Quote from: rMuD on September 10, 2007, 04:35:10 AM

Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 10, 2007, 03:51:37 AM

Quote from: rMuD on September 10, 2007, 03:39:55 AM

Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 10, 2007, 01:58:07 AM

In my head Chas second device ended up a 1000 KG concrete flywheel cast in a ditch with it's axle fixed onto a generator. Then use the slippery belt stuffs to make it go. You can drive your car on top and give it a good whirl. You think your little coffee maker is going to stop that mass?

I'm not going to do the math. *grin*

I already know concrete is cheaper as batteries. I'm not fooled 

oh they are much heavier than that.. we wanted to put a  600KVA unit in the basement of the building, the elevators couldn't handle the discs individually that made up the 3 meter tall stack of them, we were going to have to dig a hole and cut a hole in the side of the building to put them in.. decided to scrap the project.

Concrete my god that would be a nightmare to balance..  1000KG

Good problem thinking,

Just make it float with it's axle at the height of the bearings.

Bit of wax etc

You can also make 2 of 500 kg on the same axle.

4 of 250 kg etc :-)

Doesn't sound undoable?

Can we fix the generator straight on the axle?

these are already manufactured by 10-20 different companies, and are wide spread used around the world..  generations of experience out there making these

What do you mean? "already", there are millions of ways to build a flywheel.  Already can mean 10-20 things in this post???

Do you have a link to a floating flywheel manufacturer for me?

I cant seem to find any.

Simple search for "Rotary UPS" on Google, comes up with over 1 million hits...

A Rotary UPS is used for High Current Loads to suppliment the power for the 10-20 seconds til the Generator can fire up on a back up power system. 

The Rotary UPS is a Motor that spins a flywheel that powers a Generator

This device is placed after your Transfer switch and is directly connected to your load

All Load in your factory, Datacenter, etc.. etc.. etc..  is always connected thru the Rotary UPS

Grid Power, Generator, Alternate Power, etc.. is switched before it goes to the Rotary UPS

in another words it's a Giant Mechanical Battery

What exactly is a Chas's Flywheel motor..   a Motor powering a Flywheel that spins a Generator..  motor loses power..  clutch disenges the motor, the energy stored in the flywheel continues to power the generator.

Literally, besides the Pulley's  which I have seen older Rotary UPS use..  is the same construction and I will say "concept" as I havn't seen chas's device up close, nor is it to scale as the the smallest Rotary UPS I've seen  400KVA, but I know they do down to 30KVA










mgeups.com
http://upsci.com/UPS-rotary.htm
http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=37516&x=7
http://www.kstechnology.co.uk/rotary_ups_200.html
http://www.criticalpowergroup.com/html/rotary_ups___continuous_power_.html
http://www.kstechnology.co.uk/
http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/5730/612

rMuD,

 Im not gona say that I do or do not know if Chas's flywheel is a working
concept.

 However, I think its different than you explained it.

 The idea is similar to people who Pull huge objects with wheels such
as trucks or planes - with only their strength.

 Once the mass is moving, it takes less and less energy to move them.

 Therefore, its like a mouse powering a car.    The tiny efficient engine,
with help from an intermediate mass (flywheel),  will be able to overcome
friction easier - and is able to power a generator with much more revs
per sec than should be possible without expending much more power.

 The most frictional forces come from the pulleys and ratios.. which the
flywheel helps to keep in check.

 While sure, there is energy being stored into the flywheel..  that does not
mean that is 'all' the excess energy.   

 Again, not sure If im correct.  Just a theory.
   

Well Roadrunner,   firstly, I have more respect for you than a typical so called
Skeptic, because (if you are telling the truth) you are doing actual work
towards the goal.

That's because I'm not a staunch skeptic, as I explained in my very first post.
I think that there ARE ways to be found of tapping into energy resources that are currently unexploited and the 'it cannot be done' attitude does not lead to progress. Only the 'can it be done' and 'how can it be done' attitudes will further our development in this area.
However, I remain a 'skeptic' because I always try to disprove my own theories... and when I cannot, I present them to others who I know will rip them apart.
A good theory stands skepticism and scrutiny and a bad one quickly shows its holes.

