Language:
To browser these website, it's necessary to store cookies on your computer.
The cookies contain no personal information, they are required for program control.
the storage of cookies while browsing this website, on Login and Register.
 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: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic  (Read 93445 times)

#### Kator01

• Hero Member
• Posts: 893
##### Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
« Reply #90 on: January 01, 2008, 11:10:56 PM »
Hi P-Motion,

more explanations -> new questions. Please bear with me.

I have to apologize but my english misses the meaning of the term ramp. I like to be more precise : what does this ramp look like ?
Is this a device fixed against ground which catches the overbalanced mass pushing it back upwards in the guiding socket ?
I understood the process but not the technical detail of this ramp

Very intersting idea

Kator

#### pequaide

• Full Member
• Posts: 139
##### Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
« Reply #91 on: January 02, 2008, 03:19:59 AM »
P-Motion: You must transfer the momentum of the entire wheel to a subset of itself, and then release it.  Since your ramps and lever arms don?t do this; I predict that your wheel will not work.

A very light one meter bar with a quality bearing point at .5 meters has six kilograms on one end and five kilograms on the other end. The six kilogram side (the six kilogram lever arm of .5 m length) will rotate to the bottom with an acceleration in accordance with F = ma. If all eleven kilograms remains attached to the bar the six kilogram side will rise to the same level from which it was dropped. That leaves you with no change in energy.

If the momentum of the system (11 kg at .9444 m/sec velocity) is transferred to the one extra kilogram, when it is at the bottom of a .5 meter drop, it will have 10.38 units of momentum and 10.38 m/sec velocity. When released this velocity will allow it to rise to 5.499 meters and it was only dropped .5 meters.

Please don?t ignore and avoid this fundamental difference between the laws of levers and The Law of Conservation of Momentum.

What the lengthening of the lever arm gains in leverage it loses in distance. The side that has the longer lever arm but equal mass will indeed rotate to the bottom, but when it gets there you are stuck with an attempt to rotate it back to the top. If you leave it in one piece and don't consolidate the momentum, it will cost you the same going up as that which you gained going down.

#### Kator01

• Hero Member
• Posts: 893
##### Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
« Reply #92 on: January 03, 2008, 06:17:11 PM »
Hello P-Motion,

did you calculate in a simulation the kinetic energy of the overbalance-mass at the point where it is beginning to move up  ( to be pushed up ) by the ramp and compare this with m x g x h ( 3 cm ) ?

As far as I understand this process cannot  be calculated with the impuls-formulas because the time for the upward-movement of the overbalanced mass must be measured first. As your mass is in a continous movement all along one cycle, I do not see a impuls-transfer so that the wheel-mass is fully stopped. According to the formulas that exactly is necessary in order to get excess-energy. In your desing finally the mass consumes m x g x h ( 3 cm ) in a slow-motion-fashion compared to full impuls-transfer. If there is Ekin >> Epot you will win.

I concentrate on getting rid of the standard-tunnel-view for finding  unconventional ( new ) physical/technical means to achieve what the formula promises.Some iddeas have come to my mind which I will discuss here soon.

I wish you the best and hope you will proove me wrong.

@peqaide : what is the mechanism you use to keep the spheres in the openings while accellerating the spin of the system and then release it ? As I understand it you have to first reach a certain speed so a certain amount of centrifugal force can develop which then can be released.
What setup did you use doing this with gliding masses on a almost frictionles spinning CD-Disk ?

Kator

#### pequaide

• Full Member
• Posts: 139
##### Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
« Reply #93 on: January 04, 2008, 01:56:56 AM »
Kator01 question: What is the mechanism you use to keep the spheres in the openings while accellerating the spin of the system and then release it ? As I understand it you have to first reach a certain speed so a certain amount of centrifugal force can develop which then can be released.
What setup did you use doing this with gliding masses on a almost frictionless spinning CD-Disk ?

