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: re: energy producing experiments  (Read 138347 times)

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 223
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #165 on: January 14, 2020, 01:17:46 AM »
We have two extremes here: how much money does it take to prove the theory; and how much money will it take to make a useful machine? One that will keep you alive in Alberta.

I was raised in Colorado; my uncle lived in the San Luis Valley; - 40° was common in the Valley. In a breeze, unprotected skin would freeze in a minute or so. My aunt would freeze dry close on the close line. I remember duck hunting on ten inches of ice. The ducks and geese kept a spot open, over some springs I assume. Back up systems, and good neighbors keep the residents alive.

The actual proof that energy can be produced takes less than one hundred dollars. If a 'cylinder and spheres' has a mass 16 times greater that the spheres then the spheres must be moving 16 times as fast when they have all the motion: or they are only moving 4 times as fast. 16 conserves mv.  And 4 conserves ½ mv².

But if the spheres are only moving 4 times as fast then they can not restore the motion to the cylinder if the spheres are left attached. A one kilogram object with only 4 m/sec velocity would only give (upon collision) 16 kilograms a velocity of .25 m/sec. Ballistic pendulums are common and we know what velocity a small object gives a large object.

Plastic tubing used for electrical conduit; 4 inch schedule 80, would work great. You could use a schedule 80 fitting; ten or twelve dollars.  Spheres are also available; for only a few dollars each. And a few feet of fishing line.   You could probably build a cylinder and spheres for less than 50 dollars. The experimental proof is worth upwards of 5 trillion dollars.

Now about surviving in Alberta. Well: why would a gravity dam cost more than a hydroelectric dam. Glen Canyon Dam has been a cash cow for about fifty years now and it produces no carbon emissions.

#### norman6538

• Hero Member
• Posts: 587
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #166 on: January 14, 2020, 06:35:55 PM »
Delbert have you done this experiment below? Could you give us a drawing? I don't quite understand it. Or did I miss previous posts?  Norman

Delbert said .....
"The actual proof that energy can be produced takes less than one hundred dollars. If a 'cylinder and spheres' has a mass 16 times greater that the spheres then the spheres must be moving 16 times as fast when they have all the motion: or they are only moving 4 times as fast. 16 conserves mv.  And 4 conserves ½ mv².

But if the spheres are only moving 4 times as fast then they can not restore the motion to the cylinder if the spheres are left attached. A one kilogram object with only 4 m/sec velocity would only give (upon collision) 16 kilograms a velocity of .25 m/sec. Ballistic pendulums are common and we know what velocity a small object gives a large object.

Plastic tubing used for electrical conduit; 4 inch schedule 80, would work great. You could use a schedule 80 fitting; ten or twelve dollars.  Spheres are also available; for only a few dollars each. And a few feet of fishing line.   You could probably build a cylinder and spheres for less than 50 dollars. The experimental proof is worth upwards of 5 trillion dollars. "

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 223
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #167 on: January 14, 2020, 08:29:21 PM »

I went into the lab and found what looks like this experiment. The tape on the cylinder is different but the tape can change any time. The cylinder has 972 written on it; and that no doubt is its mass. The spheres are the steel spheres with a hole through a diameter and they have a mass of 66 each (66 g *2 = 132 grams). So the total mass before the spheres swing out is (972 g + 132 g) 1104.

So the ratio of total mass to spheres is 1104 g /132 g = 8.36.

As you see the rotation of the cylinder is quickly stopped. The string has not come close to the 90° position to a tangent line on the surface of the cylinder. Before the 90° position the spheres will cause the cylinder to reverse the spin; and that is what you see. Before the video stops you can see a spin magnitude that equals the original spin. The sphere motion has restored the motion back to the cylinder.

This looks like the same length of schedule 80 conceit with the addition of a schedule 40 water tubing connecter. These connecters have a mass of about 218 and that brings us to 1320 grams for the total mass.

So the ratio of total mass to spheres is 1320 g /132 g = 10.0.

The spheres find it harder to stop the cylinder; but they do and they also restart the cylinder.

There are other experiments out there if you type in Delburt Phend youtube. One mass ratio stops the cylinder twice; some have more massive spheres.

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 223
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #168 on: January 17, 2020, 04:14:55 AM »
I posted a video of the Atwood's that I collect data from. It is a heavy flywheel that has two radii: the shaft at 10 mm and the outside circumference at 97 mm.

In one experiment the accelerating mass of 219.87 g was placed on the shaft radius. Without any added mass on the fly wheel the gate tripped at .0266 seconds.  This was an average of 5 runs  (.0266, .0264, .0266, .0267, .0267).

