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 : ) help us to bring you our services at . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
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

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Accelerating forces  (Read 16196 times)

Offline libra_spirit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Accelerating forces
« on: May 12, 2008, 05:32:17 AM »
Chas Campbell has stated a very good point for our mathematicians to try to cypher. This is a major part of understanding forces.

As I understand this, here is the basic model:

We set up a long angle iron for a ball to roll down. Actually we set up two of these one about 12 feet long and one about 6 feet long.
We jack up one end of both now to 4" so here we should get the same energy from gravity moving into the inertial momentum of the ball on each track. Newtonian physics claims the energy will be the same as if we just drop the ball without spinning it along its path.

We release a ball on both tracks and observe that at the point where the balls hit the floor both sould have the same momentum imparted in the conversion of gravity to linear motion.

However from what he is stating the ball rolling down the longer track may have more energy and roll further along the floor.
Giuded into a lifting mechnism of some kind he claims the ball can end up higher then 4" off the floor, it has somehow gained energy along the track. I have envisioned a 45 degree circle curve to lift the ball and release it at 45 degrees while accelerating it up wards.

Does the time the ball spends rolling as compaired to how far it falls effect the balls energy as it exits the track?

What is the difference? The ball on the longer track spent more time spining in which time is felt more spin, or more centrifigal forces inside itself.

I believe I may have touched on the solution to this simple mechnism to support what he is stating. The comprehension lies in realizing the difference between gravity as an acceleration and spin as a centrifugal force acceleration and that acceleration is not linear when you start to sum up totals.

For example in the off balanced wheel on Archers thread I discovered, if the off balanced weight is 1/32 of the wheels weight we have a 1^2 acceleration of the wheel which is 1, but if the off balanced weight is 1/16 we get a 4 foot per second of 2 squared acceleration. The point is that acceleration does not add up as 1 + 1, but squares. Doubeling a velocity at each interval is not the same as simply adding 1 to the total velocity at each interval.

If we only consider the forces on the ball up and down, we see an acceleration of gravity downwards, and we see two vectors of momentum inside the ball one up and one down, in a balance from centrifugal force. However these are all accelerating forces, and are not simple linear forces.

It is the two inside the ball that give the clue, although they do cancel mathematically with respect to one another, is this what actually happens?

An accelerating force increases when summed as a squared function of the total force, and not a linear function. So we add the downwards centrifugal force to gravity to the get the total downwards force knowing this force is a squared acceleration and the longer the ball rolls the longer this higher acceleration is present. We subtract the upwards force from gravity to get the total upwards force which is negative. The ball will not lift it will become heavier! Top of the ball will experience some acceleration less then gravity, bottom of the ball will experience some acceleratioin more then gravity. The square of these two numbers does not cancel and over time while the ball is spining it will weight more then it normally weighs at rest. This is because one number will be smaller then the other number, and the acceleration is the square of each.

Any acceleration added to gravity will increase gravity by a distance squared function. A bigger number squared is greater then a smaller number squared. The bottom of the ball will get heavier, and the top of the ball gets lighter by a smaller factor. The factor is the difference between these two numbers squared.

Thus if we had a track 100 miles long with a perfect incline of 4" end to end, by the time the ball hits the end of this track it should have way more energy inside it then the 12 and 6 foot tracks back at the garage, and probably be comparable to a bullet.
Where are the magnets?

Inside all matter in every atom is a perfectly balanced or scalar cancelling set of opposing magnetic fields. The nuclear mass of all atoms is floating on an opposing magnetic field. Over 90 percent of the atoms weight is free to turn and spin up any direction that an outside force places on it.

Wheels being spun up can be stopped and then quickly spun up the second time with far less energy. This is because the mass spining inside the atoms, or the nuclear mass has a delayed reaction to alterations of the shell of the atom which is bonded into the structure of the matter. Torsion is stored in the matter itself, but there is a delay to this interaction.

What this means is that if I shoot a bullet, the bullet will spin. Now if I add fins it becomes a rocket and will not spin on the outside, but the nuclear mass will still spin on the inside. The force of torsion is present in the matter and stored there as a torsion force. A gyro if you will.

Increasing spin on a rolling ball:

If we set a track that splits such that the balls are now contacted closer to their sides the balls will spin up faster as they roll downards. We have increased the energy present in the gyro of spin parallel to the track. Now if the ball hits a perfect cup with rubber to fully grab the outer surface will the ball be flug upwards higher then the start of the track?

Pulsing nature of the outside of the rolling ball:

Watching a ball roll along, you notice the surface on the floor is stationary and the top of the ball is moving at 2x the balls forwards velocity. The outside of the ball is being pulsed, the surface is not moving smoothly, but accelerating forwards faster and then completely stopping. This means that a rolling ball has a constant acceleration along the top and a constant decelleration along the bottom, but any one point is being pulsed.

If I want to predict which direction the ball will jump based on these gyro forces, if the ball hits a 90 degree stop face on, I must consider all the spin forces acting on the ball and determine the direction the point furthest from the stationary point will move.

