did the whole thing by ourselves,,

A washing machine motor and a wagon with batteries,, not a good idea :)

Yes, the gas engine in the picture is what I'll be using.  I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.  However, I would like to make one further comment and would like to hear your opinion on it.  I would also like to say I enjoy debating with you.

Let's say the unbalanced gears have a rotational momentum (angular momentum) of 5 units, the oscillating gear frame has a momentum of 5 units, for a total of 10 units of momentum.  If we then put a load on the gear frame where it's momentum decreases to 3 units of momentum, then the unbalanced gears will increase from 5 units of momentum to 7 units of rotational momentum in order for the 10 units of momentum to be conserved in the system.

As we can see, any feedback from the flywheel to the gear frame which decreases the oscillations, will then increase the rotational speed of the unbalanced gears in order for the momentum to be conserved in the system.  This increase in the speed of rotation of the unbalanced gears will then cause the gear frame to increase in oscillations, which will then cause a decrease in the rotational speed of the unbalanced gears in order for the momentum to be conserved in the system.  So, if there is a feedback, then this feedback is then deflected back to it's source in the opposite direction, which has the effect of no net counter torque.  In other words, Newton's third law is cancelled.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 27, 2015, 02:15:22 AM
I took a few additional pictures with the motor sitting on a table next to my bicycle so you could get an idea for the size of the motor.  I'm going to mount the motor behind the seat and above the rear tire.  I'm working on the mounting frame now.  The motor only weighs 22 lbs.  It's a 79cc motor and I only paid $79 for it.  They had a 212cc motor for $15 dollars more, but I was worried about the size of the motor.  It wasn't much bigger, but I thought it would be too big for the bike.  If I had the money, then I would've bought both of them and used the 212cc motor for another project.


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 27, 2015, 03:10:45 AM

Webby,

You should check out the electric Zero motorcycle.  This could be the end to gas powered motorcycles.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pG9HOnZCDK8


Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 27, 2015, 01:47:42 PM
I'll be using a gear drive to the rear sprocket, similar to this setup, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIPTVTFYIRc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIPTVTFYIRc)

The mounting frame will also be attached to the frame of the bicycle underneath the seat for additional support.  I'll be wearing a helmet.  I probably won't take the bike over 45mph.  I wanted a bigger engine for climbing hills.  I just have to make sure I get the gear ratios correct.

Gravock
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: ARMCORTEX on April 28, 2015, 04:04:37 PM
Apparently you don't understand. There already is a gear between the two purple flywheels.

Noones, I believe that every rock has been turned.

Nothing works, Bobby, universal engine. After falling again for these tricks.

Only 2 rocks remain unturned.

The variant chalkalis, the mikovic, your design, the pulse.

Or

The umberto stanieri hydraulic and magnet hammer.

come to the batcave, quick.
Title: Re: Is Newton's Law At Risk?
Post by: gravityblock on April 29, 2015, 05:16:27 AM

The problem with mechanical oscillations, such as the gear weights, is the phase shift of the reactionary forces,, like with coils and stuff,, they are not in sync with what you might think they should be.

The maximum tension that can be transferred would need to be way before the weight is making the turn so that the center of the weight and the axle for the gear are lined up in the direction of tension from the "ropes", that point would need to be when the center of the weight is lined up 90 degrees to the "ropes", this is not the place where that happens,, that position, 90 degrees, has no force applied in the direction of the tension being taken out,, so at that point there is no deceleration of the gear frame and no subsequent acceleration of the weight.

As the weight is making that turn and a force is growing on the axle for the gear there is a force in the direction of the "ropes" that is building,, now  *IF* that force is made "mushy" by the transfer into the "ropes" the amount of stored potential is split between the "mush" and accelerating the weight,, well first decelerating the weight and then having that force of deceleration convert into an increase in relative radial velocity and then sending the weight backwards,, in the opposite direction relative to the gear frame.

Just stick a weight on the end of a ruler and a pencil in the hole at the other end,, it takes some patience,, but you can see and feel that to make the weight and ruler spin up,, you are not pushing and or pulling the pencil in line with the weight,, there is an angle of the ruler to the direction you push or pull the pencil,, you can think of this like a phase shift,, a delayed mechanical transfer.

With mechanical systems these kind of interactions are not so easy to identify until you have played with them while looking for these exact interactions,, I did not even think to look for them until I was like in my mid 20's,, and that was when I was remembering playing a game where you swing your nut on a string and bash the opponents nut,, the first to have there nut destroyed looses,, it was in the aiming of the swing and accelerating the nut when I went,, oh!  not that I did not know that I was not pulling the string and nut in a straight line but I just never thought about.

https://www.google.com/search?q=konkers+game&revid=732469954&sa=X&ei=OcI9Vf2HPIHyoATproCgDA&ved=0CFwQ1QIoAQ&biw=1280&bih=817#q=conkers+game&spell=1 (https://www.google.com/search?q=konkers+game&revid=732469954&sa=X&ei=OcI9Vf2HPIHyoATproCgDA&ved=0CFwQ1QIoAQ&biw=1280&bih=817#q=conkers+game&spell=1)

Is Kanarev using custom electronic clutches from 135o to 180o to overcome the phase shift of the reactionary forces and in order to transfer the maximum torque to the rope/chain.  The two weights are always  positioned 180o relative to one another, as they rotate?  Is this correct?

What if we disengaged the gear frame from the unbalanced gears with an electronic clutch prior to when the weights begin to move backwards relative to the gear frame, and engage the clutch when the weights begin to move forwards or in the same direction as the gear frame?  In this configuration, the gear frame itself would have a rotation instead of an oscillation. 

Since we got rid of the oscillating gear frame, then the weights will always be moving in the same direction as the gear frame. When the gear frame is disengaged, then this should allow the weights to accelerate while the gear frame heads towards a uniform motion, and when the gear frame is engaged, then the weights will begin to decelerate and move towards a uniform motion as it transfers it's momentum to the gear frame allowing it to once again accelerate or to maintain a near uniform motion.  This would turn it into a pulsed type motor, and be analogous to pushing a kid on a swing at the right moment.  I do remember Linevitch referring to a pulse in his publication.  I'll have to re-read his publication with this in mind

If the above isn't correct, then how is Kanarev using the custom electronic clutches?  What you said about the weight on the ruler and moving the pencil at the right angle in order for the weight to move up does make sense to me, so I'll also be studying how this reactionary force applies to Whoopy's replication. 

Thanks for your feedback and participation in this thread!  Oh, and I'll keep you updated with the progress on the motor bike.

Gravock