Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2222674 times)

hartiberlin · « **Reply #675 on:** March 12, 2008, 02:55:38 PM »

Here is also another great physics simulation program
Newton lab:

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=11rmKvT-R7U

http://www.dsmm.net/demos/demo_newton.php

Maybe we can simulate with this program it much better in 3D ?

Regards, Stefan.

hartiberlin · « **Reply #676 on:** March 12, 2008, 03:02:56 PM »

Quote from: FreeEnergy on March 12, 2008, 10:36:53 AM

the only energy being used is to lock and unlock the weight at 12 o'clock which is very little.

Hi You don?t need tolock it,
it works by its own movements.

I just played with the concept now for a few hours,
but it is very hard to synchronize several discs, weights,
gears, etc...
Also I really need a good video tutorial how to use and setup gears
and ropes to pull things or move discs...

Can anybody provide a good video tutorial on youtube or
somewhere else about this topic ?

It all comes down to the right resonance frequencies or weight disc size-pendulum
swinging cycles...
very hard to synchronize it all.

If also somebody could teach me, how to use locks on springs
and how they could be released on purpose again,that would be really great.
So I need to compress a spring with a moving weight.
Then at a certain position of the spring and weight the lock
must apply and hold the position of the spring or connected weight
and then wait a dedicated time and then release the spring or attached weight again..
How could this be modelled in WM2D or NewtonLab ?

Many thanks.

Regards,Stefan.

Scorpile · « **Reply #677 on:** March 12, 2008, 03:59:00 PM »

Well.. i used MOI to give all a simple idea of the generator side.

(http://pabo.com.pa/joe/mgen.jpg)

astroshima · « **Reply #678 on:** March 12, 2008, 05:47:41 PM »

I have made some corrections to my previous post:

Quote from: astroshima on March 11, 2008, 02:15:36 AM

Here are these corrections:

"...PS: The "problem" with this construction is that the both ends of balance beam are the same length..."

"So I had coefficient of efficiency equals to 0.54 (54%)in this particular test with this particular device.
I made theoretical approximation for constant oscillation mode, based on previous test, of maximum coefficient of efficiency with my model, and it was 0.9 (90%)"

"...I did this tests more than 5 years ago...(PS: at Dec. 17. 2002.)"

aleks · « **Reply #679 on:** March 12, 2008, 06:20:37 PM »

Quote from: Scorpile on March 12, 2008, 03:59:00 PM

Well.. i used MOI to give all a simple idea of the generator side.

You have to find someone with a 3D printer to test your ideas.

astroshima · « **Reply #680 on:** March 12, 2008, 09:22:19 PM »

Quote from: Scorpile on March 12, 2008, 03:59:00 PM

Well.. i used MOI to give all a simple idea of the generator side.

Scorpile your idea is excellent! Thanks.
It is possible to use bike for all this (I mean for Milkovics model!)
Pedals could be balance beam and rear wheel could be used to lift weight (with rope) or to generate electricity with dynamo!
We can mount pendulum on one pedal and extra weight or ledge on other pedal.
So input work (on pendulum) could be measured with video camera and ruler by formula dA = m*g*dh.
And output work could be measured with unimer (on dynamo) or by formula dE = m*g*h if we lift the weight (m) with rope by rear wheel!

nightlife · « **Reply #681 on:** March 13, 2008, 01:39:15 AM »

I built it today but found that the derailleur was taking to much energy away. The derailleur is necessary when the sprocket is attached to the stationary frame because it is used to control the chains slack. It will not work that way so I mounted the sprocket to the moving frame and I am doing away with the derailleur. I will now be using the pull instead of the push because that is the most powerful action this design has. After the wheel is steady turning, it does not take much power to keep it going. I did find that a load is a must to achieve a steady action. The faster it goes, the more erratic the motion gets. The load has to be pared with the RPM's to keep a steady motion.

I hope to have better results tomorrow with the alterations I have made. I have to buy another chain in the morning to add to the old one, to meet the new design spec's.

nightlife · « **Reply #682 on:** March 13, 2008, 11:36:21 PM »

I tried every way possible and I could not get it to power it's self. There is no over unity here with this design. I am done here and I am off to try another idea. Not sure which one as of yet but I am sure i will figure out before the night is over.

Good luck to those still playing with this threads concept.

FreeEnergy · « **Reply #683 on:** March 14, 2008, 12:50:57 PM »

look i am telling you guys to get free energy all you need is to pause/start the rotating weight after every revolution or so at 12 o'clock, then let the whole system balance, then after that let the weight loose again to repeat the process. the system provides more than enough energy to self lock/unlock from 12 o'clock.
just need simple circuit and some kind of mechanical locking-unlocking mechanism for the rotating weight.

nightlife · « **Reply #684 on:** March 14, 2008, 01:25:33 PM »

FreeEnergy, if that is true, then I should be able to put a weight on a bedini school girl pulse motor design and I should get a better end result then I did without it.

I will test it using two different coil designs. One with power wrapped with 24 gauge and the pickup wrapped with 22 gauge and the reversed.

That should be a fair way to test your theory. Do you agree?

Scorpile · « **Reply #685 on:** March 14, 2008, 03:05:21 PM »

This is interesting, because asuming that bedini design gives you a 99.99% eficient motor, and assuming this system really works, at least .01% , adding more charge to the other side of the system could maybe allow you to run on capacitors.

FreeEnergy · « **Reply #686 on:** March 14, 2008, 09:11:04 PM »

i don't know much about bedini but try it out and see. i have a good feeling about this! but it has to be Milkovic style. just go back and see my last attached image.

Scorpile · « **Reply #687 on:** March 15, 2008, 03:26:00 PM »

I have seen a lot of physics errors when modeling those aparatus like the discused in this thread.

I don't know others, but i have the theory that those errors probably are because the software detects the overunity and show it as an error because that will be ripping some of the "well known" laws.

What i want to set clear for everyone, is that in my case, i am seeking a way to "gain" more energy than the energy i spent generating it, but without ripping any thermodinamics, or physic law. I think we can do some tricks to "extract" that exceding energy free and contained on it own "battery". Think this like when a bomb explodes, because you use less energy to start the bomb, than the energy the bomb releases when it explodes, no matter if the energy was contained on chemicals, i know we are not creating energy... That's not what i seek.

nightlife · « **Reply #688 on:** March 15, 2008, 04:54:01 PM »

Adding a weight to a bedini wheels design does not make a difference so scratch that idea.

I did how ever find a very interesting thing about the bedini design that I think most have over looked. I will test my new design and let you all know the results after I am done.

aleks · « **Reply #689 on:** March 15, 2008, 11:34:44 PM »

The huge problem with gravity-based devices is that kinetic energy's direction cannot be reversed. So, if a body have gained a velocity due to gravity pull, whatever you do - rotate it, skew, dissect, etc - it will still be falling into the same direction. Pendulum is a way to "redirect" kinetic energy, but it is redirected at the expense of pendulum's arm stretching on atomic level. You really have to create an "inertia shield" first (if that one exists at all) before gravity pull can be used as an energy source (but then the "inertia shield" should be efficient enough so that gain is higher than expense).

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2222674 times)

hartiberlin

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

hartiberlin

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

Scorpile

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

astroshima

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

aleks

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

astroshima

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

nightlife

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

nightlife

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

FreeEnergy

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

nightlife

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

Scorpile

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

FreeEnergy

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

Scorpile

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

nightlife

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

aleks

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