Pequaide answer: In the mechanically dropped and released models the spheres are held up against the cylinder with arms made of plywood (the arms were painted black for photographic reasons). The seats in the plywood are padded with hard rubber. Strong springs are triggered that jerk the arms away from the spheres. This arrangement releases both the spheres and the cylinder at the same time. The cylinder is held square with a piece of plywood mounted on the spinning rod that holds the arms and springs.

The rod spins at 3.25 rotations per second. The diameter used for the 5 in.  O.D. PVC pipe was 4.81 in. (distance to the center of mass of the cylinder). The diameter used for the spheres was 5.00 in. (their center of mass seats on the outside diameter of the cylinder.  This gives you an initial velocity of 1.297 m/sec for the spheres and 1.247 m/sec for the cylinder.

In the most recently posted pictures the spheres are held in place with the side of the thumb and the side of the second finger. In the hand held models the RPS is unknown; the mass of the inserted pipe is altered to get the cylinder to stop just as the strings on the spheres are entering the slit in the cylinder. These, as all models, are video taped and clearly show the cylinder (or center disk in the air table model) stopping.

In the air table models the pucks were held up against the large center disk with a string that is pinched up against a raise wall in the center of the large disk. The raised wall is used to accelerate the large disk, while the fingers (or spring loaded padded wooden dowels) are pinching the strings that hold the pucks in position at 180?. In this way the pucks and disk are released at the same time. The strings are then dragged by the pucks across the air table, causing a small amount of friction. The strings that allow the pucks to swing out are of course above the table.

The RPS of these models is also unknown, if held by hand. Some calculations were made using the mechanically released models (the spring loaded padded wooden dowels).  My measurements and calculations showed energy increases in all models, as the spheres reached maximum velocity. I can post a few pictures of the arms and center disk, but I will have to do it tomarrow.

#### pequaide

• Full Member
• Posts: 139
##### Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
« Reply #94 on: January 05, 2008, 06:45:05 PM »
Kator01 one 1M picture

#### pequaide

• Full Member
• Posts: 139
##### Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
« Reply #95 on: January 05, 2008, 06:53:38 PM »
one more 1M picture with cylinder and spheres loaded

#### Kator01

• Hero Member
• Posts: 893
##### Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
« Reply #96 on: January 05, 2008, 07:27:35 PM »
Hello P-Motion, Hello pequaide,

I have to say beforehand that in case you do not get immediate response by me the reason is that this forum has becom so slow in reaction especially during the last few days that some posts I did in another thread simply got lost.

@P-Motion : I fully agree with what you say concerning the practical experience and your statement "hands on work". I grew up as a son of a gold- and silversmith after Wordwar II and since I was 5 years old I would stand on the tip of my toes to get my nose above the level of my father`s working-place to watch him working. I was educated naturally with all this practical workmanship-techniques and still today I do this kind of work in order to relax after my consultant-job. So you are talking to an engineer for applied car-construction who now gets interested to dive again into an new the field of kinematics.
Anyway, at the present I do not have the room and equipment to do this and I am patient till you will have the time to build this, it is your idea and there is no one who can better do this design.

What pequaide has brought up here fascinates me because I have a special way of thinking or should I better express this a "imagine something an whatch it run" like Tesla did it. I have also have learned to have a close look at formulas when there is a possibility to estimate results. but I do not mainly rely on this.

@pequaide : this last picture really shows a big device or am I wrong here. At the present I work out a technical solution in my imagination ( the way I explained it to P-motion before) for another test-rig-design of the ball-and cylinder-system. It will take some time and will post a sketch here for you to comment on.

Is gravitation around the sun the carrier to transfer momentum of the sun to the planets to keep them circling around ? Just a thought.

Kator

#### pequaide

• Full Member
• Posts: 139
##### Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
« Reply #97 on: January 05, 2008, 08:49:18 PM »
Kator01 The cylinder is a 5 inch O.D. PVC pipe coupler, it is a coupler for a four inch I.D. PVC pipe (both coupler and pipe have ? inch side walls). The mouse trap gives you a good idea of the scale. The hand held models take up very little room, and also show the cylinder stopping.