Willfull Ignorance?  Nope.   Im willing to learn.   However, when I tried to
explain my position I was ignored, or the data was being misunderstood
and overlooked.

Zero, believe me, you weren't being overlooked. It may be that the people trying to explain the situation didn't put it in a way that you could grasp easily but you were told a number of times that you needed to brush up on your understanding of physics, especially in respect of Potential and Kinetic Energy because that's what's in play here.

Ive told you, I now believe that you are correct in that a moving mass will
weight less.  However, How much less per time unit?  And, How much
energy is gained over time and imparted on impact?   These have not been
answered by anyone.   Only THEORIZED.

Careful. The mass does not weigh less simply because it is moving. It apparently weighs less because the structure which would otherwise be supporting it and bearing its weight is deflecting its weight to the side causing it to move. It's translating the pull of gravity into sideways motion.
I didn't theorise or simply tell you that you are wrong.
I gave you an experiment to try for yourself which would give you an understanding of the magnitude of the factors involved. In other words, that simple experiment (which I guess you still have not attempted) will give you some idea of the sort of figures we're talking about and how the trade-off between a mass at rest and a mass being deflected works.
You claim to practice a martial art, so I have a basis on which I can help you see your misunderstanding.

If I were to throw a punch at you you can block it in one of two ways (for argument's sake).
You can literally stop it dead by meeting it with an equivalent force, or...
You deflect it. I'm sure you understand that deflecting the blow requires less energy, creates less stress on the target (your hand/arm) and doesn't rob the incoming blow of its energy. So, when I throw my punch at you, you deflect my blow, it misses your nose but my own momentum carries the blow past you and I'm off balance... A similar thing is happening with those slanted tubes. They are deflecting the weight of the ball and the fact that the ball goes smack into the end of the tube doesn't indicate any gain, it just indicates that the ball imparts its energy quickly.
Yes, this creates more stress on the target, but it does not impart MORE energy and this is what people here have been trying to help you to understand. Please, don't simply come up with more examples that you think will uphold your argument because each time that you do, you are only demonstrating where you misunderstand. Try to see how the forces work.
Seriously, take ramps, weights, scales etc. etc. etc... Do the experiments.
When you've done so, you will understand and will have a better idea of the trade-offs.

If Im in an elevator, yes, my weight may vary.  However, what if i suddenly
fall to my butt.   The downwards energy I create will put stresses on the
cables and will cause the elevator car to bounce.   That is exporting more
energy output, than if I simply rode the elevator without falling inside it.

I think you are wrong here. It doesn't impart more energy.

[EDIT: Correction - It does actually impart more energy, but not quite for the reasons you think. The extra energy you impart is equivalent to the energy you expended when you got off your butt before you stepped into the elevator. You would impart the SAME amount of energy if you simply sat down slowly but it would create less stress on the elevator mechanisms. Hopefully the continuation of my post will make this clear to you.]

Let's stick with this ride in the elevator. This analogy will serve our purpose for the moment.

Fred weighs 100kg and he travels in the elevator from the top floor to the bottom.
During his entire ride in the lift, he is exerting his force on the floor, however, he notices that while the elevator is accelerating downward, he weighs a little less according to his scales, for example 95kg.
When the elevator stops, he weighs a little more, momentarily, the scales may peak at 110kg (for example).
So, he decides to jump whilst travelling down in the elevator car to see what effect that may have.
During the time that he is in the air (freefalling), he 'weighs' nothing. Even though he has the scales glued to his shoes, they still register 0g. But... The moment he hits the floor of the car, the scales read a heck of a lot more than the 100Kg... But only for a moment.
Where has that 'extra' energy come from ?
It came from the fact that he wasn't being supported by the elevator car (as well as the energy he put in to his legs to jump in the first place... this is much of where your beer-keg and teeter analogies fell down. You were not taking into account the energy required to throw or lift and drop your keg of beer).
So, Fred talks to the elevator engineer and manages to convince him to rig the elevator so that it will travel much faster during the decent.
Fred starts his journey at the top and as the brakes are released from the elevator, it plummets to the ground, almost at freefall. So, this car is now accelerating at approximately 9.81m/s every second. What do Fred's scales say ? He weighs almost nothing. When the brakes are applied at the bottom of the elevator's journey, Fred turns to soup and the elevator engineer has to clean up the mess. However, Fred also broke the scales because his 'weight' was way too much for them.
So, assuming it takes the lift 60 seconds to travel under control and 10 seconds to travel at (or near) freefall we can apply Fred's 'weight' over time and see that the total amount of 'work' is equivalent in all cases. Whether or not Fred is standing in a stationary elevator or floating about in one which is freefalling. The amount of energy delivered to his scales is always the same over the accumulated entire run.
Whatever Fred gains on one side of the journey, he must lose on the other, or vice-versa.
So, ask yourself the question... "Where did all that extra energy come from ? Enough to break the scales." There was no extra energy put into this system so the only explanation is that the energy is the same in all cases, it's either delivered in a short time or delivered over a long period of time.