I then placed the small masses on the outside of the wheel. This would be about 67.7 grams on each side.  The gate was then tripped at .0271 seconds, (.0269, .0272, .0272, .0271, .0272.). By adding 135 grams to the outside of the wheel the gate trip; of the Atwood's; was slowed by .0005 second. This may not seem like much but the flywheel is heavy and 135 grams probably is that proportion of that mass. But the more important experiment was to compare the light outside mass with the balancing heavy mass placed on the inside.

The next experiment had the gates repositioned so the times are not the same as the previous experiment.

I placed the light masses (67.7 g each side)) on the outside circumference of the flywheel and the gate tripped at .0294 seconds (.0294, .0296, .0293, .0295, .0292).

I replaced the light mass with the balancing heavy mass on the inside shaft radius. This would be about 657 grams on both sides.  The gate now tripped at .0294 seconds (.0291, .0293, .0296, .0297, .0292).

The Atwood's accelerate the same for 135 grams at the 97 mm radius as it does for 1313 grams at the 10 mm shaft radius.

If the inside shaft circumference was moving 1 m/sec

The energy of the .135 kg is:   ½ * .135 kg * 9.7 m/sec * 9.7 m/sec   = 6.35 joules

And the energy of the 1.313 kg is:   ½ * 1.313 kg  * 1 m/sec * 1 m/sec = .6565 joules

#### sm0ky2

• Hero Member
• Posts: 3948
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #169 on: January 17, 2020, 04:58:41 AM »
What he is talking about is a crudementary hand-spun version
of an experiment performed by George Atwood in 1790.
He spins it with his hand and drops it, then estimates rpm based
on his camera frame rate.
No experimental controls, no accuracy of velocities, no real data...
Just “blah blah I can spin this cylinder and make the balls spin really
fast, and I think the cylinder would spin faster than it started if the
thing didn’t hit the ground so fast”
This of course doesn’t work with the cylinder on a bearing because
you can see it slow down.
but when it hits the ground just before you can make a determination!
it’s all up to the observer and his/her imagination.

For those that don’t know, Atwood is the guy that standardized
weights and measures by using gravity and a pulley.
(for some reason we ignore Archimedes...)

This experiment was performed by NASA in low g orbit
with much greater precision, and they had nothing of the sort
to say about the experiments. It is about as interesting as a yo-yo.

Great way to observe conservation of momentum.
In low g the cylinder de-spins then spins back up re-wrapping the
strings and this continues each time slowing down more and more
until the balls no longer wrap around and instead spin on straight
strings with the rotating cylinder.
Then it stops.

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 223
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #170 on: January 17, 2020, 04:14:43 PM »
When you say that NASA performed this experiment are you referring to the 'cylinder and spheres' or the Atwood's. Please tell us where we can find that experiment. It is scientifically good etiquette to find the experiment you are referring to and let us look at it.

Frame rates of a camera are not an imagination; they are quite solid data. Does it take 4 frames to pass from one side to the other (of the black square) or does it take 16. Yesterday I collected 215 data points that were to a ten thousandth of a second.  In many of the five data point runs several data points were exactly the same as the other runs.

I have never said that the cylinder can spin faster; the energy of the spheres (when they contain all the motion) increases dramatically. There is a ten fold increase in the energy of the system when the spheres have a mass of one tenth. Watching the restart proves that the spheres contain the original momentum.

The energy increase of the cylinder and spheres occurs in a third of a rotation and in a few tenths of a second; so friction is negligible even with bearings.  When making energy you release the spheres you do not leave them attached and wait for them to slow down.

#### Toolofcortex

• Hero Member
• Posts: 577
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #171 on: January 17, 2020, 05:34:59 PM »
Extra energy could perhaps be a possibility, but only in a few ways.

Since static physics is well defined we cant discovr anything, areas to discover have to do with lag of reaction force during impulse.

Now you must finda way tio input a disconnecting flywheel onto a greater flywheel, and find an arrangement where the delay is so delayed
that you actually have time to physically decouple using a system that you make. Thus causing a bug in the system that has a beat frequency.
Using an eccentric wheel, one can translate an intermediate wheel in high tension or no tension zone, and if a squeeze static  wheel is there to limit the movement an oscillation  can be had between it and the input static wheel wich is attached to the input motor.

Now the magic happens when you communicate with the stuff around you, at the magic frequency,This will cause a vacuum to form with the universe and you will take in energy from a localized orberth effect from the universe just as a space probe. Slowing the universe down.

We must find ways to oscillate things in the varying of the acceleration, pulse, the third derivative wich will interact with the universe. For the goal is to use a machine that has a localized orberth advantage,

You like my theory?

#### Toolofcortex

• Hero Member
• Posts: 577
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #172 on: January 17, 2020, 06:27:56 PM »
And you cant constantly gain velocity either, at some point you must connect to release the energy and disconnect the output so start back up, and so on. In a sawtooth fashion.

Lets say the third derivative oscillation resonates to soften things, it preps the area for you to suck it in.

