Free Energy  searching for free energy and discussing free energy
Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: nwman on November 13, 2006, 06:55:07 AM

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

sweet!

still digesting here...so far sounds good.

how about an animation picture

Redirecting vs. Lifting
If you don?t even try to lift the weight but slide it horizontally it should require less energy and it wouldn?t be going up gravity. Its merely changing the path it travels down but still achieves the over unity.
i think i know what you mean about the sliding of the weight horizontally wich requires less energy to move from one place to another than vertically...
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1739.msg18432/topicseen.html#msg18432

Thats It! If you have made it this far "way to go" ;D! I lookforward to hearing your thoughts.
see this wheel ( near Paris)
http://www.bixis.com/mouvementperpetuel/index.html
daniel

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

how about an animation picture
I will try to create an animation. I have to learn how to do it with my program again.

Hi Nwman,
I love these little puzzles.
OK, it cannot work and here is why:
The weights when horizontal both weight 1Kg, but because they are in balance their rotational weight is zero.
The two weights are 1m apart.
If you move the right hand weight 10cm to the right so you have an imbalance.
Relatively speaking, the weight on the left weights 100% of 1Kg and the weight on the right weights 110% of 1Kg.
Result weight is 1  1.1 = 0.1Kg
(you can test this part with some kitchen scales couple of weights, bit of string and a ruler with a hole drilled in the centre)
When the weight gets to the bottom you have to lift it 10cm and it weights 1Kg thanks to gravity.
When the weight gets to the top again you need to lift it 10cm and it still weights 1Kg.
Can you see where this is going....
You are gaining 0.1kg of downforce maximum but you are still lifting a full 1Kg of weight top and bottom.
I feel sorry for the mechanic, wasting all his money on a big wheel. Such a pity.
Better off looking at:
1 Tokomaks (MAST) news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3260985.stm
2 MEG device http://jnaudin.free.fr/meg/megv21.htm
3 Ultra capacitors (3000v variety cannot find a link for it)
Regards
Rob

Doesn't work sorry!

Hi Nwman,
OK the way I explained it is not very scientific, my physics lecturer from my college days would probably cringe at my poor explanation.
Lets try it again:
AOB
A = 1Kg
B = 1Kg
A to 0 = 5m
B to 0 = 5m
force = mass x acceleration
acceleration or g = 9.8 but for to simpify we can use 10.
Moments of A = mass x acceleration x distance = 1 x 10 x 5 = 50nm
Moments of B = mass x acceleration x distance = 1 x 10 x 5 = 50nm
If you move B 1m to the right it now becomes:
Moments of B = 1 x 10 x 6 = 60nm
Difference = moments of A  moments of B = 50  60 = 10 nm
To work out the stored energy at this position you need to work the effective mass which is
(force x g) / distance = (10 x 10)/6 = 0.1666 Kg
The energy is force x distance = 0.16666 * 10 * 6 = 10 joules
OK you could work out the rotation energy by doing lots of small increments of a rotation and work out each small piece of energy, but it should come out as 10 joules.
Now to raise the weight B back up the 1m will require some work: mass x acceleration x distance = 1 x 10 x 1 = 10 joules.
Increasing the number of spokes makes no difference.
Regards
Rob

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Now you just have to find a way to lift the weights...

Now you just have to find a way to lift the weights...
lol that's what he's been trying to explaine.

Hi Nwman,
I think there are a few problems with your calculations (the torque for a given weight will be different at each position).
But put it this way, you lift a weight and use up 1 unit of energy, you drop it and expend 1 unit of energy.
You can attach it to a wheel, balance it on your head, even put a dress on it but you will not get it to do any work for you.
What you could do is replace the weights with buckets and place the buckets under a stream of water...oh hang on someone has already invented that.
Regards
Rob

Doesn't work sorry!

Hi all
For calculate the force from each weight after the 12 o?clock (clockwise) you have to consider the angles of each position the weights are placed.
Use this formula: Fh = Fweight*cos alpha (angle of the spoke vertical through the center of your wheel)
Where Fh is the force that is "absorbed" by the spoke, that sustain the weight and though it?s lost.
Substract now Fh from Fweight. And this amount of Nm is that you can work with.
Calculate this for all weights considering that you have a counter force from the weight on the other side.
You will see that in sum it will be less than you calculated before.
Sorry for this bad explanation, but I hope you understand what I mean.
Kr
2Tiger

@kingrs
I don't think you getting this In the picture i have posted could you show me where any weights are lifted 1m? The weight at the top moves horizontally along the blue line, outwards not up, in reality it falls slightly.As well the bottom weight moves horizontally along the blue line with no lifting, So at this point all your calculations seem irrelavent. In fact the only problem this wheel has is when the weights move in or out, centripital forces. The analogy here is a figure skater spinningshe moves her arms in, speed of rotation increases she moves her arm out, speed of rotation decreases. But as the top weight moves out, the bottom weight moves in, so forces cancel, but the weights must move along the blue line therefore accelerate along the blue line, this acceleration is opposite to the wheel rotation and therefore slows the rotor.