I do a lot of work with lasers and there are two main ways in which the power of a laser is measured. Watts and Joules.
Joules defines a total amount of energy delivered over any given 'firing'.
Watts defines how quickly that energy is delivered.
A 1 Watt laser, firing for one second delivers one Joule (if I remember correctly).
A 2 Watt laser firing for one second delivers two Joules.
A 2 Watt laser firing for half a second delivers one Joule.

So, to deliver my one Joule of energy, I can either deliver it slowly over a long period of time or deliver it rapidly over a short period of time... But it's still one Joule.
Even a kW laser will only deliver one Joule if its pulse time is sufficiently short (1/1000th sec and in the world of lasers... That's not actually a very short pulse, it's quite a long one).

Does this help ? I keep repeating my suggestion that you go and do some experiments. This is because it's the best way for you to really see what is going on and it will give you a working understanding of the systems in effect.
I've only got the 'evaluation' version of WM2D, so I cannot set up a scene and post it up here because the evaluation version won't let me save out, but I think you'll find that it is accurate enough to give you a fairly good idea of what happens to the momentum of a falling object when it is deflected by an angled surface.

And again.. how much is lost?  How much is imparted?

Without doing careful measurements of the components of the wheel in question, we cannot really know for sure, but you can be sure that there is no net gain. Because if there were a net gain, you'd have to be asking yourself where the extra energy came from.
 

I had even drawn up a modification idea which curves the balls to a straight
path as well... which would even clear up those losses. 

I don't think that it will clear up those losses and when you've done some experiments for yourself, you will see why.

I apologize for accusing you of being someone else. I was heated and
frustrated - and it was a bad decision... even if its True.

Apology not necessary. I take it that you withdraw your wager then ?
Darn... I thought I was going to make some easy money... Hehehehe !

And, either way,
there is no real way to prove such a thing anyway - as anything digital can
be faked and manipulated by hackings.

Ohhhh... Believe me... I'd have left you with absolutely no doubt that I am who I say I am... Especially if you'd talked to me over the phone. You would have no doubt that the person you found from the Google search is the person who is talking to you on the phone.
Of course, you could always claim that Hum has asked someone to stand in and take the call and that he personally knows the person that I claim to be and the whole thing is a big conspiracy... blah... But... Why ? What would I or Hum have to gain ?
I'm just trying to help you understand that your issues weren't ignored, that they were addressed and at the moment you are unable to see the wood for the trees. I'm not being detrimental, it happens to us all until that moment where things go 'click'. I'm just trying to help you get that 'click'.

Now, until someone can show without a doubt the numbers behind
this, I will stand by my Ideas.   As far as Ive seen yet, ever attempt
at trying to debunk it has failed in logistics.

It's not failed. You've failed to see it. There's a big difference.
Even if I worked out all the numbers and plotted graphs using sophisticated accelerometry from my own experimentation... You'd still not buy it... And why should you ?
This takes me back to my original suggestion... Don't argue your position from the results of your 'thought experiments'... Understand the true nature of the system you are exploring by doing some real experiments and you will very soon see that even though 'intuition' says one thing, the real world says another.

