Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2230211 times)

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1905 on:** January 12, 2012, 04:16:11 PM »

Quote from: johnny874 on January 12, 2012, 03:39:38 PM

Cloxxki,
One thing that might have been over looked, even by scientists, is that 1 meter is the Golden Rule when it comes to centrifugal force. If the radius is less than 1 meter, then it's effect increases. And as the radii is increased, the effect of centrifugal force decreases.

Please say that in a way even I understand?
Do you the /r part in the formula? If so, that bears no importance. r=1 is just the value corresponding with 1N for 1kg at 1m/sÂ². You could express 1N as Accelerated Mass at 1m radius. It's a unit, is all.

johnny874 · « **Reply #1906 on:** January 12, 2012, 06:22:06 PM »

Quote from: Cloxxki on January 12, 2012, 04:16:11 PM

Please say that in a way even I understand?
Do you the /r part in the formula? If so, that bears no importance. r=1 is just the value corresponding with 1N for 1kg at 1m/sÂ². You could express 1N as Accelerated Mass at 1m radius. It's a unit, is all.

One thing I have wondered is if mv^2 is actually mv/s, like m/s/s for gravity. While with gravity the last s stands for seconds, it has come to be expressed as ^2. Simply put, with centrifugal force, it might be best calculated in how force increases similar to gravity. An example is if a 1kg weight has a velocity that is a percentage of 9.87 and a radius that is a percentage of 1 meter, then could the results be measured to show such a relationship exists ?
Tests can be done to see if centrifugal force increases or decreases at the 1 meter mark. The simplest weigh (way, having a little fun) is to have the fulcrum be placed on top of a digital scale. Then, when the weight swings (using different radii), a video could be made to show what is happening and the reading on the scale would show. While it is a unit, it might be that calculating centrifugal force by miles or kilometers would give an an acceptable answer, but one that might be wrong.
One reason why I wonder about this relationship is that 1 meter was the standard on which modern scientific thought has been based. And by changing the basis, the reliability of the calculations might also be changed.

neptune · « **Reply #1907 on:** January 12, 2012, 07:27:05 PM »

Hi GUys . Fascinating stuff . I have to admit that i had not even thought about the Earth`s spin having an effect on gravity . 1 revolution every 24 hours does not sound a lot ,. But when you take account of the Earth`s size , the rate of spin is about 1000 MPH at the surface , not insignificant . Regarding the metre as being a significant dimension , I am not sure . I believe it is defined as some fraction of the distance from the equator to the poles .
@Johnny 874 . I think you said your build was held up for want of a steam box . I believe a steam box is for bending wood .{Warped Boards ?] . Curved wooden components can easily be fabricated from many layers of thin plywood and PVA glue . If you needed a router to make grooves in these components , instead cut slots into the surface layers with a fretsaw or jigsaw before fabrication . Just thought this might help .
Later guys , Regards , Ken .

johnny874 · « **Reply #1908 on:** January 12, 2012, 09:21:22 PM »

Quote from: neptune on January 12, 2012, 07:27:05 PM

Hi GUys . Fascinating stuff . I have to admit that i had not even thought about the Earth`s spin having an effect on gravity . 1 revolution every 24 hours does not sound a lot ,. But when you take account of the Earth`s size , the rate of spin is about 1000 MPH at the surface , not insignificant . Regarding the metre as being a significant dimension , I am not sure . I believe it is defined as some fraction of the distance from the equator to the poles .
@Johnny 874 . I think you said your build was held up for want of a steam box . I believe a steam box is for bending wood .{Warped Boards ?] . Curved wooden components can easily be fabricated from many layers of thin plywood and PVA glue . If you needed a router to make grooves in these components , instead cut slots into the surface layers with a fretsaw or jigsaw before fabrication . Just thought this might help .
Later guys , Regards , Ken .

Ken,
I know how I would like to build it. Until then....

@Cloxxki, going by gravity, centrifugal force would be it's equal at a radius of 4.935m and a velocity of 9.87m/s/s. We are moving at about 5kps and with a radius of 6,000km's.

gdez · « **Reply #1909 on:** January 13, 2012, 12:11:48 AM »

@neptune,
"Could it be the poles are more than magnetic, and it's path being 90Âº with eath's self-created CF, makes its sum, "gravity", seem all nice and level all the way around, with only minor variance? Only at bigger altitutes would differences form. and we know space programs keep missing their calculated orbits. They've learned to accept there is a correction to be applied, but unsure what it substantiates, or unwilling to share."