I could not send two 1M pictures at the same time, so I posted twice. Yes the site does seem to be slow this weekend.

Here is how the arms work.   The center rod of the arms is in a drill press chuck that has a belt and pulley reduction to a second drill press motor.  It rotates at 3.25 RPS. The arms are held closed with a thin brass rod. The rod latch is opened with the impact from the spring of a mouse trap; a pad trips the trap at a certain portion of the rotation. Upon release the arms are pulled away from the spheres with the top mounted springs. The spheres were holding the cylinder in position so both the cylinder and spheres are released at the same time.

Within about a quarter rotation the cylinder is stopped; according to Newton?s Three Laws of Motion the spheres must have all the momentum. The energy increases I have measured range around 300%, depending on the model.

#### Kator01

• Hero Member
• Posts: 893
##### Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
« Reply #98 on: January 05, 2008, 10:58:02 PM »
Hello pequaide,

thank you for the explanation. I think you have made is clear. What puzzles me most it the fact that the steel-rope under tension by the centrifugal force of the spheres can take all the impact from the cylinder-momentum. Is this steel-rope made from piano-strings ? Can you please give some numbers on the cylinder-/ and sphere-weights and the distance the sphere can move away from the center-axis, so I can do a calculation on this ?

Thank you. Very good work.

As I said I am working on another setup-design which involves a flexible lever with the spheres attached to it instead of steel-strings and a second one using a moving water-column beeing partly stopped. This last design would involve losses, but these losses are tolerable since it is very simple to build.

Regards

Kator

#### The Eskimo Quinn

• Hero Member
• Posts: 614
##### Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
« Reply #99 on: January 06, 2008, 04:02:46 AM »
By request from P Motion.

having glanced (note glanced) at this thread and the apparent 2 designs in question, I noted the last answer at post 117 was incorrect, in fact the reverse is true, spinning momentum of any horizontal motion is more limited than vertical motion, as it must contend with the loss at the outer extremities of the wheel/cylinder that is the outer weight of the centrifugal force, then must contend with its own friction on the center bearing, and on that note can we please have no more posts containing the words "frictionless gears or bearings" We are after all creating perpetual motion for the sake of energy in machinery that will need to be quite large and have gravitation weight of friction on all parts.

Then the horizontal mech must contend with the forces of gravity pulling downward creating a greater friction on the base of the vertical bearings or bearings placed beneath in support.

Vertical wheels have all of those except the horizontal problem. This is not to say a horizontal centrifuge design will not work, merely that the last answer in post 117 saying it did not have limitations of speed such as the gravitational speed, it has many more limitations.

On both projects and for all projects for that matter, most posts here miss some very basic physics aspects to their designs and most certainly in their criticism of others when citing gravitational speed velocity.

1) gravitational velocity (whilst i disagree with Newton on this point also) I will use your hero's base to illustrate a primary conversation flaw on this site.
an SLR 7.62 rifle fires a bullet at 2700 feet per second, now point the rifle at the ground from the top 100 foot  of a building, it is still pretty close to 2700 feet per second not the very slow gravitational velocity speed. Many of the devices here use momentum or projectile firing mechanisms to move objects to fall points within the wheel or armature, this instantly removes the use of gravitational fall as a measurement in every science lab in the world, with only one exception, and that is during the velocity calculation the questions is often asked at what speed does friction (usually from air pressure as with a bullet) slow the speed to max velocity (Newton?s max equation for gravitational fall)
and is the applied pressure a secondary variant in reaching this slower speed (the kite effect same weight as the small apple but fall slow due to aerodynamics).

So many of the calculations on this board keep quoting gravitational fall which is incorrect physics the instant momentum (a simple baseball in a stocking can beat gravitational fall math for weight by momentum) is applied or a projectile system (even a spring) is used in the design.

As for the secondary device this comes under number two.