I've had various gravity-wheel designs floating about in my head for a while and wanted to know why gravity wheels generally don't work... This thread has helped clarify that for me.
You're in a similar situation. You see something happening in your head, in your 'thought experiment' and although it's a valid approach to take in the early stages, there are times when you really must bite the bullet and get your hands dirty in the real world and this appears to be one of those times. Your 'thought experiment' is only giving you part of the picture and you need to see the whole picture for yourself for that 'click' of realisation.

In the martial arts world,  there are those who swear with their lives
that there is no way to generate massive power to knock someone
out from 3" distance or less.    People rant and belittle over such things
all over the place... because they are stubborn and ignorant.

Right. And I'm trying to tell you not to be stubborn and ignorant, but to try some experiments as suggested because people have tried to explain to you where you misunderstand and it's not working. So... Don't argue your case any more, please. We can understand what it is that you are trying to say and why... Yes, of course you are right that a keg of beer placed gently into my arms imparts less energy than one which is thrown at me... But you're not modelling the entire system (or its relevant parts) in that analogy... (in fact, you are introducing factors which may not be present in the system you are trying to model)

Could someone please set up a WM2D model for Zero that shows a ball, a ramp and the various vector forces applied during the ball's progression ??
It may help him to understand what's going on.
What's happening here is all concerned are simply appearing arrogant and stubborn (myself included).

I want to get you past the misunderstanding so that you can go back and re-read this topic.
You'll see that people were making the effort to answer your issues and you'll kick yourself when you see the light. Admittedly, I don't think that anyone has spelled it out for you in terms of each of the vector forces involved, complete with formulae and figures, but in the general sense, you've been answered more than once and as I've said before, you're only managing to see one side of the equation, you're not seeing where the 'extra energy' is coming from (and that's the other side of the equation). This is evident from the analogies you keep presenting.
If working out those vector forces is what it is going to take for you to understand the whole picture, then I repeat my suggestion of modelling it in something like WM2D because that will display the forces for you.

Come on, Zero... While you have your 'mature head' on... Do the experiments and tell us your findings. Or... If someone is kind enough to take the trouble to model it up for you in WM2D, then download the evaluation version (if you don't already have it) and play with the model.
It will all become clear... I promise.

[EDIT: I should make it clear that the term 'weight' here really refers to the force applied to the supporting platform. I don't for one moment believe that the actual mass of an object changes because it is deflected by a ramp. Likewise, Neil Armstrong's mass did not reduce when he stood on the Lunar surface even though a set of scales would give a reading equivalent to about 1/6th of the reading they would give on Terra Firma. I apologise to the pedants who might want to rip me to bits for my use of the term 'weight' in this context.]

The RoadRunner..

It's Sunday afternoon of the 16th - should get some feedback from Ash soon on the second testing session.

rMuD,

 Im not gona say that I do or do not know if Chas's flywheel is a working
concept.

 However, I think its different than you explained it.

 The idea is similar to people who Pull huge objects with wheels such
as trucks or planes - with only their strength.

 Once the mass is moving, it takes less and less energy to move them.

 Therefore, its like a mouse powering a car.    The tiny efficient engine,
with help from an intermediate mass (flywheel),  will be able to overcome
friction easier - and is able to power a generator with much more revs
per sec than should be possible without expending much more power.

 The most frictional forces come from the pulleys and ratios.. which the
flywheel helps to keep in check.

 While sure, there is energy being stored into the flywheel..  that does not
mean that is 'all' the excess energy.   

 Again, not sure If im correct.  Just a theory.
   

mechanically they are neraly identical, except less pulley's which should make the Rotary UPS more effecient.. if not they wouldn't have evolved to be direct drive

it takes energy to "load" a flywheel.. and takes energy to keep a flywheel rotating in the real world as well..    what a  flywheel is good for is pulse loads..  it takes alot of energy to decelerate a mass that is much larger than the load...  but it's going to take at least that much energy to spin up that flywheel.. then energy to overcome the mechanical loss of keeping it spinning... but it's just over more time...

now I am sure this doesn't make a lot sense to you, because it falls under the same category as laying a mass on a machine to provide work via gravity, vs dropping it, or putting it on a slope and to provide work..   now that I understand more of where you are coming from with the hitting vs pushing..  I think someone else or I can explain the lack of 0 net gain in terms you can relate too..  but that is for another time..  I feel it's more important to go out for a beer

 

I am probably categorized with hum...  but you probably banned one of the most proponents of new energy...  by bringing people back to reality on basic simple known by simple math is not going to work.. and proven for 1000 years... 