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 223
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #173 on: January 17, 2020, 08:50:53 PM »
In the Atwood's experiment yesterday: I started with a drive mass on the shaft of 127.9 grams. I recorded five rotations of the wheel and made five runs. I then added 12.8 grams of drive mass and did the runs again. I added similar drive masses seven times. On the average each added gram of drive mass resulted in a gate trip time change of  .000135 seconds.

The adding of 135 balanced grams to the outside diameter resulted in a time change of .0005. So how many grams of drive mass at the 10 mm radius shaft are needed to compensate for the addition of 135 (67.5 both sides) grams at the circumference radius of 97 mm.

So I set up an experiment to collect real data. (This is a different position for the the gate and the flag so the numbers will again change from the previous set up) I rotated the wheel with no balanced mass on the outside circumference of the wheel. The gate tripped at around .0292 sec.

With the 135 g mass added on the outside the gate tripped at around .0298.

I then added 5.72 grams to the drive mass at the shaft; the trip time returned to around .0292 second.

This data corresponded with the data collected yesterday but this added drive mass (5.72 g) directly compensates for the decrease in motion caused by a balanced mass added on the circumference (135 g).

The gate distance is 27 mm and it took .0292 seconds to cover the distance. That puts the velocity at the gate to be .9246 m/sec.  But the wheel surface (where the 135 g is) is inside the gate position by about 90%. So the speed at the surface of the wheel is about .83 m/sec.

So 5.72 grams dropped (2r * pi)  64 mm causes 135 g to accelerate to .83 m/sec.

135 g moving .83 m/sec has: ½ .135 kg * .83 m/sec * .83 m/sec =  .04650 joules of energy

5.72 grams (.00572 kg * 9.81 N/kg) has a force of .0561 N times the distance dropped (20.4 mm * pi) of 64 mm (.064 m) so the energy is  .0561 N * .064 m = .00359 joules

.00359 joules produced .04650 joules

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 223
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #174 on: January 18, 2020, 03:48:48 AM »
The experiment is reasonably close to F = ma which would give you .72 m/sec; I could have added another gram of drive mass. The time over which the force acts is almost right on target. I missed my guess by a gram.

#### Toolofcortex

• Hero Member
• Posts: 577
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #175 on: January 18, 2020, 04:35:30 AM »
How come the space probe gets to gain pulse advantage and not a machine here on earth?

What if there was a way?

What if you can get a localized orberth advantage? Why wouldnt you?

The space probe thing is just as illogical.

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 223
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #176 on: January 18, 2020, 08:20:29 PM »
The concept being investigated by the Atwood's machine is that: as increments of balanced mass are placed at the circumference of the Atwood's wheel; then increments of drive mass have to be placed at the shaft in order to keep the rate of acceleration constant. That constant acceleration is confirmed by a constant velocity at the gate.

The increment of balanced mass (67.5 g both sides) placed at the wheel circumference is; in this experiment; 135 grams.

F = ma predicts that the increment of mass placed at the drive location on the shaft should be about 7 grams. This 7 grams will compensate for the added mass at the circumference and the acceleration will remain the same. This means that the speed at the gate will remain the same at .83 m/sec.

So now lets do the math for energy conservation.

The energy produced is ½ *  .135 kg * .83 m/sec * .83 m/sec = .04650 joules.

We know that the distance that the drive mass drops is only (20.45 mm * pi) 64.24 mm: and potential energy is Nm, so now we need to find the newton needed to produce the final amount of energy (.04650 joules).

So N * .06424 m =  .04650:  .04650 / .06424 m = .724 newtons

Now we need to change newtons into kg:  .724 newtons / X  = 9.81 N / 1 kg: X = .0738  kg

So energy conservation predicts that we should add 73.8 grams to the drive mass at the shaft.

I know what will happen if you add 73.8 grams to the drive mass at the shaft: but I guess I should go do it and get real data.

1-18-20 The Atwood's (gate and flag) had to be set up again so the number may not match the last runs.

The gate trip times for a wheel with a 219.87 g drive mass at the 20.04 mm shaft. And no mass at the circumference.   (The string has a diameter of .45 mm so I add that to the diameter for calculating drop distance.)  .0291, .0291, .0292, .0292, .0291 sec.

The gate trip times for a wheel with a 219.87 g + 7.01 g drive mass at the 20.04 mm shaft. And no mass at the circumference.    .0285, .0285, .0287, .0287, .0286 sec.

The gate trip times for a wheel with a 219.87 g + 7.01 g drive mass at the 20.04 mm shaft. And a balanced mass of 135 g  at the circumference.    .0297, .0293, .0294, .0295, .0295 sec.

The gate trip times for a wheel with a 219.87 g + 72 g drive mass at the 20.04 mm shaft. And no mass at the circumference.    .0246, .0247, .0247, .0247, .0248 sec.