Here is a better picture showing the horizontal guide ramps in grey, you will notice the weight is falling into the outer position,falling into the inner position. The working /weight in red could be a wheel on a bearing to reduce rolling friction on the ramps, as well the weight should be very small in diameter. One other consideration is the fact that if the weight is a wheel then the upper ramp will impart a clockwise spin to the weight, when hitting the lower ramp a counterclockwise spin is induced, so we have a braking action. One answer would be to make the weight an eccentric weight or unbalanced mass, then impart a braking action to the offset weight at the outermost position, this would produce a forward acceleration on the rotor.
Yikes this is getting complicated! as always.

Now you just have to find a way to lift the weights...
lol that's what he's been trying to explaine.
Not really...
He has shown some math that may or may not prove he has the energy required to do the work, but not any explanation thus far on how he plans on lifting the weights mechanicly. Really at this point I've seen lots of math and theory, now I just want to see his plan for a prototyped proof of concept.

You have that right, math said the airplane could not fly, that the power of the atom could never be harnessed, I know the mathenough to know it means nothing. There are two options here you build it or it fades into history as another idea.

he is NOT lifting but sliding horizontaly which requires less energy. try it for your self with a can of food. more energy is needed to lift a can of food than to roll horizontaly!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Rolling the weights in to position makes perfect sense to me, how will they lock into place though?

Doesn't work sorry!

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1739.msg18432/topicseen.html#msg18432

I liked the read...
I still dont know how the locks will work though...
An idea you gave me:

Hi Nwman
You wanted to know where this formula comes from. This formula is part of the lever laws, one of the first material you learn in physics. For every moving object you have to calculate the resultant forces, considering move direction, gravity, redirection and so on.
The most problem people have with wheels, is if the device has a center, they will always have losses on the spokes, whatever you do and however lenghs or shorten them.
The best example herefor are centrifugal forces, witch are known to double by just increasing one RPM. But where are this forces when a wheel spin? Answer: The forces are cancel out by the cetripetal forces from the spokes. That?s reason why they are useless.
Someone in this thread pointed out that if you want to build your wheel, you should begin with one spoke. Increasing the number of weights (spokes) won?t give you more out. If the principle works it will work with one spoke too. More spokes will only produce a smoother regular movement  that?s all.
A simple test/experiment for U.
Turn your bycicle upside down, and stick two weights on the outer diameter of the wheel, one on 12 and one on 6 o?clock position. The weight on 6 o?clock you have to stick about 2 cm nearer to the center than the other one (for simulate the lifting). The wheel will not move itself, if the upper weight is exactly on 12 o?clock.
Now move the wheel by hand clockwise to 1 o?clock. You will notice that the wheel will acelerate very slow till the weight reaches the 3 o?clock pos. From now on it will have its maximum aceleration. But only to the 6 o?clock.
If you want to have a good read about gravity wheels, pendulum, try www.evert.de. It is german page, but some of the experiments form Prof. Evert are translated.
By
2Tiger

allcanadian  sorry to say but I don't think your design will even move. Your are actually lifting the full weight starting vertically then on a slight incline. Also the weight below left center should be outward since after you tried to slide it up, it fell back down. Also, you are trying to lift both the top and bottom weights at the same time and the only excess energy you have is the center right weight outward.
Also, nwman is assuming to many things in his calculations as being presupposed on a physical basis. Weights on the top right being lifted and staying lifted counters the laws of gravity when a rotation is staring from zero. Otherwise you have to use latching to hold them up and you will have to expend energy to unlatch to lift them when at bottom.
If you first look at the problem in its true natural state as shown below Fig 1, you will notice that there are four weights inwards on top and four weights outward on the bottom. That's where I would start from.
The horizontal center or equator would be the lowest energy consuming region to transfer weight. As shown in Fig 2, the blue ski jump type planes are positioned so that the right side shifts first outward, then the left side shifts inwards. By differing the shift time, you are handling a smaller peek energy consumption. The actual excess would be one weight on the right. As the rotation speeds up, centrifugal force will eliminate the use of the right jump, and the left jump would be like a quick inwards/outward motion just to keep up the disequilibrium.

