Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding

User Menu

Custom Search

Author Topic: Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.  (Read 20668 times)

nicbordeaux

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.
« on: October 03, 2009, 10:58:49 PM »
Here's a "poorman patent" dating a while back of a device: lever (seesaw if you want) working on weight displacement. There have been subsequent developpments which have entailled another 4 "poorman patents". This not perpetual motion, but a means of producing substantially more energy (mechanical) than is required to initiate the movement. Useful runtimes of between 20 minutes and 6 hours have been obtained on a systematic basis using variants of this device. Energy produced was/is sufficient to dive a heavy bike wheel via a 3/8 in chain and run two "bottle" type friction dynamos.

The illustration apeears a little large for the forum, so heres where you can see full size http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2519/3976882366_c73a5f09aa_o.jpg

In the form shown here, the dificulty is in maintaining the wheel A vertical. This can be accomplished by many means, most of which detract from the energy of the machine. The most effective is a pantograph system. A cam and rod invertor are also ok. The 360° rotation of the balance shifting wheel atop the device is not ideal, as CG will not be changed brutally from one end og the beam to the other, as maximum efficiency would require. A "botch" fix is 180° back and forth.

Sliding weights and/or pendulum (including magnetics for holding the beam or weights in a given location for a given duration, modifying the power delivery via having a steel pendulum jump from one magnetic field to another, magnet attract or repel or sliding weight (s) are other options I have used. They are much simpler to implement.

Just don't forget that if you are using a wheel with say a 10 kg weight at each end and a 2 kg movable weight, at best your gain will be 2 kgs through part of the arc. Plus any energy gained from G. Other systems will allow for a 8 through 12 kg +/- G (and - friction/cx) with a 10 kg weight on one end only.

The reason I'm not playing paranoid and keeping all this "secret" (even if most guys will spend the rest of their lives objecting that it doesn't or won't work) ?

We need "free" energy. Urgently. My design "works", other people with different mindsets will be able to come up with alternatives. Or use "info" from this system to improve or make feasible their own designs. Could I make a billion from this ? No way, the issue is much too large. However, for a low mileage LHD Lotus Seven with 5 years prepaid maintenance and insurance, I'll give up all my designs :))


I am willing to submit a photo of the basic setup to the resident expert, whoever he may be.

onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1336
Re: Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.
« Reply #1 on: October 04, 2009, 09:37:45 PM »
I simulated the mobile with no air resistance, no electrostatics, normal gravity, no force fields. it comes to rest completely in about 1 minute.

nicbordeaux

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.
« Reply #2 on: October 04, 2009, 10:30:04 PM »
Thx, nice to compare simulation to actual device.

What weight did you factor in as mass at periphery on the revolving wheel mounted vertically to right of fulcrum? I use 8 kgs at 25 rpm. The ballast weight at left end of lever is 10 kgs. When rotated the vertical wheel distributes the weight over 360°, the dia of the wheel is 28 inches, at nearest to fulcum the weight on wheel is displaced 1 inch to left of fulcrum.

A bit hard to simulate, guess I need to upload a pic and some precise measurements.

Oh, and you have to factor in an initial impetus to be horizontal wheel. And know what force the left end of the beam is acting against (it runs a freewheel flywheel, so only exerts force on the downstroke.

onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1336
Re: Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.
« Reply #3 on: October 04, 2009, 11:04:36 PM »
Thx, nice to compare simulation to actual device.

What weight did you factor in as mass at periphery on the revolving wheel mounted vertically to right of fulcrum? I use 8 kgs at 25 rpm. The ballast weight at left end of lever is 10 kgs. When rotated the vertical wheel distributes the weight over 360°, the dia of the wheel is 28 inches, at nearest to fulcum the weight on wheel is displaced 1 inch to left of fulcrum.

A bit hard to simulate, guess I need to upload a pic and some precise measurements.

Oh, and you have to factor in an initial impetus to be horizontal wheel. And know what force the left end of the beam is acting against (it runs a freewheel flywheel, so only exerts force on the downstroke.

Sorry nicbordeaux, I deleted the model after I tested it, I would have to remodel it again later, I got tied up on another post and got diverted.

my apologies.

Jerry

Obelix

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 11
Re: Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.
« Reply #4 on: October 05, 2009, 02:55:56 AM »
Hello,

When i read your post i remain that's the Mann gravity mover principle.
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Mann_Gravity_Mover
Isn't it ?