Don't forget about precession, that could have a lot to do with it. I have only touched on reading about it, but could precession be added to the eccenric flywheel effect? It seems like it would give it a 3rd dimension to work with, possibly adding power? i have thought about a gyroscopic-like eccentric flywheel, and how it would work. A simple test to play with---take a bycycle rim hold it horizontally and spin hard. you can balance it on your finger tip, but try to turn it to the vertical position and you will find that it is not that easy. it just doesn't want to go. A very simple experiment, and it will definitely make you think. An interesting thing I noticed is on my swing 5 video. If you watch while I am cranking it up, you'll see the frame rocking side to side. when I let go of the crank, it seems to smooth itself out. My swing 6 model is sturdier, made out of steel and doesn't rock sideways as much, but I can't get it to run like swing 5. S5 I had run for 6;20, but my new and seemingly improved model won't go past 2:30 to 3:30. Could my quick throw together model have actaully helped performance? Also I will start paying attention to my N,E, S, And W orientation. i have turned it 90 degrees, but never gave much thought on how it could effect the experiment. I will try to post more videoes about my ideas, because I do feel they explain more about what I'm thinking than trying to just type it up.
@ Clokki
I also like simple ideas, and while I do have some complicated ides about the tsmo or as I would really like to call it "multiple oscillatior", The KISS method seems the best to me also.
@ neptune---- youtube gdez1000.
Enjoy, greg

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1910 on:** January 13, 2012, 01:22:25 AM »

@gdez, tell me what type of test you want to do, or which medium or technique to use. I am all for anti-bling and no-cost builds.
I would suggest, if you don't fear elaborate theory or measurement, to build a super basic 2SO. Just the beam and a pendulum on one end, a rope will do. Typical Malcovic propotions. Place a quick scale with sensitive needle or LCD refresh under the CW. A cheap or stury one, as it will also be a hammer plate. A sensitive fish scale als rope for the pendulum could also prove useful. Offer numbers Malkovic doesn't want to get specific on. I am claiming the pendulum is performing hardly any work at all. To get that CW in the air takes almost nothing. Most of the weight required is already handing there when still, and the leverage from the crossbeam does the rest. Throwing oscillation in the mix, and removing the hammer plate, amplitude will be double, half of which is negative amplitude.

@Jim
You've got your forces, velocities and accelerations SO out of wack and twisted up, I am in fact at a loss as to how to explain it. You seem to be missing that acceleration is expressed as m/sÂ² simply because every second, a number of m/s (3.6 kph) is added to its previous velocity. 1m/sÂ² mean every second 1m/s is added.

A page back I explained how to see the acceleration view off centrifugal force, and I do think I got that decently right, for someone to think about it the ffirst time in his life (me).
In the 2SO, it's used as a vertical accceleration. One moment you're in a nose dive, the other you're pulling up. You vertical velocity goes from negative to positive, and it can be expressed as vertical acceleration. There is however no acceleration relative to the axis, unless the rope extends under the strain.

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1911 on:** January 13, 2012, 01:33:45 AM »

About earth's spin once more.

I challenge anyone to tell me what happens if a rocket were to make a loop with r=6000km (use actual earth's radium) and complete it in one hour.
A scale with a 1kg weight is on board, hanging from a rope to self-align it with the CF should it occur.
Now, what will the scale register?

And why does this value not exist as the difference (converted to m/sÂ²) between gravity at the equator and poles?

Actually, hollow earth is one possible explanation. More mass at the poles, more genuine pull-gravity generated, exactly negating the spin. I will also bet (having though about it as long as itt takes to type this) that a Phun-like simulation will prove me correct. It would need to be fed with laws of gravity as currently considered to be true. Hollow earth solves it. It may even explain the tides.

More on topic, who would be prepared to call the most basic 2SO dimensional relationships as claimed to be OU? I might be bothered to let my Cloxxki-logic loose on it, and predict some measurable figures. I want the 2SO off the game pitch, and a new inventtion on it!

johnny874 · « **Reply #1912 on:** January 13, 2012, 01:34:30 AM »

Quote from: Cloxxki on January 13, 2012, 01:22:25 AM

@gdez, tell me what type of test you want to do, or which medium or technique to use. I am all for anti-bling and no-cost builds.
I would suggest, if you don't fear elaborate theory or measurement, to build a super basic 2SO. Just the beam and a pendulum on one end, a rope will do. Typical Malcovic propotions. Place a quick scale with sensitive needle or LCD refresh under the CW. A cheap or stury one, as it will also be a hammer plate. A sensitive fish scale als rope for the pendulum could also prove useful. Offer numbers Malkovic doesn't want to get specific on. I am claiming the pendulum is performing hardly any work at all. To get that CW in the air takes almost nothing. Most of the weight required is already handing there when still, and the leverage from the crossbeam does the rest. Throwing oscillation in the mix, and removing the hammer plate, amplitude will be double, half of which is negative amplitude.

@Jim
You've got your forces, velocities and accelerations SO out of wack and twisted up, I am in fact at a loss as to how to explain it. You seem to be missing that acceleration is expressed as m/sÂ² simply because every second, a number of m/s (3.6 kph) is added to its previous velocity. 1m/sÂ² mean every second 1m/s is added.

A page back I explained how to see the acceleration view off centrifugal force, and I do think I got that decently right, for someone to think about it the ffirst time in his life (me).
In the 2SO, it's used as a vertical accceleration. One moment you're in a nose dive, the other you're pulling up. You vertical velocity goes from negative to positive, and it can be expressed as vertical acceleration. There is however no acceleration relative to the axis, unless the rope extends under the strain.

Cloxxki, the links are for you. Gravity accelerates at a rate of 9.87m/s/s
and with Newton, I think it was f=ma which a is the acceleration of gravity as measured vt. Haven't been able to find it clearly stated but have always heard m/s/s which means that every second an object falls, it's velocity increases by 9.8m/s.
I'm glad you think I'm messed up. At least one of us went to school for engineering

Probably why posting in a forum IS a waste of my time. Haven't met the person yet that can follow lines of force. And with a gravity wheel, doubt it would move faster than gravity would allow it to. And since 9.8 is mentioned in the links, why did you use a different refernce for ? To confuse the issue ? What I mentioned was 1 second of gravity acting on a wheel with no resistence. Doesn't matter, I'm about the only person who builds anyway. You should try it someday before running your mouth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_gravity

edited to add; gdez, Segway spent $800 million I think it was making their gyro's effcient enough to power their 2 wheeler. Good Luck

gdez · « **Reply #1913 on:** January 13, 2012, 02:44:04 AM »

@clokki and johnny,
Please remember that our own personal goals may be different. When I first got into the free energy idea, It was all about how to buy a peice of property out in the middle of nowhere, and basiclly live off grid. I found that not to many energy solutions provide the means, depending on what your looking for. Through my research I stumbled onto hho stuff, and i have been hooked ever since. I built a fuel cell, but never actually completed it because i felt it was too complicated for someone without lots of tools and acsess to materials. I have also built parabolic reflectors, and have materials for a wood gasifier and bio degester. Time is what is hard. Jetsis "plastic to deisel project is also fantastic, and the algae biodeisel is also interesting. I am starting to see that a combination of solutions may be the key. I would like you all to look at my "w17 working much better" video and try to envision where I am going with my projects. My w17 model was a great sucsess for me because it did what I wanted it to do. Steady beat, somewhat smooth power. I did not get the pendulum swing I wanted, but that seems like a minor obstacle. At my job, I lift piping assemblies that weigh several thousand pounds into place with easily, with chainfalls, all the time , and putting block and tackle to a tsmo style device just seems to work for me. If I could go out every morning and raise 2000+ lbs to supply all my energy needs for the day, it would be a pleasure. Especially for pumping water because I live on a 100ft hill, and I feel i could harness the water in many ways, just using gravity. AS for my pump idea, I think that I would like to aim for pumping water at least eighty feet. And @ clokki, I think I will try 18" dia pipe, 4" deep, 1/4" neoprene as diaphragm,2" inlet 3/4 outlet". Diaprhragm will be held by a pipe flange type connection, unsure of springs. Springs are confusing to me, but they seem to be very important in many of my models, and deserve a closer look.

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1914 on:** January 13, 2012, 10:42:59 AM »

@Jim
Glad to hear you did get your money's worth at engineering school. At times engineers can be so much into the tech, that language gets disconnected. I usually understand technical English decently, but yor sentence building just seems incompatible with my reading ability.

@gdez:
I would like to have appartments in a tall building, top floor and bottom floor. Let's say 50m vertical difference. I'd obviously only get a water connection on the top floor, run piping along the side of the building. One insulated from sun, one absorbing as much sun and heat as possible. Both would produce huge pressure going into my ground floor appt, and run through a turbine before being put to use. I like some decent shower pressure, but 50m extra worth may be a bit much even for me. The heat absorbing piping might over that height (and possible zig-zags to add distance and thus time exposed) might prove to be enough for a 38ÂºC shower. Hey, I just invented flat piping to increase energy absorbtion. Oh, and when looped over the side of the building, heated water could serve to heat the inside of the appt. Every cmÂ² of building face not being used to absorb heat into flowing water, is free energy being wasted. Like using your heater and try to make the outside weather warmer.
I don't anything about pumps, would be interested to know why you'd want to pump water, but that's another thread entirely.

I think I might crack down and start breaking up the 2SO into Cloxxki math. It would take a scientist (or 18 y/o student) to make it publishable.

CuriousChris · « **Reply #1915 on:** January 13, 2012, 11:39:59 AM »

Gravity is not even all around the earth, but it is fairly consistent. The earth is not a perfect sphere. There is more mass around the equator countering the effect of the earths spin. The equatorial bulge. The poles are slightly flattened.

The earth is not solid, the majority of it is a molten rock and metal, the solid part we stand on is actually quite thin. So as the earth spins it deforms and the heavier material tends to move to the equator until its all in a perfect balance. If it didn't do that it would have spun itself to pieces not long after it formed, and we wouldnt be here to discuss the point.

Quite logical really.

CC

Edit:
Here is a wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

I know of a better discussion but cant seem to find it. I'll post it if I do find it

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1916 on:** January 13, 2012, 12:22:53 PM »

Quote from: CuriousChris on January 13, 2012, 11:39:59 AM

Gravity is not even all around the earth, but it is fairly consistent. The earth is not a perfect sphere. There is more mass around the equator countering the effect of the earths spin. The equatorial bulge. The poles are slightly flattened.

The earth is not solid, the majority of it is a molten rock and metal, the solid part we stand on is actually quite thin. So as the earth spins it deforms and the heavier material tends to move to the equator until its all in a perfect balance. If it didn't do that it would have spun itself to pieces not long after it formed, and we wouldnt be here to discuss the point.

Quite logical really.

CC

Edit:
Here is a wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_of_Earth

I know of a better discussion but cant seem to find it. I'll post it if I do find it

Thanks Chris.

But can that account for the CF difference between zero at the poles and my fuzzy math estimate of 35% reduction in net weight at the equator? At 1000mph, taking a 6000km radius turn is quite a bit.
I'd love to be violently corrected on my 35% figure, just to know what figures we're looking at.

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1917 on:** January 13, 2012, 01:07:39 PM »

I have a proposed simplified 2SO

I'll save you my fuzzy math

Specs:
Pendulum 1m, 20kg
Counterweight 100kg
cross beam 3x longer on pendulum side
Starting position pendulum 60Âº = 0.5m up
I am using g=10 for simplicity
I am presuming a linkage pendulum pivot which always directs centrifugal force directly vertically to crossbar, which itself is presumed level.

Still pendulum: 20kg pulling on string, amplified 3x on CW side reduces CW's load on platform from 100kg to 40kg

A top bottom (static pivot implied), pendulum reaches 3m/s for a centrifigal pull of 180N.
This amplified 3x pulls up on CW for an extra 540N
CW was 400N, and netts -140N (accelerated upwards by 140N force, gravity disabled)

As long a CF from pendulum > 133N, CW is being lifted. this will start before top bottom (t1), and end after it (t2).
Even after the forces equal, the CW will continue to climb for a moments due to it's vertical velocity still present at t2.

The pendulum's pivot, from lifting the CW, loses roughly 3x the altitude the CW gained.

All agree thusfar?

I think dimensions used are very reasonable for building and filming, and weights can be reduced for convenience as mass is irrelevant, only proportions of weights and lengths. Crossbar can also be any length convenient, as long as pivot positioning is proportionate.

johnny874 · « **Reply #1918 on:** January 13, 2012, 01:22:02 PM »

Quote from: Cloxxki on January 13, 2012, 10:42:59 AM

@Jim
Glad to hear you did get your money's worth at engineering school. At times engineers can be so much into the tech, that language gets disconnected. I usually understand technical English decently, but yor sentence building just seems incompatible with my reading ability.

English is my second language. Americans don't like it either.

CuriousChris · « **Reply #1919 on:** January 13, 2012, 01:31:17 PM »

Quote from: Cloxxki on January 13, 2012, 12:22:53 PM

Thanks Chris.

But can that account for the CF difference between zero at the poles and my fuzzy math estimate of 35% reduction in net weight at the equator? At 1000mph, taking a 6000km radius turn is quite a bit.
I'd love to be violently corrected on my 35% figure, just to know what figures we're looking at.

Not sure where you get your 35% or what you have based it on.

Here are a couple of more links. the first is plain english with some math, the second is typical wikipedia

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=310
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_bulge

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2230211 times)

Cloxxki

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

johnny874

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

neptune

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

johnny874

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

gdez

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

Cloxxki

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

Cloxxki

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

johnny874

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

gdez

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

Cloxxki

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

CuriousChris

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

Cloxxki

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

Cloxxki

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

johnny874

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

CuriousChris

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