Doesn't work sorry!

Click on the pic to see the concept animated...
Let me know what you think!
(http://www.overunity.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1688.0;attach=4077;image)

Ive just about had it with these damn popups do you get them ? and words in blue, missing words this sucks

Ive just about had it with these damn popups do you get them ? and words in blue, missing words this sucks
I get the "ad words" but no pop ups.

I got a fix for the adwords and popups, click on the question mark in the ad, go to bottom and click disable contentlink then everything is normal, I was about to snap! man is that annoying

dingus nice animation, did you know bessler used a pendulum?

Doesn't work sorry!

Hi Nwman,
The torque for a given position is still force x distance. But because its the distance from the vertical center line you need to use the cosine rule to work out your distance as someone has already mentioned.
Hi Allcanadian,
OK, I think I need to explain where you are going wrong on the post about rolling the weights horizontally.
(don't worry, I considered this one too).
For the spoke to rotate to the position where you can roll the weight you have one tiny problem:
1. There is no counterweight to allow the spoke to rotate in the first place because you detached it.
Magnets idea:
This is quite an interesting one and I suspect that the people at Steorn have uncovered something with this:
http://www.steorn.net
Generally the repulsion will be so great it will stop the spoke from getting to 6 O'clock.
Ahh, but what about the counter action of the attraction of top spoke I hear you say:
The magnet will be a lot further away so it cannot equal the repulsing force.
(attraction is inversely proportional to the distance apart)
For this to work you need a magnetic shield device which is what I think Steorn have.
So what you need it the luck of the Irish and you've cracked it!
Regards
Rob

.

Kingrs
Detach the weight?, I most certainly didboth of them
Damn
Very long arms would help change the in weight Vs out weight(one weight lifting 3)ButBut this is why I had moved on from gravity wheels a long time ago.If it isnt one thing it's another. Oh well back to the drawing board.

@ nwman,
I'm changing the design up as it comes to me. Check out the new version, it'll explain more.

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

This wheel will not work because what you are doing is effectively reducing the density of the wheel's rim. You have the same amount of mass spread out over a wider circumference as the radius changes so there is in fact no imbalanced condition. Nice try, though.

Hey Ding,
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1453.0.html
dont mean to be rude cross posting like this but i really would love it if you could take a look at my idea.
Cheers,
Dean

It seems to me that if you can increase the difference between the inner and outer diameter the small size of your weights would not be much of a problem. That would be difficult with a lever lock mechanism, but perhaps a slider weight... maybe a shuttle valve inside the tube to lock the weight at each position. Just some thoughts...

Doesn't work sorry!

It seems to me that the net energy "gain" in the system is coming from the stored energy of the latch mechanism (in a spring if using such) and the energy added by stationary magnets. This is compounded by the number of items storing the energy. Each latch gains energy each time it goes by a magnet and stores it in the lifted weight (possibly in a spring as well). Some math will follow in a little while.
P.S. Check your email.

The progression of torque increase with increasing spoke numbers will go like this:
Using a ft and lbs and a 2ft spoke from the center of the shaft to the farthest point on each spoke and 1lb weights that are either 1ft from center or 2ft from center and all measurement are with one spoke straight up and one spoke straight down that contribute nothing to the torque.
4 spokes = + 1ft*lbs
8 spokes = + 1ft*lbs + 1.414ft*lbs = 2.414ft*lbs
16 spokes = + 1ft*lbs + 1.414ft*lbs + 2.614ft*lbs = 5.028
32 spokes = + 1ft*lbs + 1.414ft*lbs + 2.614ft*lbs + 5.126ft*lbs = 10.154ft*lbs
more math later...

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

Infinite spokes = +114.6ft*lbs of torque with the assumptions from my previous post.

Doesn't work sorry!

calculus: take the torque formula for the spokes sticking straight out the sides: (1lbs * 2ft)  (1lbs * 1ft) = 2 ft*lbs
and mulitply that by cos(angle) for a spoke at some other angle to get the torque at that angle. take the integral of the torque at all the angles top to bottom (which adds them all together)
"+" just means i'm getting a positive number

whoops! I mean (1lbs * 2ft)  (1lbs * 1ft) = 1ft*lbs

Doesn't work sorry!

There isn't really a theoretical limit to the idea just a limit for each weight and radius difference combination.