Obelix

nicbordeaux

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.
« Reply #5 on: October 05, 2009, 10:52:46 AM »
Not sure of that, but the Mann Gravity Mover explanations are a little too complex for my small brain this morning.  :D

Whatever, there are many ways of shifting weight to alter CG ot let weight fall on the end of a lever, then retrieve it.

Who gets there first with a working and sustainable and useful device which can be mass-produced,  ist ganz egal.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 07:24:03 PM by nicbordeaux »

spoondini

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 121
Re: Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.
« Reply #6 on: October 05, 2009, 02:45:32 PM »
I'm sorry but I don't understand how this device will generate any additional energy?  As modeled, it might be an efficient user of energy input - but how would additional energy be created, or more energy extracted than what's put in?

nicbordeaux

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 32
Re: Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.
« Reply #7 on: October 05, 2009, 06:13:23 PM »
The principle is rotating one offset mass located at the outer edge of a wheel mounted horizontally on a beam.

The beam is mounted centrally on a BB/axle.

The beam has a weight on the left end.

The wheel is mounted (free to spin on BB) on the right side of the beam.

When the wheel is placed so that the weight sat upon it is farthest away from fulcrum, the device is (to keep things very simple) in balance. It will stay "level".

When the wheel with weight is rotated (which takes one heck of a lot less energy than lifting equivalent weight vertically), the weight upon this wheel will approach the fulcrum, or axis of the beam. As it does so, weight is displaced so that it weighs less against the right hand side of the beam.

The weight or mass at left of beam will drop with G. The bigger the swing, the bigger the "hit".

As horizontal wheel continues to rotate, it will return to initial position, and lift right hand weight back to initial position. In simpler terms, the seesaw will be back to where it started out.

Problems encountered are in maintaining the horizontal wheel supporting assembly without removing too much from the energy produced by G. Also making the transfer of weight quicker, more brutal. Within the scope of the rotary horizontal mass distribution, this can be accomplished by restraint of appropriate end of beam, restraint of constant force, eg it will let go when a given amount of force (or mass, whatever) is applied. Problems were also encountered in the area of applyying weight constantly (or where required) to beam from horizontal wheel, as maintaining the assembly vertical entails moving in several planes. To stay simple, it has to be able to slide lengthwise, and also vertically.

For those who are still with me, cam and rod push or pull, and/or wire restraint can be configured so that the vertical assembly will move from vertical to one side then the other by a few degrees, inducing a self rotate of the wheel. Timing of course is of the essence, but auto-timing (mechanical) has been achieved (luckily, because with weights in the order of 8 - 10 kg individually, serious damage would occur if things got out of sych).

Whatever, you can modelize this with computer programs 'till the end of time and be nowhere near reality, the parameters are too numerous and not all immediately obvious. You might, if you could with this explanation, make a working device (I hope not ;D), be able to identify the parameters, measure all energy loss/gain, and obtain enough data to simulate this device.

For those who aren't still with me, you can have some serious fun and validate the very basic principle by building the following device : one piece of steel bar say 1.5 meters long with at central point a pivot (say a bicycle hub ?). At one end of this beam, fix a weight of 1 kg, 2 if you want to. To other end (right) of beam affix a weight of approx 1/2 of the weight attached to left end of beam. Now take a length of solid string (say 30 cm)? with a weight fixed on one end and fix it to beam on righthand side of pivot so that at rest the device is more or less horizontal.  Now swing pendulum and watch lever swing up and down. Erratically because length of pendulum needs to tuned, and even if in perfect tune, decay of pendulum movement occurs, and you get funny behavior. You could improve no end by using a rigid pendumum rotating freely on a BB (how about a bicycle pedal ?) This can be improved upon, I mean by that that the pendular form of device can made to have a quite long runtime and produce energy. More than was required to intiate the swing of the pendulum. If you are having too much trouble maintaining the beam swing up and down within a given radius of an arc, you might want to suspend the "dropping" end by a spring, or strong elastic. It'll upset the behavior pattern of course. If you are using a string, your beam assembly must be quite far forward from table, eiffel tower or whatever you are using as a support, because firstly there is this guy Foucault who is quite right about pendulum swing plane rotating, and secondly, but more important, strings on pendulums tend not to travel peacefully back and forth in a perfectly constant linear plane when they are being bounced all over the place by a silly swinging beam they are attached to.

