Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2237992 times)

Omnibus · « **Reply #1620 on:** February 08, 2011, 05:05:51 AM »

Also, when talking about violation of CoE one should never forget that violation of CoE is inherently present in the very heart of theoretical physics -- the Hamilton's equations -- as I have already shown.

Now the fletchers of the world like to blabber about competence. However, when it comes to real arguments they are nowhere to be found.

fletcher · « **Reply #1621 on:** February 08, 2011, 05:10:59 AM »

Seriously omnibus - I know when you repeat what I've just said that you're rattled.

Are you embarrassed ? You should be ! - I'm embarrassed for you - You're giving moron's a bad name & soon they're gonna disown you !

-------------------------------------------

So ... Pe [mgh] = Ke

& Ke = 1/2 m v^2

Notice the element of velocity in Ke equation ?

So to help you with the answer - calculate the Pe loss.

Clue : that equals the Ke of the wheel after one cycle - work backwards to see if it matches the velocity you see & can measure - sheesh, what an idiot !

P.S. don't confuse things with momentum !

Omnibus · « **Reply #1622 on:** February 08, 2011, 05:16:05 AM »

Stop assaulting me undeservedly. Try to learn some physics first and then come here to do something more than blabbering.

What did you prove with these equations? Sheer nothing. Shall I call you a moron, then. No, because I'm a gentleman. I'll only ask you to learn physics before coming here and cluttering the thread with gibberish.

Omnibus · « **Reply #1623 on:** February 08, 2011, 05:23:12 AM »

To be noticed once again. It is presumpuious to write Pe[mgh] = Ke because it goes against the experimentlal facts. Like I said, we see kinetic energy of two full rotations due to that small mgdeltaH. On the other hand, we see that the large mgH cannot bring about even one full rotation.

Slapping formuli frivolusly as fletcher does only serves to demonstrate his own incompetence and nothing else. If people such as fletcher want to prove their point of this device not being OU much much more is needed to be shown as a theoretical argument, not just slapping formuli frivolously.

I'll remind also, every time violation of CoE is discussed (independent of whether or not this particular case turns out to be OU in the end) that, contrary to what superficial people such as fletcher think, violation of CoE is inherently contained in the very heart of the standard theoretical physics -- the Hamilton's equations -- as I have already shown.

fletcher · « **Reply #1624 on:** February 08, 2011, 05:58:33 AM »

Oh, but you do deserve it omni_moron !

Learn some mechanics & how to analyse things properly before pushing your incessant rubbish !

Omnibus · « **Reply #1625 on:** February 08, 2011, 06:04:20 AM »

Quote from: fletcher on February 08, 2011, 05:58:33 AM

Oh, but you do deserve it omni_moron !

Learn some mechanics & how to analyse things properly before pushing your incessant rubbish !

Hey, buddy, either give arguments or just get lost. No one should get embarrassed for you by your bad manners let alone your incompetence to express a coherent argument.

Omnibus · « **Reply #1626 on:** February 08, 2011, 06:12:20 AM »

To be notice once again -- the video shows that a weight attached to the periphery cannot carry through even one full turn. On the other hand, the weight attached to a one-way clutch causes two full turns in addition to a third incomplete one. This is the argument fletcher cannot shoot down with his blabber. Like I said, if he wants to really prove that that's trivial he has to present quantitative derivations (which are obviously over his head). Mind you also, that no matter what arguments fletcher would attempt the undeniable truth remains -- violation of CoE is contained in the very essence of theoretical mechanics -- the Hamilton's equations -- as I have already shown. Watch carefully -- fletcher can only curse and use ad hominem but will not be able to present a cogent argument against my claim.

fletcher · « **Reply #1627 on:** February 08, 2011, 08:19:40 AM »

I'm no buddy of yours arsehole.

Seems you like to dish it out over numerous threads to way to many people who try to discuss things civilally & intelligently with you, but have a different opinion than your own - you browbeat them into submission or they go away in disgust, exasperated by your illogical arguments & failure to get through to you.

Suck it up baby, try the shoe on the other foot - I'm here to stay & I'll keep riding you till you learn & show some respect & manners to others.

If however, you want to make progress in threads & conduct logical civil discussions, without being an arsehole to others, then I might go away, LOL.

Omnibus · « **Reply #1628 on:** February 08, 2011, 08:34:53 AM »

Don't make me laugh. Where are your arguments? Hey, buddy, other people are reading here too, not only you and I, do you realize that? Obviously not. Arguments, arguments, buddy. Only arguments will save you from the embarrassment you inflicted on your own self.

Low-Q · « **Reply #1629 on:** February 08, 2011, 10:01:00 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 04:44:44 AM

In the case at hand, the contention is that the mgdeltaH is the gravitational potential energy which not only helps to complete the first turn but also drives the wheel throughout an entire second turn and allows it to almost complete a third turn. That isnâ€™t at all evident and if someone insists that such speculation is viable one has to prove it quantitatively.

One does not need to think so complicated to see the function of the wheel. Your request for a quantitative proof are not necessary - there is no need to prove this quantitatively, because common sense are sufficient as proof.

Delta H is the reason why the wheel can start to rotate. Delta H are applied in advance by hand, then this applied potential energy are spent when the wheel have taken one round. After that the mass will follow the same circular path. Because the wheel are big and loss are low, the built up kinetic energy in the wheel will make it turn several rounds untill friction has consumed all the kinetic energy.
There is no more to be explained. The wheel are not OU - no matter what you reply.