If you put the task to the math for knocking over a tree..  one will say that it takes a massive amount of energy to knock that tree over..  more than it's economically worth...  yet taking a few thousand watts of energy to cut the tree in half with a chainsaw vs pushing it over would be a considerable positive gain in energy created that what it took to produce it.

this forum, these group of people need to focus on things outside of general physics...  it's been beaten by a dead horse for 1000 years...  let keep the focus outside of the box.. if we want a gravity machine, we need something that interferes with gravitational force so that there is a net gain or loss..  it's not going to be levers, pulleys, etc..  "simple machine" math     spin it 20,000rpm, tune to the resonance frequency at the molecular level...   get something beyond normal physics of matter... or work on a exception like the fastest path isn't a straight line, or re-arrange parts of a area and it takes up less...  something has to be outside of the general rules of matter

now saying that..  watching the video where a guy uses magnets to move a ball around a circle.. using pendilums to do the magnetic gate, and the ball to apply a force to the pendulum to sync the swing, and to keep it moving.. and it's been running for a month http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=us7YB7eiOeQ&mode=related&search=   mechanically self sustaining resonance...  or not..  reply video says he has to dust it off every few days or it will restart.. meaning he has to stop it every few days and restart it.. but I'd say this device is near unity

If Chas Campbell paid $50 for his steel ball, I wonder how much Reidar Finsrud paid for his.

The RoadRunner..

Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 16, 2007, 12:30:04 AM

Quote from: rMuD on September 15, 2007, 09:29:18 PM

Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 15, 2007, 07:47:56 PM

Quote from: rMuD on September 10, 2007, 04:35:10 AM

Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 10, 2007, 03:51:37 AM

Quote from: rMuD on September 10, 2007, 03:39:55 AM

Quote from: gaby de wilde on September 10, 2007, 01:58:07 AM

In my head Chas second device ended up a 1000 KG concrete flywheel cast in a ditch with it's axle fixed onto a generator. Then use the slippery belt stuffs to make it go. You can drive your car on top and give it a good whirl.

we wanted to put a  600KVA unit in the basement of the building, the elevators couldn't handle the discs individually that made up the 3 meter tall stack of them, we were going to have to dig a hole and cut a hole in the side of the building to put them in.. decided to scrap the project.

Concrete would be a nightmare to balance..  1000KG

make it float with it's axle at the height of the bearings.Bit of wax etc You can also make 2 of 500 kg on the same axle. 4 of 250 kg etc :-) Can we fix the generator straight on the axle?

these are already manufactured by 10-20 different companies, and are wide spread used around the world..  generations of experience out there making these

search for "Rotary UPS" on Google,

A Rotary UPS is used for High Current Loads to suppliment the power for the 10-20 seconds til the Generator can fire up on a back up power system.   The Rotary UPS is a Motor that spins a flywheel that powers a Generator. This device is placed after your Transfer switch and is directly connected to your load. All Load in your factory, Datacenter, etc.. etc.. etc..  is always connected thru the Rotary UPS Grid Power, Generator, Alternate Power, etc.. is switched before it goes to the Rotary UPS in another words it's a Giant Mechanical Battery

Yes, that's what I found so interesting about it. You can store energy in just about any mass.

 Rotary UPS is also used to handle spike loads when your near your full capacity, the flywheel can absorb the peak loads.. like a motor starting, then it can spin back up over time to cover that load..  if I had several 1000HP motors starting at once, I'd rather use a Rotary UPS to handle the mega watt load for 1-2 seconds vs only needing 200-300kw to keep it running

a clutch and/or a torque convertor on a car with a Automatic Transmission, or a "go-kart"  clutch  

Quote

Quote

Literally, besides the Pulley's  which I have seen older Rotary UPS use..  is the same construction and I will say "concept" as I havn't seen chas's device up close, nor is it to scale as the the smallest Rotary UPS I've seen  400KVA, but I know they do down to 30KVA

There remains much to play and tune the resonant flapping of the belts into harmony with the speed and the size of the wheels. I'm not making any promise there is a benefit if all those effects are tuned. One could gather a lot of data on this. The slipping just caps the energy intake.

