**Why Overunity and therefore Perpetual Motion is possible.**

Part 2

Perhaps at this point it is prudent to have a look at what science has to say about centripetal and centrifugal forces and other related phenomena. Of centripetal force science says:

The

**centripetal force** is the external force required to make a body follow a curved path. Hence centripetal force is a kinematic force requirement,

**not a particular kind of force, like gravity or electromagnetic force.**This does not tell us anything about the nature or origin of that force. It strikes me as a glib answer to an unexplained phenomenon. It just states that it is there, but not really there, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Perhaps if we examine its equal and opposite the centrifugal force we will get some meaningful answer. Apparently not, for science says about centrifugal force:

In classical mechanics, when the motion of an object is described in terms of a reference frame that is rotating about a fixed axis, the expression for the absolute acceleration of the object includes terms involving the rotation rate of the frame.

** These frame-dependent terms are sometimes brought over to the force side of the equations of motion (with reversed signs), and treated as fictitious forces (also called pseudo-forces or inertial forces).** One of these fictitious forces points directly outward from the axis of rotation, with magnitude proportional to the square of the rotation rate of the frame. In much of the literature on classical dynamics, this term is called centrifugal force, although it is not actually a force in the Newtonian sense.

Some authors object to the use of the word "force" to refer to these acceleration terms.

**Unlike real forces such as electromagnetic forces, fictitious forces do not originate from physical interactions between objects.**So, according to science thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not really there either, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fictitious!

It is interesting here to note that under Ã¢â‚¬Å“Analysis using fictitious forcesÃ¢â‚¬Â in the same monograph Wikipedia inserts the following disclaimer:

This article or section may be inaccurate or unbalanced in favour of certain viewpoints.

Funny that, because in essence what is says is Ã¢â‚¬Å“The following statements may or may not be more than opinionated bullshit!Ã¢â‚¬Â Very scientific that.

So just for completeness let us have a look at what they have to say about ficticious forces.

A fictitious force, also called a pseudo force. d'Alembert force or inertial force is an apparent force that acts on all masses in a non-inertial frame of reference, such as a rotating reference frame.

**The force F does not arise from any physical interaction but rather from the acceleration a of the non-inertial reference frame itself.** As stated by Iro:

**An additional force** due to nonuniform relative motion of two reference frames is called a pseudo-force.

Ã¢â‚¬â€œ H Iro in A Modern Approach to Classical Mechanics p. 180

It says further:

Fictitious forces and work

**Fictitious forces can be considered to do work, provided that they move an object on a trajectory that changes its energy from potential to kinetic.**All fictitious forces are proportional to the mass of the object upon which they act, which is also true for gravity. This led Albert Einstein to wonder whether gravity was a fictitious force as well. He noted that a freefalling observer in a closed box would not be able to detect the force of gravity; hence, freefalling reference frames are equivalent to an inertial reference frame (the equivalence principle). Following up on this insight, Einstein was able to formulate a theory with gravity as a fictitious force; attributing the apparent acceleration of gravity to the curvature of spacetime. This idea underlies Einstein's theory of general relativity.

What this says is fascinating. On one hand they say itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not really there and on the other hand they admit that is also a very real

**additional force that emerges independently **of the forces involved that brought the prerequisite conditions about and can do work!

**In other words FREE ENERGY! **So, why is science obscuring this fact with convoluted concepts and obscure language?

Simply put, the acceptance of these forces as real rattles the very foundation on which current scientific thinking is based.

If the forces are real that means either that the Conservation of Energy laws are wrong, because these forces manifest out of nowhere, which is believed impossible. This is not a premise science is prepared to accept and quite rightly so in my view.

The only remaining alternative is equally impalatable to science. It would mean that there is an underlying energy field that can exchange energy with the observable Ã¢â‚¬Å“realityÃ¢â‚¬Â. In other words an ether (aether for the purist) of sorts.

So they are caught between a rock and a hard place and have to resort to this sort of crap because the existence of these forces is undeniable whether science can explain them or not.