The leverage means that the weight of the pendulum can be varied a lot, you just need to compensate by moving fixation point of pendul to beal longitudinally to attain balance. This will also greatly influence the behavior, and power delivery. At best, your available power in this config will be left weight + G minus right hand weight and restraining forces associated. Occasionally, there will be a moment when the pendulum weight will add to this. However, this is totally unpredictable. Power should be taken only on downstroke to left IMO.

This simple device however could be computer modelized, just don't forget to factor in moment of intertia, and weight of beam plus rod if rod is used for pendulum.

Hope that answers your question Mr Spoondini (Yes, this device will produce more than enough energy to bend a teaspoon haha)

Good luck then  :)

Oh, by the way, if I haven't stated this already on this forum in particular, if I am "outing" this info on this particular version of device it is because I think that many minds working together will improve it. Unfortunately, a lot of minds spend their time taking other peoples designs apart rather than inventing anything themselves, luckily not all.

Furthermore, I am now into devices of a different sort which show more potential in that they are much less costly to make, require less maintenance having fewer moving parts, and are easy for everyone (myself included) to explain and understand.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2009, 11:29:04 PM by nicbordeaux »

FreeEnergy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2014
    • The Freedom Cell Network
Re: Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.
« Reply #8 on: October 06, 2009, 07:17:45 AM »
The principle is rotating one offset mass located at the outer edge of a wheel mounted horizontally on a beam.

The beam is mounted centrally on a BB/axle.

The beam has a weight on the left end.

The wheel is mounted (free to spin on BB) on the right side of the beam.

When the wheel is placed so that the weight sat upon it is farthest away from fulcrum, the device is (to keep things very simple) in balance. It will stay "level".

When the wheel with weight is rotated (which takes one heck of a lot less energy than lifting equivalent weight vertically), the weight upon this wheel will approach the fulcrum, or axis of the beam. As it does so, weight is displaced so that it weighs less against the right hand side of the beam.

The weight or mass at left of beam will drop with G. The bigger the swing, the bigger the "hit".

As horizontal wheel continues to rotate, it will return to initial position, and lift right hand weight back to initial position. In simpler terms, the seesaw will be back to where it started out.

Problems encountered are in maintaining the horizontal wheel supporting assembly without removing too much from the energy produced by G. Also making the transfer of weight quicker, more brutal. Within the scope of the rotary horizontal mass distribution, this can be accomplished by restraint of appropriate end of beam, restraint of constant force, eg it will let go when a given amount of force (or mass, whatever) is applied. Problems were also encountered in the area of applyying weight constantly (or where required) to beam from horizontal wheel, as maintaining the assembly vertical entails moving in several planes. To stay simple, it has to be able to slide lengthwise, and also vertically.

For those who are still with me, cam and rod push or pull, and/or wire restraint can be configured so that the vertical assembly will move from vertical to one side then the other by a few degrees, inducing a self rotate of the wheel. Timing of course is of the essence, but auto-timing (mechanical) has been achieved (luckily, because with weights in the order of 8 - 10 kg individually, serious damage would occur if things got out of sych).

Whatever, you can modelize this with computer programs 'till the end of time and be nowhere near reality, the parameters are too numerous and not all immediately obvious. You might, if you could with this explanation, make a working device (I hope not ;D), be able to identify the parameters, measure all energy loss/gain, and obtain enough data to simulate this device.

For those who aren't still with me, you can have some serious fun and validate the very basic principle by building the following device : one piece of steel bar say 1.5 meters long with at central point a pivot (say a bicycle hub ?). At one end of this beam, fix a weight of 1 kg, 2 if you want to. To other end (right) of beam affix a weight of approx 1/2 of the weight attached to left end of beam. Now take a length of solid string (say 30 cm)? with a weight fixed on one end and fix it to beam on righthand side of pivot so that at rest the device is more or less horizontal.  Now swing pendulum and watch lever swing up and down. Erratically because length of pendulum needs to tuned, and even if in perfect tune, decay of pendulum movement occurs, and you get funny behavior. You could improve no end by using a rigid pendumum rotating freely on a BB (how about a bicycle pedal ?) This can be improved upon, I mean by that that the pendular form of device can made to have a quite long runtime and produce energy. More than was required to intiate the swing of the pendulum. If you are having too much trouble maintaining the beam swing up and down within a given radius of an arc, you might want to suspend the "dropping" end by a spring, or strong elastic. It'll upset the behavior pattern of course. If you are using a string, your beam assembly must be quite far forward from table, eiffel tower or whatever you are using as a support, because firstly there is this guy Foucault who is quite right about pendulum swing plane rotating, and secondly, but more important, strings on pendulums tend not to travel peacefully back and forth in a perfectly constant linear plane when they are being bounced all over the place by a silly swinging beam they are attached to.