The gate trip times for a wheel with a 219.87 g + 72 g drive mass at the 20.04 mm shaft.  And a balanced mass of 135 g at the circumference.    .0253, .0254, .0254, .0256, .0254 sec.

The drive mass of 7.01 g added was the closest but not on top of .0291 so I then decided to try to hit the added mass that would get us back to .0291. This meant the wheel had to move a little faster so I tried 8.75 g of added drive mass.

The gate trip times for a wheel with a 219.87 g + 8.75 g drive mass at the 20.04 mm shaft. And a balanced mass of 135 g  at the circumference.    .0291, .0291, .0291, .0291, .0290 sec.  Wow: good guess

The gate gives us a speed of (27 mm gate distance / .0291 sec) .9278 m/sec at the gate; and .844 m/sec at the surface of the wheel. And the formulas for F = ma predicts a speed of .886 m/sec.

Whoa that is .886 / .844 = 1.04976   = 5%         I'll take it      F = ma wins

#### Toolofcortex

• Hero Member
• Posts: 577
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #177 on: January 18, 2020, 08:49:58 PM »
There was rumors, evidence (internet evidence), that the UFO's had a layered material. With the Schwartz thing popping up I believe that now.
This sort of thing goes on on the electronic side of things.

Extra energy could perhaps be a possibility, but only in a few ways. A physical characteristic that is not well defined is reaction force time.

http://www.halexandria.org/dward133.htm

Since static physics is well defined we cant discover anything, whatever they say, goes, 100%. So lets go where they dont even have formulas for yet, areas to discover have to do with lag of reaction force during impulse.

Now you must find a way to input a disconnecting flywheel onto a greater flywheel, and find an arrangement where the delay is so delayed
that you actually have time to physically decouple using a system that you make. Thus causing a bug in the system and every action or lack of has a reaction, now we are entering the zone, that has a beat frequency. Using an eccentric wheel, one can translate an intermediate wheel in high tension or no tension zone, and if a squeeze static  wheel is there to limit the movement an oscillation  can be had between it and the input static wheel wich is attached to the input motor.

Now the magic happens when you communicate with the stuff around you, at the magic frequency,This will cause a vacuum to form with the universe and you will take in energy from a localized orberth effect from the universe just as a space probe. Slowing the universe down.

We must find ways to oscillate things in the varying of the acceleration, pulse, the third derivative wich will interact with the universe. For the goal is to use a machine that has a localized orberth advantage,

And you cant constantly gain velocity either, at some point you must connect to release the energy and disconnect the output so start back up, and so on. In a sawtooth fashion.

Lets say the third derivative oscillation resonates to soften things, it preps the area for you to suck it in.

#### Delburt Phend

• Full Member
• Posts: 223
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #178 on: January 18, 2020, 10:56:56 PM »
I think F = ma is fairly well understood but it got replaced with Conservation of Energy: about 150 years ago.

The only experiment that I remember NASA doing in the 'cylinder and spheres' area was the Dawn Mission and other such satellites . Energy conservation is a loser in the Atwood's and it is a loser in the ballistic pendulum and all collisions. But when NASA makes predictions (never backed up with data) they chose energy conservation. Go figure: NASA goes to the Moon with Newton and then picks Leibniz to predict the velocity of the extended spheres in the Dawn Mission.

The Dawn mission is a despin satellite that had a mass ratio of cylinder mass to sphere mass of about 400 to one (1420 kg to 2.7 kg).  For energy conservation NASA predicted that the spheres would only be traveling about 23 m/sec at the point of release.  Well why release the spheres at all? The 2.7 kg moving 23 m/sec would only give the 1420 kg a velocity of about .05 m/sec. That is slower than the 3 rpm back spin that they actually got and they released the spheres. They never released data on the velocity of the spheres. Can you guess why?

When the 2.7 kg moving 23 m/sec returns its motion to the satellite it must comply with the laws of physics. The ballistic pendulum tells us what those Laws are: small object can only give their momentum to a large object, they can not give their energy. And the end rotation of the satellite would only be about 5 cm per second.

If on the other hand the 2.7 kg were moving over 400 m/sec then the rotational motion of the satellite would be restored and you would be back were NASA started. Would anyone think that you would not be back were you started if you left the spheres attached?

It is only that NASA thinks that energy conservation must occur that this 23 m/sec (a 12 year old boy can throw this fast) idea could have arisen.

Newton lost this debate; but he should have won. We would have had free energy long ago.

#### Toolofcortex

• Hero Member
• Posts: 577
##### Re: re: energy producing experiments
« Reply #179 on: January 19, 2020, 02:20:58 AM »
If only you had a complete motor arrangement to go along with this.

Could you engineer a QMOgen/motor with what I described to you above?