What I want to know:

1) How much losses are there relative to the size of those big flywheels.

2) I'm trying to imagine using a windmill to zero out the losses.

3) What kind of size ratio would it need?

4) How big would a class A area windmill need to be to keep our 1000 kg flywheel spinning.

get the spec sheets on the Rotary UPS, they usually have all that information and formula's  if not a salesman will be glad to either do the calculation or give you the formula.

I've had a look it's the same technology but it's not really the product this idea is looking for. It does however make mechanical energy storage sound very credible. A tank with 1000 liters of mercury and you have all the pressure you need to keep it moving. I'm sure any chemist can come up with an even better set of compounds to do that trick? Bit of ambient heat gradients.

I wrote a blog post about those old clocks
(sorry for the messed up html lol)

I just love the concept of machines that run forever without looking after them. I know it's not a reality but it's still impressive how far we actually got.
Cornelis Drebbel, who invented the submarine was granted a patent in 1598 for a machine that told the time, date, and season. The gold machine was mounted in a globe on pillars and was powered by changes in air pressure a sealed glass tub with liquid varied in volume through atmospheric pressure changes.
James Cox and John Joseph Merlin build the Cox's timepiece around 1760. The device is powered from changes in atmospheric pressure via a mercury barometer. The driving barometer contains 68 kilograms (150 pounds) of mercury. The clock is designed to enable the timepiece to run indefinitely and overwinding is prevented by a safety mechanism. The prime mover, encased in a finely detailed clock body, is a Fortin mercury barometer.
Arthur Beverly build the Beverly Clock in 1864. The clock has been running continuously since its construction. The mechanism is driven by variations in atmospheric pressure bot primarly temperature variation. Either cause the air in a one cubic-foot air-tight box to expand and contract, pushing on a diaphragm. A six-degree Celsius temperature variation over the course of each day creates enough pressure to raise a one-pound weight by one inch or 11 joules.
Jaeger LeCoulter created the Atmos, a modern clock powered by the same principle as the Beverly Clock and Cox's clock. A mixture of gas and liquid (ethyl chloride) expands as the temperature rises and compresses a spring. For two days operation a temperature variation of one degree in the range between 15 and 30 degrees Celsius is enough. It also uses a torsion pendulum that executes two torsional oscillations per minute.
In a mechanical watch the mainspring stores the energy to operate, a long strip of hardened and blued steel or some specialised steel alloy, iron-nickel-chromium with the addition of cobalt- molybdenum- beryllium and cold-rolled for hardening. Sich spring on average is about 0.05?0.2 mm thick.
A torsion pendulum rotates about the vertical axis of the wire, spinning it, instead of swinging like a pendulum, it has a heavy disk or wheel with 3 or 4 chrome balls on ornate spokes, hanging on the torsion spring. The force of the twisting torsion spring reverses the direction of rotation, so the torsion pendulum oscillates slowly, clockwise and counterclockwise. The speed can be tuned by adjusting the spokes with the 4 balls that act like a governor. The clock's gears apply pulses at the top of the torsion spring to keep the wheel going as it rotates slowly it only takes little energy. the oscillation period changes with temperature. The closer the balls move to the axle, the smaller the moment of inertia and the faster it will turn.

Use that principal just make it much bigger?

Quote

The big trick here is to store the wind energy mechanically. Take that thought as literally as making the actual windmill out of the flywheel. I guess I also want to know the drag a floating flywheel presents per liter of water displaced. It's like a boat only it has no water displacement. And my final question is about flywheels made out of water but lets get to that later.

a windmill is a flywheel, they try to reduce the mass of the blades so that is can start with slower wind speeds.  A  floating flywheel?  I believe that the weight loss to make it float vs weight to give to the system isn't worth it... 

Yeah, but that isn't really the point of having an idea. If you do that with them it's not useful having them. It takes effort to come up with something workable. Just disbelieving it does not take any effort and doesn't lead anywhere.