The energy is stored into matter as it moves straight in any direction as spin momentum. This momentum acts like torsion and there is delay to altering it. This is probably the source of inertia to begin with. However spin is inherently present in all motion.

Now the ball rolling down the track has two major spin forces, but actually three that I can see right off.

1 - Coriolus force of gravity as it drops - very weak

2 - Coriolus force of its trajectory - stronger with velocity

3 - Torsion pulsing of a tire on the road - this is not so aparent but the bottom of a wheel is stationary and the top is moving at 2x the speed of the center. Circumference of the rolling surface is pulsing from stationary to 2x at any one point along the surface.

All these forces are being stored into the wheels nuclear mass momentum whether physical spin is present or not.

In any ball rolling we do have magnets, where are they? Inside all the atoms, and all the nucleus or the main mass of the system is floating on an opposing or scalar cancelling field. Built right into all matter is already the most incredible magnetic system. We do not need magnets to get OU. All we need is spin.

A track that slowly widens as the ball moves down will increase the balls spin as it contacts the outer sides of the sphere. Spin can be increased to a high degree. Now the ball hits a nice curve at the bottom coated with rubber for traction at the center and the fast spining surface grips, and the ball flies upwards right?

If we can use spin to beat gravity, this is not really mysterious at all. We only need beat 32 feet per second squared. Not a hard thing to do with a spinning wheel. To see this take a weight on a string and twirl it until the weight arcs over the top just weightless but not falling. This is not a high RPM at all. Any spin exceeding this acceleration can be manipulated to propell the ball upwards using an impulse jerk to the outside surface.

Is this why OU devices need to be pulsed?


If there is a method to make the ball precess as well, we may be able to make it also loose weight. This was reported a long time ago. There was a man who would spin up heavy wheels on an axle, whack them into precession and lift them with a single hand. Aparently this got him into trouble with the current entrophy society also, he was kicked out. LOL! Do not remember his name right off. Also do not know which direction to whack the wheel to achieve this, but seeing a ball rolling down an incline it may not take much to figure out which direction to deflect the trajectory of the ball.


Thanks so much,
Dave L
c_s_s_p group

« Last Edit: May 12, 2008, 11:00:44 PM by libra_spirit »

Offline libra_spirit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Accelerating forces
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2008, 07:49:59 AM »
An additional percpetion:

As we spin up a wheel vertically what happens to the center of gravity?

As centrifigal force reaches 32 foot per second squared, top of the wheel becomes weightless. Now the bottom of the wheel is much heavier at 64 foot per second squared force downwards. If the wheel is rolling how does this shift of weight effect forwards motion? Forwards motion is linear and has only inertial forces side to side acting on it but centrifigal force is a circle shifting the force as it rotates.

The heaviest part of the wheel is setting stationary on the track, while the lightest part of the wheel is moving the fastest over the top.

The real question is how does this effect the conversion process of gravity into momentum of the wheel down the track. Shifting the center of gravity down does what? Even if total weight does not increase this must have an effect.

As the force of gravity is shifted into momentum, what will a 64 foot per second squared force do as the wheel moves to 45 degrees? Now the top having O feet per second squared does what? Top of the wheel is moving forwards and bottom is stationary.  Will there be less resistance to forwards motion at the top of the wheel and more push upwards turned into spin from the bottom?

Now consider the center of the wheel is dropping slowly, how does this effect its drop turning into motion along the track? The wheels weight now shifts again lagging the center, as a falling mass is lighter then a rising mass.The low side of the wheel looses weight, and the high side of the track the wheel gains weight.

You can see this math problem may become complex very fast, and this is not the same as merely dropping the ball without spin involved.

In gyro experiments they determined that gyros spining horizontally drop slower.
Did they ever try dropping a gyro spining vertically? Will it drop faster? If so there is one energy gain for allowing spin to last longer.

Dave L

Offline libra_spirit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Accelerating forces
« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2008, 09:56:30 AM »
Now finally we factor in coriolus force and as a ball moves forwards it will want to spin perpendicular to it's forwards motion spin, as would a bullet or water down the drain. If at the bottom of the track we set up a curve to offer a spin or curve of least resistance will the change of direction at the impulse point allow more upwards force one way then the other way? I am guessing some kind of 45 degree turn with 45 degree curved incline upwards would produce the strongest effect to get the ball higher then its starting point. If you turn the wrong direction the ball will almost stop.

Spin introduces gyro effects, and if torqued properly a gyro can jump in some direction. To get the ball to jump highest this may be a key ingredient. The 45 degree angle is probably the key to grabbing more then the sum of two spins at 90 degrees because at 45 degrees the vectors of each is still over half.

If we take gravity, a DC constant acceleration downwards, and now convert it into spin as well as linear roll, how can this spin of cubed volume be used as a gain over gravities squared force by manipulation? What exactly does spin give us? If we turn spin sharply what happens? Can this be directed upwards?