2)the pendulum in conjunction with the wheel was always a difficult task, 2 sets of friction for a start, primarily the weight of gravity at the top of the bearing that holds the pendulum, but secondary and most importantly , and have not seen it mentioned on any thread, is "racking" one of the greatest shock absorbers of energy. Pendulums create racking force, in fact the energy ratio can be as much as 75percent to racking, sad but true, take a piece of A4 paper hold one hand on each side and rotate you hands in opposite directions, this twist is racking, for the everyday version of a racking pendulum, that is where a set of children?s swings is not fixed to the ground and overbalances when someone is pushed too hard, now image the pressure required to pin downs those legs at that racking point, that?s a lot of energy, now imagine you are not building your machine buy digging holes for wooden posts to go into the ground (i hope your not) and that the 4 legs are joined and a rectangular frame at the base, this energy now travels right through the frame to disperse, this is racking and where most energy from pendulums goes.

But I'm am open minded enough to assume your individual genius has already considered this and your pendulum create huge energy and you only need a small portion of it to help in over balancing your wheel

No pendulum keeps going so it can not help indefinitely, secondly any pendulum that does run for long periods will be slow by the transfer of energy to help the wheel, the wheel will suffer some effect of the racking through stress and vibration. regardless of wheel design. pendulums will only have a negative effect on the wheel, and are probably the poorest of energy transfer devices for an impact design, although may provide some benefit as a wind up and release device that releases a weight to assist in an overbalance application, but most preferable would like be the reverse where a falling weight swings the pendulum. Unfortunately the only design that worked absolutely that i ever came up with was to combine the silly ocean wave energy system with this practice (bloody surprised no one else ever though of it or did it) simply use the ocean for a float that rises and falls with the machine on land, that?s my freebie for those who want free energy fast if you live on a cliff near the ocean, or have a non stupid local government who would build it for you.

But for what it's worth gravity is certainly key as it is the only free "constant" source of energy and my own device was design to manipulate it.

The perfect example of continuous work is simple, two ring magnets north facing north on a stick, the energy from the two magnets constantly repelling whilst the gravity constantly fights to bring the top ring down, in both cases the expenditure of energy is perpetual until the magnet or planet dies. So this is where i first saw perpetual motion and realized it only hade to be manipulated.

There are many ways to get free energy that are not used, not perpetual motion, but perpetual in nature if manipulated correctly. The problem is not discovery, it has usually been cost.

If you want my first free energy device it was simple, the greatest power on earth is not gravity but heat, solar radiation lifts billions of tons of water against gravity every second of the day and at night, my design was simple and works well, based on 8 liters per hour during the day and 3 liters per hour at night average per square meter, this is free lift of tons of weight, simply use 3 square miles of plastic covered ground (a decent commercial nursery size at the bas of a mesa ( a protruding plateau in the desert) and simply have the base a foot deep and cheap roofing and supports like a nursery the slowly inclines up the base of the mesa to a domed condenser probably about half a mile of the mesa top surface area, (a large tent basically with a white roof and giant heat fins aluminum sunk into the ground) simply run back over a single waterfall to the pond below.

Don?t laugh that is 4 liters per day per square meter solar pond basic evaporation, that equates to ?1.3 million liters per hour?, now get that again per bloody ?hour?, that?s one hell of a self cycling hydroelectric plant. Free energy was never tough to discover or design, I just wanted one everyone could build and afford, so the poor could say up yours to the oil gas and coal companies and government taxes on energy.

Whilst having already built the sword and knowing I am the first to genuinely succeed, I do not believe I will be the only one to have a working design in the future, so I guess the best to say for both of these devices, is stay with what you Know Works !!!! Not what science or naysayers tell you won?t work (and that does include myself, always take on board what I have said, but do not set it in stone. You may know or find something that contradicts my opinion, just don?t quote me Newton?s laws that I have already beaten)

#### pequaide

• Full Member
• Posts: 139
##### Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
« Reply #100 on: January 06, 2008, 04:18:21 AM »
The tension in the string builds slowly; so they don?t need to be as strong as you may think.