I'm always happy to look at things just the way they are? I dunno? I don't need any artificial attributes to clutter my picture. What I mean is that I really have no idea how well a floating flywheel would work.  Now I don't think this or that, I know that I don't know it. Given how fast boats can sail while even displacing the water it is not a nonsense question.

Answers like "probably not" without explaining what there is so probable about it are just as premature as to claim this is something revolutionary.

For me the black box remains a black box if it is a black box. Chas may say it's free energy, you may say it's probably noting but I will say it's a black box if that's what it is. Don't get me wrong, but it's already sad to see people do this with other peoples ideas. Imagine what they do with their own ideas? I don't see the point in creatively thinking towards a goal then stopping half way because it's probably nothing. LOL You had to figure out the flywheel discs didn't fit into the elevator first then you knew. Before that you couldn't have made a good guess about it. If you would say  we can also set the flywheel on fire, that will sure prevent it from working. Then at least I can engineer something to fix the problem envisioned.  You think it's not going to work, it's easy to stop doing that kind of thinking. This train of thought is not going anyplace you see? For a large percentage the things actually become nothings the moment one nominates them as such. It's very funny really.

Quote

Quote

mgeups.com
http://upsci.com/UPS-rotary.htm
http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=37516&x=7
http://www.kstechnology.co.uk/rotary_ups_200.html
http://www.criticalpowergroup.com/html/rotary_ups___continuous_power_.html
http://www.kstechnology.co.uk/
http://news.thomasnet.com/fullstory/5730/612

Very industrial, there nothing available for normal people? The whole market is empty? wiew? I hear they have power outages every year in places like Florida. But I can imagine a few other places where peoples luxury livings go without electricity every now and then.

Rotary UPS are only good for a few seconds, usually enough time to start a generator without having power interuption...  when designing a system it's cost vs tolerable power outage..  and cost of statuc ups vs a rotary ups..  rotary really doesn't come into play til your into the megawatt range, but for some applications as small as 400kva

in a consumer product,  less than 1% of houses have Generators, and .0001% of them have a need less than 5-10 minyutes of down time, and $100 USD at electronics store for a Battery UPS would cover the need for 99.99999% of that 0.0001% that need that kinda uptime

Yes, that is exactly the way we have been looking at this flywheel stuffs. But I'm awfully interested in directing motion into mass using all kinds of tricks.

I had this fantastic idea for a self powered elevator,

The system will utilise artificial intelligence and a system of electronic doors to create a hamster track, it will then refuse to transport X overweight passengers per day. Those overweight people will then have to walk up using the stairs. Moving downstairs they are allowed to take the elevator again which effectively energises the system proportional to the persons exercise needs.

Because of the ingniueity of the AI hamster track system the heavy people will never know there actually was an elevator until they climb the stairs.

In the unique case of big persons complaints we can always blame it on the lack of power generated by our self powered elevator. It just wouldn't work if we would allow them on. 

If that doesn't convince you of my flywheelosophy I don't know what will. lol

From a product point of view: As long as it has a windmill component we can put all the overunity machines in the flywheel we like, and no one will complain about it. But personally I would be interested in seeing a newman motor running on a dead battery spin up a flywheel. It would be cool to see how much mass such  motor can keep up to speed for next to no amps.

if a newman motor could start a big flywheel with little energy, there would be no need to use a flywheel [/quote] Oh, but there are plenty of super efficient motors that have little or no torque. They don't even have to be working self-energisers. I just like to think it takes less torque to keep a flywheel spinning as it takes to speed it up. Am I wrong in that assumption?

About David Hamel, you mention balancing the flywheel was a problem but I think a slight unbalance and a bit of freedom to wobble combined with a ring of repulsive magnets around the rim could actually make use of the wobble by bouncing it back inwards.

hamelarian aquamagnetic bearings

give it a try.. but that is alot of energy pushing on the structure to mount it...  [/quote]

But if it's rolling in water already, then it needs 2 horizontal magnets only?

A pendulum swings much faster if you stick a magnet under it. Do you have an idea why this would be any different for flywheels? Will this decrease the amount of energy we can store in it or increase it?

I'm currently experimenting with torsion pendulums and governors suspended therefrom. Spins for hours, most incredible. :-)
http://groups.physics.umn.edu/demo/waves/movies/3A1030.mov