Dave L

Offline libra_spirit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Accelerating forces
« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2008, 08:04:24 PM »
Experiment 1:

Steel track about 25 feeet long drop is about 8" or so. At the end I have a simple angle iron that I can shift from right to left.
Steel balls are about 5/8".

As the ball hits the angle iron dflecting off to the left it goes into a circular motion and curves away from the angle of deflection arcing back to the ground.

As the ball hits the angle iron off to the right it tends to hug the edge and climb up it without any circular motion of the ball, finally dropping back down more straight.

It would appear the two deflections are not equal for my track.

Finally there is no gian of height over the starting point of the track in either deflection, but the right deflecting one is definitly higher by a small amount. I am lucky at this point to get 1/2 the height of the starting position.

Physics would tend to suggest using bigger balls may increase my chances of success.

Many of the folks doing this always speak of there being more power in a spining wheel then it takes to get the wheel spining. This must be based on something they are intuiting or observing.

I will search out some bigger and heavier balls. Pool balls would probably be perfect as they are designed to impact and survive better.

Successive experiments - I can not find a combination to cause an OU jump in balls on a track, to a higher position then they started. Try as I might. Dissapointing.

Dave L

« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 09:19:24 PM by libra_spirit »

Offline libra_spirit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Accelerating forces
« Reply #4 on: May 13, 2008, 05:32:48 AM »
As to the flywheel OU device of Chas's:

Why is an old style sling a more effecient way to throw a rock then simply using an arm? This is like the sling of David And Goliath.
At the rock there is more energy contained in the highest velocity point of the spin.
By swinging the rock in a balanced circle up to a high velocity, when released it acts more like a bullet then just trying to hurl it with an arm. This is all done with the small flick of a hand that could never crush a skull without the sling. There is power in velocity.

Grantid there is leverage here but something more I believe.

With a lever:

We have a rock weighing 100 pounds and wish to lift it with a lever. The base of the lever is going on a box made of wood that can only stand a pressure of 120 pounds.

If we place 100 pounds on the opposite side of the lever at equal distance from the weighted end what happens? The box breaks under a 200 pound load. Now if we extend the lever out to the proper distance and place 15 pounds on it the 100 pound rock lifts, and the box does not break. We have lifted the rock but stressed the floor much less by using the lengthened lever.

In both instances above where we have two weights on a lever, one is equal weights and one is a lighter weight on a longer side, what happens if we drop both weights simultaniously. The energy impacing the floor is greater for the two equal weights right?
The lever has altered not only how the weight is lifted but it has altered how much stress the fulcrum must carry overall at the fulcrum. Something has changed at the center of this setup.

The mind stopping question is if the lever is experiencing the same force from the fulcrum to the heavy weight and this end is suposedly the same in both cases, how come the floor is not having the same experience at the balance point but gets off easy with the longer lever? This is not equivalent by any means.

The solution is that the center of weight shifted for the entire system to an off centered place as now one side is longer then the other and the fulcrum is no longer in the middle. We see that shifting the weight off centered can do the same work using less mass.

Wheel in high speed revolutions:

I am swinging a small weight on a string at about 1 meter radius, as Archer suggested, and have determined it takes about 60+ RPM to keep the string tight at the top of the motion. I shorten the string and this rate does not really change much until I get down to well under half this radius.

If we spin up a wheel of about 1 meter diameter then at about 60 RPM the top of the wheel becomes totally weightless! The bottom point of the wheel becomes twice as heavy right? The center of gravity for the wheel drops lower. I feel the strongest pull on the line from 6 oclock to about 8 or 9 oclock and the rest of the spin is almost effortless. I notice I am adding energy to the spin momentum only from 7 to 9 oclock and only a small flick of the wrist timmed just right. I would not want to get hit with the weight on the end of this string, although I would have no problem dealing with the hand motion hitting me. Is this what Archer Quinn is talking about?

So whats going on here? Is there more energy in a spining wheel, and particularly along its circumference? Along the entire circumference the weight has a powerful momentum to impact objects and leave a dent in something that my hand could never do alone. This must be impulse energy and what Chas has recognized also in his flywheel device.

Is OU as simple as spining up a heavy massive wheel using a small force and then tapping its higher energy or spin momentum?

I am recalling all the rather lengthy dissertations on the Searl Disc duplication at Helsinki Finland, and all the elaborate physics models trying to explain how it sinks down into the vacuum to bring up energy of over unity from some 5th or 6th dimension, or folding space time sheets! Totally incomprehensible on closer examination personally. If a simple wheel of the correct mass spining can do this also....well it makes me laugh a bit now.


My good friend Dell is always reminding me of the Density model of Wilbert Smith. Often we talk about things like sheer forces where opposing densities come together like at the strong force area of the atom. Opposing forces comming together like opposing magnets and such, and how this raises density of the vacuum, or space, and this can alter the c velocity constant and make things operate differently.