I use 20 lb and 30 lb test Berkley Fireline. The strings are eventually worn by roughness in the slit; they need to be replaced after about 100 tests. The wire loops that are inserted in the drilled spheres are made of braided fishing wire in about the same 20 lb test range. They break also at about 200 tests.

The open diameter of the spheres (distance between the spheres center of mass) of the black cylinder seated in the arms is 10 inches and the closed diameter is 5 inches. This double radius was done by design, because the spheres stop the cylinder with or without a slit. The slit is only there to allow time for the video tape to catch the stopped motion of the cylinder.

If the open diameter of the spheres is double the closed diameter the initial and final radius of rotation of the sphere remains the same, because when the cylinder is stopped the radius of rotation is not the original center of the cylinder, the new radius of rotation when the cylinder is stopped is the side of the cylinder were the string comes through a hole. In this way the initial radius of rotation of the spheres is 2.5 inches, and the final radius of rotation of the sphere is 2.5 inches. I did this for those that were using angular momentum formulas; this made the application of angular momentum useless because radius of rotation did not change. It would be perfectly legitimate to secure the cylinder in place when it is stopped and force the radius of rotation of the sphere to remain 2.5 inches, locking the cylinder when it is stopped removes no momentum from the system. And this jamming of the stopped cylinder would have no affect upon the momentum of the spheres either. I have not locked the stopped cylinder and the spheres will start it back up again.

I myself, like Galileo, know that the radius of rotation has no affect upon momentum. In this particular example the momentum of the sphere does not change when the string enters the slit in the cylinder, but the radius changed from 2.5 in. to 5 inches.

When the string that connects the spheres is in the slit you must use the 5 inch radius for calculations.  For example: when the string moves 2.54 cm in the slit the sphere itself has moved 5.08 cm.

The sphere in this model (G in the log book) has a mass of 66.2 g.   Two spheres will be 132.4 g.

The 5 inch coupler has a mass of 367.2 g at a diameter of 4.81 (center of mass/momentum) inches.

Inside the coupler is a 4 inch (inside diameter) pipe that has a mass of 52.4 g at a diameter of 4.32 inches. This added mass is how you get the cylinder to stop (with a fixed radius of 2.5 inches) just as the string enters the slit. You can adjust the radius or adjust the mass.

In the hand held models previously pictured the closed radius is 4 inches and the open radius is 9.5 inches. This is a proportionally larger open radius, but it also stops a larger mass with roughly the same mass spheres. 395 +208 +20 about 623 grams instead of about 367.2 + 52.4 g about 419.6 g.

An engineering friend from GM placed friction at 3 % per gear, with a 300% increase in one fourth turn I think we can handle it.

#### The Eskimo Quinn

• Hero Member
• Posts: 614
##### Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
« Reply #101 on: January 06, 2008, 06:16:44 AM »
the design is clever, of that there is no question, and i applaud your design as exception drive length from an initial motion, however there are 2 problems which none can deny, like yourself i built many a device that could not be used in a commercial sense, as this to could never be built on a large scale to produce quantifiable energy as you rely on specific materials that change in abilities the the size increases, you have built a fly line for trout, you can not catch a larger trout with a larger line as it will as you increase, become weighty and sink, and to the point where even casting becomes impossible, there are many anomalies in physics overlooked by the very best, material choice is a common error, and equipment will often not function when it has to be changed.

Many a thread here is testament to that very thing in conductors, they all carry current, but they all have limits and purpose.

Your greatest error was Galileo, He  understood that momentum was not affected by radius,  unlike yourself, he understood it and taught it in respect to planetary movement. He was of course refferring to planets drifting out into greater orbits, and to that end was the main derivative for Newton to calculate (steal someone else's discovery) that an object in motion will continue forever if uninterrupted by another force or action, you fail to consider you rotating sphere is connected to your machine and is affected by other forces, both gravitational weight, friction from bearing/bush as not applied to Galileo's thoughts on planetary movement, it was always noted that this was not applicable on earth without consideration of these factors.