Another thing to consider is the effect of having the movable weights moving perpendicular to the direction of rotation. If you get even slow rpms out of this thing it will vibrate horribly. If you want smooth motion you need to move in the plane of rotation and you need to do it as smoothly as possible. There are of course practical limits.

Doesn't work sorry!

OK, how about this: make the spokes 2 rods that acts like guides for the sliding weight. The middle section of each weight is a roller. Put stationary ramps at the top and bottom of the wheel fitted in between the guide spokes. Make the ramp curved so that as the weight makes contact it is always rolling down the ramp at the same angle as it travels either up the guide spokes or down them. That could be a way of moving the weight back and forth on the spokes, but how do you keep them in position?

@nwman  Now that I have seen your video, I have a better idea of your system. I noticed on your second try when you manually flipped several magnets to initiate the rotation, the top magnets did not flip due to the constant speed of overtravel. I think you may need to add another stationary magnet to the top and bottom, not to increase the magnetic field but to make the field longer. As the speed increases the time in the field will decrease making the flip harder to achieve.
Before I saw your video, I had an idea on such a system as shown below. Of course the distance of the A and B magnets must be ajusted to allow minimum sticking while assuring that the magnets are raised. I also added a speed adjustment lever that changes the inner and outer magnet positions to raise the rotating magnets later in the rotation.

Doesn't work sorry!

Doesn't work sorry!

...can be an other point of view ,regarding the old and classic "interdiction" rule of a gravity power collector. Hi Tim! Your entry on this forum is a fresh and intuitive one.Thank you about informations regarding Aldo Costa:"c'est formidable!".In my opinion,his enterprise is the best one ever made by a man.What a pitty that his "first imago" was an unbalanced wheel..so I figure.Now,a small comment ,face to some of your judgments. You said at Principle 4/Effects of scaling up/..."if you make the wheel bigger and keeps the weights the same size and moving the same distance out but and add more of them,you increase the potential energy or torque in the wheel"..."This is the real key that makes it work".In my opinion,that's enough to think,imagine a greater arm(R),nothing more.The interdiction "mgh" can become a dilemma(waiting a proof...mathematical or better,practical).Long time ago ,I said that gravity is as a lake(statics):no way for a self turning "wheel".I asked myself:and if the radius(R) is bigger and bigger,for the same up(inthe top and bottom positions) amount(h) on that?After a long time,with this lack of clarity and amazement,in the same time,I realized that gravity is not a quiet "lake", only.It's more:a huge potential flow(dynamics).So statics and dynamics.That is for I am here,when I read your "if you make the wheel bigger"..:like the story with a blind oneeyed man in a certain country,maybe.You said at Principle 2/..."so by increasing the number of weights around the wheel you can infinitely increase the amount of torque".Really,but in this way you will stiff,temper the free fall as in a weighting machine:a slight up and down motion about the horizontal line,only.Dynamics "submerged' into statics...I suggest you to try to imagine,in the beggining, a "wheel" with two spokes only.And let the mass fall,as you said on a bigger and bigger arm(R) with the same difference long armshort arm(h).You mind is clear,as you said:"if you try to harness a natural phenomenon it has to be in a fairly simple manner(...like fan blades to wind...)".So,I hope you success!All the Bests!/Alex

Doesn't work sorry!

Hi Tim! Ok! The problem of long armshort arm switch:try a repetitive mass rolling fall(it's self,due to gravity),instead of lift(is "assisted").Take a look ,for your own solution(I wish you to be a best one ,than mine), at "Gravity wheel concept" on the same "Gravity powered wheels".In my web site(New!New Drafts!) you will find out some drawings,designs.The "knotty point" is that my "decoding" of the wheel is a different one(at "Wheel vs. lever",in the same areal). Best Regards!/Alex

@nwman  I have been working hard on this wheel question and on making it turn with a simply process, without magnets or other fancy help. I worked until 4 am last night (my son was sleeping in front of Future Shop to pick up a Nintendo Wii which he got) so I had to stay awake anyways. I came up with the following design which I think will do the job. As shown on the drawing, the left balls are always no further then the stem, while the right balls are always sent futher out then the stem. This is a rolling ball design with a four sided wire channel providing minimal drag. The channel is designed to send the ball to the right and this can also be extended. The channel also has a left and right of channel that sends the ball to the other side before it gets to the maximum regular position to do so by simple gravity. Sort of a premature nudge. If you ask me, this wheel will turn indefinitely. I wonder if you can do some of your calculations to see if it holds true before I go into a prototype. The ball could be a metal ball, a billiard ball or maybe even a golf ball (but stay away from pingpong balls). I think this design could be used in other fashions also for other mechanisms. Sorry for jagged edges of the drawing as it does not like the slanted rastor lines when transforming into a gif.