Now lets say that at the very edge of the wheel we have both centrifugal force and cetrepital force opposing one another. That is as the wheels mass is hurled outwards, the material of the wheel is flexed pulling back inwards from its structure bonds and this creates one of these opposing forces that starts to alter the density of space as well as the lightspeed constant operating in the area of the wheel.

The circumference area of the wheel starts to shift into a higher density or a compression, as the center of the wheel shifts into a lower density or at worst remains about the same. The center of the wheel of corse is experiencing a total pulling outwards everywhere so tends to want to stretch outwards. The structural bonds of the wheel win and the wheel does not fly apart but it does alter the physical parameters of stress, and torsion along its volume. What happens?

Well in a higher density system light velocity is increased ever so slightly, can this results in an uneven time flow rate along the outside of the wheel where the two opposing forces meet with the most strength. This is suposedly the crux of what a torsion field is.
So what happens if lightspeed increases on the circumference of the wheel, it starts to appear to move faster to us right?
The stronger these opposing forces become, the faster the wheel seems to be moving, and yet to the wheel, if you were on it, all would seem to be moving normally while the entire world outside seemed to slow down.

I now wonder why Searl placed the opposing magnets pulsing along this same area of the wheel? Can there be a connection here? Add just a bit more opposing stress at the critical area of the wheel and maybe lower the RPM needed to get OU. The Searl duplication showed I believe about 7Kwats of power but was not easilly controllable until he later devised an RF method to stopping it.

We do not have any idea at present what the ratio or math would be at this time as no one to date has accuratly recorded this. The wheel is the first oppertunity to attempt to make a math fit. If the increased power levels can be accuratly measured for one of these in operation, or better for two of different size now we can start to predict what other sizes will do. The function for increasing lightspeed, we are all familiar with Einstiens math, it was proved accurate for the strong force area of the atom already, and the loss of weight is also converted into the energy of the strong force itself. This verification is right on the peroidic table as we see the sum of the mass of the parts of the nucleus of atoms is more then its resulting weight when assembled and this equals perfectly based on E=MC^2. So if we increase C we get a squared increase in either mass or energy. We see that mass usually drops a bit and even more energy comes out of these opposing force sheers.

The first step is for the mainstream to gain a faith and belief that this is not only possible but is very likely been done in many devices already. As well it is happening inside all atoms also.

Up until now I believed we needed a device using pulsing magnets like the UTRON of Otis Carr. Chas is showing us this may not even be necessary. As the weight travels around the wheel it is being pulsed! On the top it becomes weightless on the bottom it has 2G's or more. As well Archers model is very intresting in that it may also have some connection to this sort of gain.

I believe there is something within the operation of a wheel mainstream science is still radically missing.

Dave L
« Last Edit: May 13, 2008, 07:33:02 AM by libra_spirit »

Offline libra_spirit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Accelerating forces
« Reply #5 on: May 13, 2008, 07:45:20 PM »
A possible solution:

I have been pondering the sling shot all night and now plotted some circles and vectors and made a few conclusions. They are very simple and if there are aliens watching us I'm certain they are elated at our general ignorance of the wheel for the past eons of time.

Consider you are in a car approaching a turn in the road and you brake going into the turn. Which way does the car pull, and does the turn help you slow down faster?

Now consider the same turn and instead you step on the accelerator, what effect does the turn give the cars momentum? Which direction are you pulled now?

For those who have never raced cars in their younger days, accelerating into a turn is one of the most accelerating experiences there is. As long as ones tires remain firmly gripping the road!
As well braking into a turn can almost rip you off the road to the outer side. The vector angles shift.

The answer lies in the vector directions of the accelerating forces. If you look at the centrifugal and centripetal forces as balanced while the wheel is spining at one RPM you see a balance of two very strong forces. Release the sling and one of these forces drops away hurling a rock much faster then the hand twirling it with more energy then the hand can generate. The hand is moving with far less energy then the hurled rock.

On the sling shot if the hand is adding only a little energy to the sling on the final turn to release there is a big gain to the rocks momentum. If the hand is subtracting only a little energy from the sling on the final curve before release, the rock nearly stops.

It is the turn that is magic, either adding a great deal of energy or removing that energy depending on the small driving forces direction to control the balance.

This is do to vectors of accelerating forces. The two forces on the outside ring of the wheel are only balanced if the wheel is not being propelled or slowed. When we add even only a small vector force to push the wheel faster, this force sets off balance the two balanced forces. Draw this on paper and you will see. Add the vector sums of the small force you are adding to the rock. The resultant vector addition shows the resulting force ends up either forwards of the turn or behind the turn. This redirects the two balanced forces of acceleration of the turn to a new angle.

Energy is shifted either outwards stronger and slightly back, or it is shifted forwards. When shifted forwards the acceleration pointing outwards adds a little to the momentum also, but so does the force pulling in. Both forces of centrifugal and centripital are resultant vector slightly forwards or backwards and the wheels outwards and inwards forces are converted into motion either forwards or backwards.