Just to reiterate, science says:

The force F does not arise from any physical interaction but rather from the acceleration a of the non-inertial reference frame itself.

and

Fictitious forces can be considered to do work, provided that they move an object on a trajectory that changes its energy from potential to kinetic.

This is exactly what I have been saying all along and what this thread is all about. It is also the scientific explanation why perpetual motion is possible whether science likes it or not. In order to use this energy one must move an object out of its reference frame. This is what I call in my paper splitting the systems. It is the key to free energy. A secondary system captures this energy and feeds it back into the primary system. That is all there is to it.

Well, this is all very nice, I hear you say, but can you prove by experiment what you are saying?

**Yes, I can !**The experimental set-up is simplicity itself and used here in a WM2D simulation.

(http://keelytech.com/bessler/pop/proof-of-theory.gif)

Wheel A revolves freely around axis B. Attached to the wheel is a virtually mass-less holder C, that acts as receptacle for a steel sphere of 6.28 kg D. E is the centre of gravity of said sphere which is used as a reference point throughout the experiments.

x denotes the distance between the centre of gravity of the sphere at the starting point to the lowest position achievable while still attached to the wheel, therefore it is the amount of potential energy available to the system with only gravity as input.

The holder C is designed to let the sphere fall free at this point.

In the first simulation the mass of the wheel is very large (800 kg). The reason for the large mass is to ensure that the wheel turns slowly because of the comparatively small mass of the sphere. At this speed there are no significant centripetal and centrifugal forces making themselves felt since these forces depend on velocity.

As the sphere drops under the influence of gravity the potential energy x is converted into kinetic energy manifesting itself by rotating the wheel. At the lowest point the potential energy imparted by the sphere is exhausted and the sphere disengages from the wheel. All the potential energy x is now conserved in the momentum of the wheel, which in absence of any force to the contrary keeps spinning. The sphere rolls down a short incline and drops into a pit G to allow the wheel to keep spinning by preventing the holder C from bumping into the sphere which would otherwise just lie there.

And that is all experiment 1 shows. There is no gain in the system, just a simple conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy.

In the second simulation (experiment 2) things get interesting.

Here the mass of the wheel is reduced to 8 kg, that is one hundredth of what it was in experiment 1. As the sphere drops the potential energy x is still imparted to the wheel which now, because of its reduced mass shows a much higher velocity. This higher velocity generates centripetal and centrifugal forces in addition to the potential energy x, as science is prepared to admit.

At the point of disengagement the potential energy we started off with is again conserved in the momentum of the wheel.

But this time the sphere does not drop as it did before. Being freed of its centripetal fetter it now still has the energy of the centrifugal force which is sufficient to propel the sphere up an inclined plane F until that energy is exhausted and the sphere comes to rest. Meanwhile the wheel is still spinning with the kinetic equivalent of x.

This is gained energy, in this case about 35 % over and above what we started with.

The gained energy is shown in the diagram as y.

In the first experiment it would take the same amount of energy as we started with to bring the sphere back to the starting position.

Since in the second experiment it needs considerably less because of the sphereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s elevated position, in fact it needs x Ã¢â‚¬â€œ y or z as I called it in the drawing, we have more than enough to start the cycle afresh with some energy left over to do work!

I would like to point out here that this is a worst case scenario. The wheel in both simulations is at standstill at the start, requiring far more energy than if the wheel was already in motion, as it would be if a second sphere would come into the picture. Unfortunately WM2D does not lend itself to such a simulation.

It nevertheless shows an impressive gain which would be many times that at higher velocities.

These demonstrations show clearly that perpetual motion is indeed possible. The energy is there.

Comments are welcome.

Perhaps some of you mathematical geniuses could do the maths on this. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Hans von Lieven

**Source for the science quotes; Wikipedia centripetal force, centrifugal force, fictitious force**Experiment 2 is too large for here. You can download it from

http://keelytech.com/bessler/pop/experiment2.wm2d