@Wattsup
It looks like you put a lot of thought in the that. I haven't seen one exactly like that but I have seen some that are close. I briefly mentioned somewhere earlier that i believe the weight has to travel straight out the spoke and not change its center of rotation. My having the weights roll out off the spoke you run into problems. The way you have the wheel in the picture is correctly overbalanced but with a 30* rotation the wheel is over balanced on the other side as shown in the pictures. If you Google gravity wheels, perpetual motion, balls or marbles or some combination you will run into some simular designs. That is why I never fallowed that path because it looked like that had been tried before and failed. I could be wrong.
I came up with something this morning at work that might just work well for lifting the weights up. I'm going to take some more time and draw it up and think about it before I post it.
@Iacob alex
I'll take a look!
Tim

Doesn't work sorry!

hi tim,
that looks nice,
looks like it would works.
ps: btw my idea is here (just to share)
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,1692.msg18105.html

Doesn't work sorry!
etc etc etc....
dude....lol! are you ok? hehe

Yea, I'm ok. I found why the design doesn't work. Thanks everyone! Good luck!
Tim

Hi Tim
These forums are about learning and by changing all your posts to Doesn't work sorry!, does not help one bit.
Especially for new people just joining the forums.
Your theories are as valid as anyone elses and by having the guts to actually mention them in a open forum is brilliant because other people that have the same thoughts will be able to learn from your discoveries, whether they turn out to be right or wrong.
Your theories may be 90% correct and 10% wrong, they may be 90% correct and 10% wrong.
It does not matter because other people may have the missing 10% of the missing 90%. All input no matter whether it is a long shot or a short shot is valid to someone.
So keep posting and keep thinking, or join the other BILLION Joe bloggs that will just accept what they are told or taught as gospel rather than trying to think out of the box.
Regards
Sean.
Yea, I'm ok. I found why the design doesn't work. Thanks everyone! Good luck!
Tim

Hi Tim
These forums are about learning and by changing all your posts to Doesn't work sorry!, does not help one bit.
Especially for new people just joining the forums.
Your theories are as valid as anyone elses and by having the guts to actually mention them in a open forum is brilliant because other people that have the same thoughts will be able to learn from your discoveries, whether they turn out to be right or wrong.
Your theories may be 90% correct and 10% wrong, they may be 90% correct and 10% wrong.
It does not matter because other people may have the missing 10% of the missing 90%. All input no matter whether it is a long shot or a short shot is valid to someone.
So keep posting and keep thinking, or join the other BILLION Joe bloggs that will just accept what they are told or taught as gospel rather than trying to think out of the box.
Regards
Sean.
Yea, I'm ok. I found why the design doesn't work. Thanks everyone! Good luck!
Tim
i agree 100% :) hehe

Good Answer!
It's about learning, do you think the wright brothers gave a damn what some egghead numbercruncher thought, persistent, methodical crackpots make the world go round. We crackpots hold 90% of patents the scientificengineering community like to stand on the soapbox but contribute very little that is useful.

In line with what the other said, it is even more helpful to post why an idea doesn't work so that others who have a similar idea don't waste time going down a doomed road. They could see the end first and change direction toward more profitable pursuits.

Hello nwman.
First of all I would like to thank you for your kind assitance in analyzing my design. Also good news to hear you have solved your wheel problem.
Learning from the previous, I have modified my Eight Ball Wheel design to better address the weight transfer problems of my previous design plus a 30 degrees rotation. As included below, your will notice now that the top ball is on the right side and the bottom ball has moved down the slope also rightwards.
If I rely on my observation as being correct, this wheel should not stop. Actually it should start turning as soon as it is let go.
Not included in the drawing of this current wheel is also using the extra force obtained when a ball rolls over a curved incline as it gathers more speed then when it travels the same distance on a straight incline. There is energy in this speed. Also there is extra energy when the bottom ball rolls rightwards since the right side has less static weight to counteract.
Anyways, I'd appreciate if you could please take another look at this and if there are any mistakes, I would sure like to know your or anyones comments.

Yall might have seen this already....

@wattsup,
nice design, but you have to check at least every one or 2 degrees of circle with your diagramm to be sure, that you will have no negative torque moments over the whole circle. It can be, that your design shows a positive torque at 30 degrees, but a negative torque at 45 degrees and so it will integrate out to Zero over the complete circle.. You probably need to use springs to get anything done.
Regards, Stefan.