Both forces add to the momentum of the rock in the sling because of the deflection.

This is a motion amplifier.

So back to Chas's overunity flywheel. Placing a small weak motor on a fast spining flywheel, adding only a little energy to shift the force of the [balanced outwards and inwards vectors] forwards, each now adds power to the spin of the wheel. By the same token a small braking action should do the opposite.
However while the power is being added the flywheel starts to propell the system amplifying the energy of the small motor, like the sling shot. this requires the RPM be increasing, or pulsed.

This also brings up the basic sling shot orbital maneuver. If the sling shot did not add energy why would spacecraft be using it to propell themselves past planet? Is it alright to get more energy for a spacecraft but not to power my home using the same method?

When we go into the turn, both centrifugal and centripital forces add to the velocity, if we only add a small amount of energy into the turn using an engine. We are redirection two very powerful vector forces and tipping them forwards.

Draw a circle on a piece of paper.
Draw the outwards force vector of centrifugal force
Draw its counter force straight in
Now draw the vector of energy we are adding to the system from the meeting point of these two.
Now connect the start of each one to the new end of the last one and observe the output forces added together.
Now double the offset length because it is truly the sum of both and add this to the original deflection vector. Looks roughly to be somewhere between 2 to 1 or about a 1 to 3 gain if all the forces are equal, but what if they are not equal? Doubling an acceleration does what?

This technique is called vector addition, and it indicates that the flywheel is overunity and allways was.

If this is true then why has it been impossible to recognize for so long?

I can now see why all these people are talking about balances and shifting them off center.

Dave L

« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 09:23:54 PM by libra_spirit »

Offline libra_spirit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Accelerating forces
« Reply #6 on: May 13, 2008, 09:31:34 PM »
Hopefully you can deduce from the graphic I just posted, why a space ship can get energy from a slingshot orbital maneuver. As well how a small force applied to the sling shot during the final curve adds more energy to the rock then the hand is adding to it. Also a small drag will bleed off energy much faster.

The red lines show the resultant vector forces of adding the small shift to both the opposing energies of the wheels trajectory at the outer curve.

Now to get more energy out of this system then we are putting in, where do we tap off the energy?

My initial feeling:
We know that we must keep a forwards vector on the wheel to get the slingshot addition of energy, how do we get the wheel to speed up and then slow down without loosing energy. Do not let the wheel drop below a forwards pressure and then send a forwards jerk over the top of this pressure. Say a 75 percent duty cycle while the slow down phase is only 25 percent and the load pulls the RPM back.

Chas's actual setup is much like the sling shot, it taps the outer circumference of the flywheel and puts the energy in at the center or hand position of the slingshot! Chas is putting energy into the wheel at its low density point and removing energy at its high density point. Now with three axles and loose belts he gets a good vibration on the flywheel.
I can only imagine what this does to the generator.


It would appear we have the begining of a physics to support Chas's flywheel OU system.
This is based on the sling shot effect, and adding a small force to unbalance the greater forces of centripetal and centrifugal forces, drawing acceleration from them directly. Considering these forces reach 1 G at about 60 RPM for a 1 meter wheel, well you can see there is energy here.

Gives a new perception of "weight into energy" [David Hamel]..... does it not?

Does a simple flywheel contain the solution to over unity energy?

"my theory being if you create centrifugal force you can drive anything as long as the wheel keeps spinning"

Chas has missed the accelerating of the wheel or RPM increase to increase the energy output, as a flywheel in constant RPM spin is not going to do much probably that we can explain to add energy to the system.

Dave L

« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 09:38:25 PM by libra_spirit »

Offline libra_spirit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Accelerating forces
« Reply #7 on: May 13, 2008, 11:09:19 PM »
Newtonian physics:

I would now state that the faulty assumption of newtonian physics may be what most of the scalar tech people have been telling us all along. Opposing forces do not cancel.

While centrifugal and centrepital forces are scalar cancelling when aligned perfectly, they can be considered to cancel, however both are still present allways as long as the wheel is spining.
If we add the offset vector force at 90 degrees, neither force cancels and both will interact with the offset force. Adding the vector sums then must be done with each one and the resultant force is the sum of these results. This is a big difference then just saying the opposing forces cancel as if they are no longer present, and then stating that the added offset at 90 degrees is all that is now present in the problem.

This is a matter of sequence of vector addition, and has already been recognized for space craft as a valid way to get energy from a gravity field.

I would modify this statement. Opposing forces do not cancel they balance. Balance can be shifted.

Finally finished all the thread, the jist is that the pulsing of the loose belts converts gravity to energy! Wow, gravity?

I would suggest that pulsing the forwards momentum on the flywheel would instead cause a sling shot effect each time the wheels velocity increases. In this case the extra energy is not from gravity but from centrifugal and centripital forces as with a sling where we are adding a surge of momentum going into the curve. I like that better then trying to tie gravity into it all. What happens in space where no gravity is present will this still operate? Best guess yes.