An equivalent deal, in a different case, is to place a ball on a track. The track starts with a gentle slope downwards, then the track are horizontal for as long as the eye can see. Delta H are equivalent to the one in the wheel. Do you then call it excess energy achieved in the ball if you by hand spend energy to place the ball at the top of the track and let it go? It is the same deal in two different cases. The wheel are not OU.

Low-Q · « **Reply #1630 on:** February 08, 2011, 10:12:15 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 06:12:20 AM

To be notice once again -- the video shows that a weight attached to the periphery cannot carry through even one full turn.
Yes it can - ofcourse it can!

On the other hand, the weight attached to a one-way clutch causes two full turns in addition to a third incomplete one.
Ofcourse! What are the mysterious about this? The weight follows a circular path after it has spent the potential energy found in delta H. Thats why the wheel are allowed to continue untill friction stops it.

.... Like I said, if he wants to really prove that that's trivial he has to present quantitative derivations (which are obviously over his head).
Projection!! There is no need for quantitative proof. Your request are present one and only to win the discussion.

Mind you also, that no matter what arguments fletcher would attempt the undeniable truth remains -- violation of CoE is contained in the very essence of theoretical mechanics -- the Hamilton's equations -- as I have already shown. Watch carefully -- fletcher can only curse and use ad hominem but will not be able to present a cogent argument against my claim.
This is a lie. Whatch your mouth buddy.

The wheel does not violate CoE, no matter what you reply.

Omnibus · « **Reply #1631 on:** February 08, 2011, 10:17:48 AM »

In both cases (weight attached directly to the rim and weight attached to the rim through a lever secured to the disc by a one-way clutch bearing) the start is at 12 o'clock and the end is at 6 o'clock. The difference is that in the first case (weight attached directly to rim) the disc doesn't make even one full turn while in the second case (weight attached through lever to rim) the disc makes two full turns plus over 3/4 of another, third turn. If we consider that in the first case CoE is obeyed then the second case demonstrates obvious violation of CoE and production of excess energy due to the peculiar construction -- restricted double pendulum. It is curious that the Karra Green Energy machine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcz4G-kRRXg) and other perpetuum mobiles such as that of Orffireus use quite similar restricted double pendulums as in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENrMwPNt9Cc&feature=player_embedded# . This important OU idea should be studied very carefully.

Omnibus · « **Reply #1632 on:** February 08, 2011, 10:24:52 AM »

Anybody can make an experiment and see that when weight is attached to rim the disc wil never make more than part of a full turn. You may try it with any diameter disc and any weight. With the restricted double pendulum things change drastically -- the disc ( starting from rest) makes not only one but two full turns plus another over 3/4 third turn. This is a direct proof that the restricted double pendulum disc is an OU machine. The problem now is how to harness the OU produced for the purposes of continuous spin which is a purely technical problem. It appears this problem has been solved in devices such as Karra Green Energy machine. Very very interesting.

By the way Veljko Milkovic has been talking for years about the OU properties of double pendulums. I've heard Reidar Finsrud also talking a lot about these chaotic pendulums. And we see now some people like Mikhail Dmitriyev are catching up. This is an old idea, as far back as Orrfyreus' times and it has probably been around in the form of working perpetuum mobiles but has been suppressed.

Low-Q · « **Reply #1633 on:** February 08, 2011, 11:28:01 AM »

Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 10:17:48 AM

In both cases (weight attached directly to the rim and weight attached to the rim through a lever secured to the disc by a one-way clutch bearing) the start is at 12 o'clock and the end is at 6 o'clock. The difference is that in the first case (weight attached directly to rim) the disc doesn't make even one full turn while in the second case (weight attached through lever to rim) the disc makes two full turns plus over 3/4 of another, third turn. If we consider that in the first case CoE is obeyed then the second case demonstrates obvious violation of CoE and production of excess energy due to the peculiar construction -- restricted double pendulum. It is curious that the Karra Green Energy machine (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcz4G-kRRXg) and other perpetuum mobiles such as that of Orffireus use quite similar restricted double pendulums as in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENrMwPNt9Cc&feature=player_embedded# . This important OU idea should be studied very carefully.

The weight are only placed on the end of the lever in order to apply initial torque into the system. There is no weight placed on the rim other than the weight of the bearing and the lever arm itself - these weights are of no interest.
The weight starts little over 12 o'clock. At the bottom 6 o'clock, the weight has lost altitude equal to the diameter of the rim + deltaH, and the torque are now zero untill the wheel stops. How many rounds it takes isn't interesting. DeltaH are applied by the hand in advance to provide initial torque. The sum of input energy and output energy (in any form) are trivial. No violation of CoE.

Regarding the other video (from '92?), I have no knowledge to this design, to make up my mind about it, nor discuss it.

Vidar

Omnibus · « **Reply #1634 on:** February 08, 2011, 11:41:39 AM »

That's incorrect.

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2237992 times)

Omnibus

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

fletcher

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Omnibus

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Omnibus

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

fletcher

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Omnibus

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Omnibus

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

fletcher

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Omnibus

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Low-Q

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Low-Q

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Omnibus

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Omnibus

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Low-Q

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Omnibus

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !