Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2231881 times)

andrea · « **Reply #1635 on:** February 08, 2011, 04:14:51 PM »

Quote from: Merg on February 07, 2011, 08:11:53 PM

Here is the video

Return To Gravity Assisted Power
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1n-C5o8fZ0

Very interesting! But they don't explain anything. And that is not a double pendulum

neptune · « **Reply #1636 on:** February 08, 2011, 07:25:44 PM »

@Omnibus re the clip you showed us of the gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmetriev . Look again at the full video on his website from which your clip was taken . You will notice that this video has been edited . I t shows several runs , And at the start of each run , the bits where the weights are reset by hand have been edited out . Look at the wheel in the start position and plot the resultant center of gravity of all the weights added together . Wait till the wheel stops , and plot again . The first plot will show the resultant c of g higher than the wheel axle . The second plot will show c of g lower than the axle . So it works the same as a weight driven clock . When it needs rewinding it stops . But a lot sooner than a clock . I am AMAZED that a man of your caliber would miss this .

Omnibus · « **Reply #1637 on:** February 08, 2011, 07:30:26 PM »

Quote from: neptune on February 08, 2011, 07:25:44 PM

@Omnibus re the clip you showed us of the gravity wheel of Mikhail Dmetriev . Look again at the full video on his website from which your clip was taken . You will notice that this video has been edited . I t shows several runs , And at the start of each run , the bits where the weights are reset by hand have been edited out . Look at the wheel in the start position and plot the resultant center of gravity of all the weights added together . Wait till the wheel stops , and plot again . The first plot will show the resultant c of g higher than the wheel axle . The second plot will show c of g lower than the axle . So it works the same as a weight driven clock . When it needs rewinding it stops . But a lot sooner than a clock . I am AMAZED that a man of your caliber would miss this .

I know, but, again, a weight attached to the rim can't even cause a full rotation while the same weight attached via a lever and a one-way clutch causes almost three rotations starting from the same height. What do you say to that?

neptune · « **Reply #1638 on:** February 08, 2011, 08:00:55 PM »

@Omnibus . OK suppose there are 8 weights . Each weight is , say 2Kg . And suppose that after doing the plots as per my last post , we find a CofG drop of 6 inches . Now take the same wheel on the same bearings but remove the weight/clutch assemblies .Now take a 16 Kg weight [8x2] and attach it to a string , and place it beneath the axle . Tie the other end of the string to the axle . Rotate the wheel by hand and the axle will act as a winch , raising the weight . Stop when you have raised the weight 6 inches . You have just inputted the same amount of work as is required to set the weights by hand in the video .Now release the wheel . The weight will drop and the wheel will turn . When the weight reaches the floor quickly cut the string with scissors . I Will wager my last dime that the wheel will rotate more than 2.75 times , and likely at least 10 times . I am not the kind of guy who can quote some equations to back this up , but my instinct based on real world experience tells me it is so . I would be really interested to know what you think .

Omnibus · « **Reply #1639 on:** February 08, 2011, 08:13:39 PM »

Please comment the case with only one weight as I suggested earlier.

fletcher · « **Reply #1640 on:** February 08, 2011, 08:14:16 PM »

B_E_C_A_U_S_E ... the Center of Mass [CoM] of the unit lowers itself in the first rotation to its lowest position attainable, like has been said - N.B. like a weighted chain pendulum clock coverts Pe to mechanical energy & resistance losses, like has been said.

That means Potential Energy of Position [Pe] is given up & converted to Kinetic Energy [Ke], since Pe = Ke in a gravity field substitution will suffice.

Torque was established by hand setting the device & raising its Pe then the Pe was reduced as the unit CoM lost its Pe of position over the initial revolution leaving it with residual momentum & Ke, as has been said.

The Ke it had after one revolution is diminished by resistance [friction] losses until there is no more Ke, but the Ke it received is the same as the Pe lost by the drop in the units CoM.

The device makes no attempt at Pe restitution ! - so is like letting a ball roll down a track, as has been said.

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

When a mass is directly attached to the rim, so that the wheel starts with torque, the CoM is following a circular orbit as it revolves - if there were no system losses the orbit would start & finish at the same height, thus restoring Pe - there are losses however, so the CoM doesn't quite make it back to start height & fully restore Pe, thus the unit doesn't complete one full cycle - "common sense".

What this means is that there isn't a pathway or mechanical arrangement that allows the unit to progressively lower [wind down] the CoM & it is effectively engineered for Pe restoration, which is quite different from the video demonstration of cocked pendulums around a wheel where the mechanics & engineering allows the CoM to loose Pe & wind itself down.

Omnibus · « **Reply #1641 on:** February 08, 2011, 08:25:31 PM »

Restoration of Pe is immaterial, as I have already noted. The fact which you also agree with remains, namely, that due to difference in the mechanical construction the same gravitational potential energy gives rise to two different values of kinetic energy.

spinn_MP · « **Reply #1642 on:** February 08, 2011, 08:41:44 PM »

Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 07:30:26 PM

I know, but, again, a weight attached to the rim can't even cause a full rotation while the same weight attached via a lever and a one-way clutch causes almost three rotations starting from the same height. What do you say to that?

Lol, another one of the trolling Omnibot's (many) historical statements....

I sincerely think that even HE cannot possibly be THAT DUMB... He is probably doing this just to provoke some feedback to his excessive BS posting, and to annoy people.

On a second thought... Isn't he the same guy who claims that almost all FE devices until now exhibit OU? Yep, he's the one who showed us, on numerous occasions, that "CoE has been broken without any reason of a doubt"+ blaBlabla & yada-dada-daa...

Energy, especially very basic forms like Potential & Kinetic - will always stay a mystery to our dearest Troll.

Omnibus · « **Reply #1643 on:** February 08, 2011, 08:44:41 PM »

Of course, as obvious from the above post, some people like to blabber having absolutely no clue regarding the topic at hand.

Omnibus · « **Reply #1644 on:** February 08, 2011, 08:49:51 PM »

The problem with making an Orryfeus-type working device (Milkovic, Dmitriev, Glotov etc.) is how to harness efficiently the produced excess energy to restore the initial state of the pendulum. It appears Karra Green Energy have managed to do that which only be known for sure if independent parties reproduce that device.

spinn_MP · « **Reply #1645 on:** February 08, 2011, 08:59:24 PM »

Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 08:44:41 PM

Of course, as obvious from the above post, some people like to blabber having absolutely no clue regarding the topic at hand.

Hey, what a smart move, you're now pasting typical replies from other people to your own posts... Auto-text feature? Fingers hurt of too much typing?

Omnibus · « **Reply #1646 on:** February 08, 2011, 09:01:48 PM »

As seen from the above post the incoherent blabber, unconnected to the topic at hand, continues.

neptune · « **Reply #1647 on:** February 08, 2011, 09:03:45 PM »

Gentlemen , can we please discuss this without calling each other names . @ Omnibus . The answer to your question is not clear in my mind . One thing we need to consider is this . In the case of the one weight fixed to the rim , the wheel will turn until the weight regains say 90% of its original height . Then it stops . But this is not end-of-story . The wheel then rotates backwards until the wheel is at say 81% of its original height and stops again . It will continue to oscillate in a pendulum like fashion for quite some time . Again I would wager my last cent that if we add these part rotations [in degrees] together , the total would far exceed 2.75 rotations . This time we have 2Kg dropping say 4 feet instead of 16 Kg falling half a foot , about the same driving force? What say you?

Omnibus · « **Reply #1648 on:** February 08, 2011, 09:09:19 PM »

Quote from: neptune on February 08, 2011, 09:03:45 PM

Gentlemen , can we please discuss this without calling each other names . @ Omnibus . The answer to your question is not clear in my mind . One thing we need to consider is this . In the case of the one weight fixed to the rim , the wheel will turn until the weight regains say 90% of its original height . Then it stops . But this is not end-of-story . The wheel then rotates backwards until the wheel is at say 81% of its original height and stops again . It will continue to oscillate in a pendulum like fashion for quite some time . Again I would wager my last cent that if we add these part rotations [in degrees] together , the total would far exceed 2.75 rotations . This time we have 2Kg dropping say 4 feet instead of 16 Kg falling half a foot , about the same driving force? What say you?

Problem is, starting from the same level, both cases will finally oscillate. The lever case, however, will make two additional full turns which the wheel with weight attached to rim won't. Focus on this effect. That's the important observation in this case.

spinn_MP · « **Reply #1649 on:** February 08, 2011, 09:12:34 PM »

Quote from: Omnibus on February 08, 2011, 09:01:48 PM

As seen from the above post the incoherent blabber, unconnected to the topic at hand, continues.

Off topic? I simply replied to one of your posts here. Maybe it was you who was off-topic?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENrMwPNt9Cc&feature=player_embedded#

This is yours, me thinks. And we all heard your explanation. Several times. Of course, as expected, it was all BS, or "incoherent blabber".

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2231881 times)

andrea

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

neptune

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

Omnibus

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

neptune

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 !

spinn_MP

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 !

spinn_MP

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

Omnibus

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

neptune

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

Omnibus

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

spinn_MP

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