So if we pulse the 90 degree vector we get more acceleration from the wheel. Using impulses to vary the even rate of the mass velocity. Magnets are suggested, and now we are starting to look like a Searl disc. Pulsing on 12 sides! No kidding.

I'm more curious what would happen if that 10Kg wheel was set up to go into a precession motion. Would this motion tend to act the same as pulsing of the wheel? Each side would be now slowing and speeding up as the precession vibration moved around the wheel. Bearings for such a device would be hard to concieve, a bearing on a bearing on each end that can allow a circle ina a circle. A sharp tap with a rubber hammar and the wheel starts to precess settubng up a secondary sine wave motion in reverse direction of the the wheels spin direction.

You may be able to mount the flywheel shaft bearings on some kind of spring supports allowing a slight precession to operate inside them. Belt tension would be a problem unless output pully was centered as close to center of shaft as possible. Now a single electromagnet could be set up at the correct frequency pulsing of the wheel to start a precession.
Ok so this thing works then, is anyone building it? The power gain was about 50 percent last reading?

He closed the loop as well back in December of 2007 where the thread seems to end.

Now compare this info with Archers wheel, is there any pulsing? Seems the jerking about is more important then having a smooth operation.


So the main difference I see here in my own pondering and the official one is whether the added energy is comming from gravity or from the centrifigal and centrepetal forces recieving an unbalance from a surge in the forwards direction [slingshot effect]. Since we cannot go into space to resolve this maybe one could test a wheel while it is spinning up from say half to full RPM. Suposedly the pulsing frequency being raised will increase the output, what if the wheel is powered for 1 sec on and then allowed to slow for 1 sec under load, and then powered for 1 second. During the spin up it should gain energy and during the coasting it should loose energy. It would start to gallop, and overall output would be higher. I believe the function we want however would never remove the forwards pressure but keep a constant DC torque while increasing for a duty cycle then dropping back fast.

The ultimate would be two wheels spining opposing directions, and then start to pulse each one out of phase to keep one always accelerating while the other is coasting back a little. Slingshot would then always be present on one!

It all comes back to pulsing, timming, and syncronization.

My last consideration on this is to add a light resonant pulsing system to the wheels using proper dimensions. These would be extremely high frequency pulses probably. The torsion outputs are created using 44.5 foot fractal dimensions, and vibrations would start to come out of things everywhere. Might be intresting, but flywheel would need to be custom dimesnsions of an AG metal like Aluminum or copper to get it into motion. Wheels could be 15 3/16 radius and would begin to radiate torsion nodes all over the sides. The nodes can be pulsed by placing small 44.5 foot copper coils around them. No idea what RPM would be needed.

Need to find sources of shafts and super bearings etc... better keep reading through the site I guess.

I suspect once a vibration starts in one of these wheels it may just keep building, sort of like a bell.
What we want is to create a high frequency torsion vibration all over the flywheel as it is spining. This seems to be the necessary ingreedient to OU in a flywheel. If the vibration runs sideways, or if it runs longitudinally may be very different. So a ring with a fractal circumference, and a fractal thickness acting like a bell as the wheel spins. It may get too loud! Ouch.

Now also we see three of these one from each of the shafts on the machine, so it is placing three vibrations on the final wheel, complex indeed, and like the TPU.

Dave L
« Last Edit: May 14, 2008, 09:48:57 PM by libra_spirit »

Offline libra_spirit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Accelerating forces
« Reply #8 on: May 14, 2008, 09:53:08 PM »
There is another way to add vibration to the flywheel, a cavitating water chamber. This will also produce heat probably.

Dave L

Offline libra_spirit

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 111
Re: Accelerating forces
« Reply #9 on: May 15, 2008, 08:01:58 PM »
Concepts gained from this study:

1 - A spining flywheel can offer OU energy if pulsed. The loop can be closed.

2 - The energy comes from the time domain and off balancing of the forces comparable to gravity and centreptital, for
     a slign shot orbit. In the case of a wheel however gravity is not the main source of the energy but opposing or
     scalar cancelling forces of centrifugal and centrepital forces. This system should work where there is no gravity or
     also if the wheel is running horizontal to gravity although possibly not as well.

3 - Pulsing would best not drop below forwards power draw. If driving torque is droped completely, then the vectors
     will reverse and loose energy rather then draw it from the time domain. The best setup would not be a pulsing
     drive motor, but two motors set in conflict. The first motor provides a constant forwards drive, the second motor
     pulses in reverse with very short duty cycle pulses not strong enough to fully counter the first motor so the
     forwards vector never drops away.

4- The drive motor must allways be accelerating the wheel so never fully comes up to the full speed it could impart if
    allowed to run free.

5- Opposing magnets set up correctly around the circumference could offer both sharp pulse drag, and higher
    opposing force to increase the output of the system. Duty cycle on this ring would become the control. Shift
    the dragging past 50 percent and we gain control of the wheel backing it off. This can be donw with 
    electromagnets, or a weak pulsed motor in opposition.