Lastly i seam to be missing the generator?? the part where this generates power? the primary friction component, or is this an experiment in self perpetuity and not overunity or perpetual motion, go back to the ring magnets on the pole, two ring magnets north facing north on a post, the gravity endlessly trying to pull the upper magnet down, whilst the lower constantly fights to hold it up, until the planet or magnet dies, self perpetuity exists right there.

But I'm sure you have it in hand

#### leeroyjenkinsii

• Jr. Member
• Posts: 81
##### Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
« Reply #102 on: January 06, 2008, 08:17:58 AM »
OK guys...how viable is this:

#### The Eskimo Quinn

• Hero Member
• Posts: 614
##### Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
« Reply #103 on: January 06, 2008, 08:49:06 AM »
for your device velocity can only be measured by percentage against each other.

EG when you finish building the device (I am granting you that it will work)

It does not just start turning correct?!  because it is not a version of an unbalanced wheel that cannot stay balanced (although no design i ever saw claimed that, they had to be held heavy end up first and released) therefore it must have a thrust start point to get it going, all engines must be started even an orbiting planet has to get its first push.

This is the difficulty, for instance my device goes at what ever speed i propell it to up to any intrusive vibration point, it does not get any faster, and has a minimal speed requirement to set off replication, as does yours (in other words a gentle breath of air or push with you finger would not work. so velocity cannot be measure from an operational point without knowing speed of wheel friction etc,

However the velocity of travel in your design is fairly basic except the creation of correctional inertia which is a high drag problem for the machine.

For the others reading correctional inertia is where an object traveling in a perfect circle has equal inertia applied at all points equally during travel, image a car at the circular velodrome style tracks like your old circle electric car track, now whilst the car at set speed is travelling around your 100 foot circle (i made it that big to actually change the track during a circuit) the car goes past, you unclip the track and make the curve tighter going inside the circle, as the car comes round again it will likely roll on the corner or massive extra g forces will apply, huge friction!

The design of this device has a similar structure using an inward spiraling track design for want of better terminology, thus creating a shorter route for some componets to shift counter weights than others, Exceptionally clever design as i said earlier, but this addition friction is equal to the cheat short cut you gain by cutting the corner, the velocity of each of the 3 items is equally lower as the distance is shortened due to the increase in friction the tighter the turn, the old porche whips faster around the sharp corner due to shorter distance and that is how you arrived at your figures, weight over time and distance, but you left out the massive increase in g force at the corner reduction, and the massive torque against the tyres of the porche.

Sorry, love it though, very inventive and clever, it reminds me of an old design i played with, you may wish to think about this (i can't build your invention for you but i can give you a few pointers)

take a bullet, place it in a wide arc circular track and then another and another, the arc being wide enough so as not to affect the flight of the round from the bullets placed close to each other.

detonate the first, each bullet striking the pin in front of the other until all have fired, now use the same concept with a fixed in place recharging shell and spring return for the bullet/pin. use the momentum of the bullet round as your power source for electricity, now you only need to work out what is the power that forces out the pin to strike and release this pin/bullet in front, compressed air from the generator?? who knows it may already be part of your design, just remember, when you fire a semi automatic it reloads itself out of a minimal byproduct of the main carriage.

It's not a pendulum if you pull it back and push it forward, no momentum required.

#### Kator01

• Hero Member
• Posts: 893
##### Re: Free energy from gravitation using Newtonian Physic
« Reply #104 on: January 11, 2008, 01:07:41 AM »
Hello,

due to a trojan-virus entering my system while I was trying to upload 2 pictures I will not post here as long as the moderator gets active to eliminate this shit.

@pequaide : I have a simple modification of your cylinder & spheres set-up which will show the energy-gain ( if there is any )  in a simply, certain and direct way without complicated video-technique, but I will wait til this forum is clean of this trojan-shit and the responsible advertising-website embedded here is disclosed.

Regards

Kator