This information should be useful to any wheel system seeking more out then goes in.

In Archer Quinns wheel we see now the reversed magnetic pulse he refers to as the wall, or resistance, may very well be capable of increasing the energy of the wheel to a point of perpetual motion. The "sticking point" actually becoms the source of the overunity energy in the wheel. As long as the wheel keeps spining we can load it and start to tap this extra energy.

The only problem here is that of pulse rate, will this OU force be greater with a larger mass of spining wheel. Yes, because this will increase the two forces in opposition being tapped.
Pulse rate and mass should both increase the output.

Dave L


  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 717
Re: Accelerating forces
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2019, 01:00:21 AM »
Can anybody confirm the validity of what this guy said?

Who is the scientist that this guy read to give him such crazy ideas.

This guy is a special user.

Offline magneat

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Accelerating forces
« Reply #11 on: January 09, 2020, 10:17:12 PM »
Can anybody confirm the validity of what this guy said?

Who is the scientist that this guy read to give him such crazy ideas.

This guy is a special user.

“Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity.”
/ Marshall McLuhan /

Offline sm0ky2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3809
Re: Accelerating forces
« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2020, 06:50:17 PM »

In Archer’s device the “wall” is just the angle of approach.
When it is at the proper curvature (elliptical)
gravity can easily push it into the field and activate the mechanism.
Providing the proper proportions are maintained in terms of mass,
magnetism, and distance.

When you have two forces in opposition
the net difference produces a 3rd value
this is the acceleration of the motion. Each second
the change in velocity adds to the speed.

What we find it is not just a raw difference in static force
i.e. the lifting force of the magnet
But rather a difference in velocity over distance through the magnetic field
Vs change in velocity over time through the gravitational potential well.

I don’t want to get too much into the mechanics of this situation since it has
it’s own thread. (which will be reactivated in the upcoming months)

But to keep in mind the difference between the acceleration forces.
Like the dance played out between the earth, moon, and ocean.


Looking at the rolling ball:
Let’s consider 2 extremes.

1) a short ramp with a near vertical incline.
here we have close to mgh, a short drop time and a small derivative final velocity.
Energy adds up close to our input.

2) a very long incline, where almost all of the vertical force has been transferred to
linear and rotational momentum.
here we have our momentum vector approaching 0 in the vertical dimension.
Gravity has literally been re vectored into the horizontal.
acceleration is —>, and for longer time and distance.
final velocity and momentum is greater for the object that fell for a longer time and

Even though the actual height within the potential well is the same,
the path traveled is longer. It “fell” longer than the other ball.
The track caused it to “fall” horizontally.

This change occurs at about a 45-degree angle.
Acute angles are similar to driving off a ledge.
Obtuse angles are similar to rolling downhill with no brakes.

Dropping off the ledge you stop very abruptly.
Rolling down a gradual hill, you can coast into town after ran out of gas.

(a car is slightly different because there are two axles.)

Looking again at the ball.
The center of mass is assumed to be the fulcrum.
This is false.
What I mean by that is when you set a ball on a surface
the point of contact is BDC.
Most people assume this will always be the case when it rolls.
And on a level pool table this is sometimes the case.....

But not on our ramp. I’ll try to explain why:
If you think of the ball as being a flat rod of the same mass
and the point which makes contact is always at the center of the rod
considering the angle of the rod to be the angle of the incline
the center of gravity is vectored UPhill!!!
Or more accurately, down on the uphill side of the fulcrum.
this lifts the front of the ball (downhill side) and causes the ball
to sit on a point uphill from the center of mass.
(basically perpendicular to the ramp +/-)
We see our “flat rod” is not actually fulcrumed at its’ center but shifted
uphill a tad. This shift is what vectors the force along the direction of the ramp.

This description is much different than the brute force analogy presented by physics
professors 15 yrs ago. Which attributed the rolling to the ramp inhibiting gravity and
friction on the surface of the ball.
In all reality on a frictionless surface a ball rolls the same. (actually faster...)

Here is the conundrum:
We take 3 ramps identical in length and height and angle.
and a 4th, equal in height but elongated at a greater angle.
and a translational interface to allow the ball to roll off one ramp
and up the next.

The experiment is simple.
Release the ball from the top of the ramp and observe its momentum as
a height reached as it rolls up the ramp on the other side.
This coincides with our first experiment comparing both ramps side by side.
By converting the momentum back into the vertical plane against gravitational
acceleration: we see that the longer ramp imparted something the shorter ramp
did not.

What is the variable?
Our theory allows us to negate horizontal translation
Mass and initial Height are constant.
The Archimedean leverage I describe above has been known for 2300 yrs.
What is left?

Time (how long it was falling)

[consider a meteor in free fall with theoretically no terminal velocity]
  [How high would you drop it from to reach “c”?, and how long would
    it take to get here?]
If a ball rolled down a long enough ramp would it reach a terminal velocity?

Dropping a ball off a cliff and landing it in a bucket to turn a wheel
or on an impact pressure plate to measure it
we can calculate mgh, and get back (most of) our energy we spent
lifting the ball: as impact force, or impact + remaining mgh 
This experiment has been used to set the standards for physical constants.
A Pendulum impact hammer operates by these principals.

The same ball rolling down a long ramp impacting the wheel in the direction
of rotation does what?

The rest of Chas’ wheel is perfectly balanced. Just that tiny impulse gives it
enough to kick the wheel back over the top.

I’m not claiming that I can build one. The precision and craftsmanship to
balance a machine like that would require more than myself to accomplish.
But I have built mechanisms and contraptions to test these theories enough
to understand what Chas was doing with his wheel.
(and why no one else was able to replicate it)

The difference in acceleration is the key. On the balanced wheel you have
the balls accelerating downward from gravity on both sides. Only the
momentum of the wheel keeps it turning, and it will wind down on its own.
But while the ball is in transition there is a slight gravitational imbalance
the mass of the ball is no longer opposing rotation, and an acceleration is
imparted on the wheel by the weight in the other side.
The ball on the ramp accelerates at a different rate.

The time it takes to drop Chas holds constant by the length of the ramp
and the diameter of the wheel. But the difference in acceleration results in
a difference in momentum between the point where the ball is on the imbalanced
wheel vs the ball when it rolls off the ramp, exactly at the location it needs to balance
the wheel again and allow the flywheel to carry the next ball over the top.


Take 2 identical block of styrofoam, 2 pieces of sheet metal to match and glue them
And 1 Bowling ball.

And a very long ramp.

The experiment is simple:
set the height less than the length (sorry to point out the obvious)

1) drop the ball off the back side (vertical) and land it on the sheet metal.
2) roll the ball down the ramp and impact it onto the sheet metal perpendicular
    to the ramp angle.

Compare the dents.
We can spend days arguing about wind resistance vs friction but clearly the
magnitude of the difference in momentum makes such efforts futile.

If we use magnetism, wind or water pressure, heat, light, sound or vibration
we can create a force to oppose gravity.
slowing down the fall of an object, or making it rise.
With careful tuning we can match the 9.8 m/s/s of our gravity and perfectly
suspend an object in the air. (or on the water column/ magnetic field/ etc)

By changing the difference between the forces (difference in acceleration)
We can manipulate the system to do work for us.
It is not a matter of energy input to create the forces.
But the difference between the forces and the energy we use to switch them.

For example: if we use water pressure to lift a bowling ball.
The energy in our water reservoir is mgh
So is the ball to lift it.

The pressure to lift it is a different story.
This is the weight of the ball vs the surface area of contact.

The pressure available at the nozzle is the aperture and height of water column.

The “energy” used is a factor of flow rate, which is not entirely related to the bowling ball.

A system of precision valves can reduce flow rate to negligible values.
While creating an oscillatory momentum in the bowling ball.
Attaching this motion to a flywheel to ascertain the kinetic energy:
We see that this can exceed the mgh of the water reservoir.

Compare this to a pressure engine operating in the horizontal plane:
Stroke extends the piston and the engine stalls.
So we add a spring to return the piston and complete the cycle.
We use energy to load the spring but it is returned to us making it similar
to the gravity engine above.
What is the difference?

The first thing that becomes apparent is the timing.
We can fiddle all day adjusting the horizontal engine to match the vertical one
and it never will.
Because  with gravity there is a difference in acceleration between the strokes.
notice in old trains, the cam is different when it is vertical.
the down stroke is constant (fraction of gravity).
upstroke is based of the compression/expansion of the fluid.

Horizontally you have only the fluid to consider, and the action of the return
be it from a spring or flywheel cam or another pressure chamber, etc.
(and  there is less torque for the piston mass)

If you were to explain this to an ICE mechanic you would say that gravity adds
to the compression ratio.
This is caused by a difference in acceleration between the fall of the piston
and the expanse of the fluid pushing it back up.

What makes this interesting is that with a hydraulic liquid we can return pressure
to the system that drives it. Further decreasing the energy input to the engine.

Take a fan and a compressed air source.
The experiment is simple::

1) air from 2 nozzles is directed onto the fan on each side
in opposite directions.
with a set source pressure and flow rate (total flow from source)

2) nozzles are expanded and constricted in such a way that:
    one produces a faster jet of air than the other, while maintaining
    same source pressure and flow rate as the 1) test.

Compare how the difference in acceleration effects the experiment.

Offline magneat

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Accelerating forces
« Reply #13 on: January 12, 2020, 08:00:04 PM »

Offline gyulasun

  • without_ads
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4139
Re: Accelerating forces
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2020, 01:21:38 AM »
Yes, and here are measurements with more precision 

Some say (elsewhere) that the kinetic energy of the balls are the same at the end of their course and others believe the fastest ball has obtained higher kinetic energy with respect to the other ball(s)...