The leverage means that the weight of the pendulum can be varied a lot, you just need to compensate by moving fixation point of pendul to beal longitudinally to attain balance. This will also greatly influence the behavior, and power delivery. At best, your available power in this config will be left weight + G minus right hand weight and restraining forces associated. Occasionally, there will be a moment when the pendulum weight will add to this. However, this is totally unpredictable. Power should be taken only on downstroke to left IMO.

This simple device however could be computer modelized, just don't forget to factor in moment of intertia, and weight of beam plus rod if rod is used for pendulum.

Hope that answers your question Mr Spoondini (Yes, this device will produce more than enough energy to bend a teaspoon haha)

Good luck then  :)

Oh, by the way, if I haven't stated this already on this forum in particular, if I am "outing" this info on this particular version of device it is because I think that many minds working together will improve it. Unfortunately, a lot of minds spend their time taking other peoples designs apart rather than inventing anything themselves, luckily not all.

Furthermore, I am now into devices of a different sort which show more potential in that they are much less costly to make, require less maintenance having fewer moving parts, and are easy for everyone (myself included) to explain and understand.

please post drawings of this or any videos you might have. thank you.

exnihiloest

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 715
Re: Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.
« Reply #9 on: October 06, 2009, 10:29:44 AM »
...
When the wheel with weight is rotated (which takes one heck of a lot less energy than lifting equivalent weight vertically), the weight upon this wheel will approach the fulcrum, or axis of the beam. As it does so, weight is displaced so that it weighs less against the right hand side of the beam.
...

It's not exact. The rotating weight of the wheel is not equivalent to a sliding weight along the beam. The force due to the weight is always applied to the beam at the same point: the point where the axle of the wheel is connected to the beam.
What is happening is that when the wheel is rotating, there is a torque onto its axle acting in the vertical plane including the weight and the wheel axle. It is this torque that applies to the beam. In order to keep the axle perfectly vertical, you have to exert an opposing torque so no useable work can be expected and the axle of the wheel would not slide. And if the axle was not kept perfectly vertical, then the height of the weight will be decreasing with the beam tilt due to the torque from the wheel axle, and you will just be able to recover the potential energy that the weight lost.


 





If the axle is kept perfectly horizontal,

neptune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
Re: Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.
« Reply #10 on: October 06, 2009, 11:18:09 AM »
@ nicbordeaux.
This is an interesting topic. First, in your reply number 6, you describe a simple proof of concept device with a pendulum and lever [ see-saw or teeter- totter] . Your description resembles the two stage oscillator of Milkovitch. {google it] .In your first post on this topic you describe a machine that will drive 2 bicycle dynamos for up to six hours. To me this is the Holy Grail, because, if it will work for 6 hours, with development and optimisation, it will run forever. I find it really hard to believe that you built this device and did not make photos or video. If you really believe that the world needs free energy, you need to share with us all that you have, so that we can help you develop it. If, like me; your computer skills are limited, get some help. I do not mean to sound unkind, but we all have limited time and resources, and unless you help us here, we cannot help each other, or the planet. Kind Regards, Neptune.

TechStuf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1280
    • Biblical Record Proves True
Re: Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.
« Reply #11 on: October 06, 2009, 11:43:14 AM »

Quote
If you really believe that the world needs free energy, you need to share with us all that you have, so that we can help you develop it.

Please expound on your reasoning that the world needs free energy.  It has been my observation that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

Free energy in the hands of man as he exists today, considering the deplorable state of absolute relativism he has largely allowed himself to sink to.....

Perhaps it would be akin to teaching monkeys how to make fire?

"Now you must go, Bonzo, take this bow drill and show the others, so that you all may be free and stay warm in your 'jungle' habitat."  Oh, and be creative, for you will eventually power lightbulbs and electric typewriters so that you may one day reproduce the collective works of Shakespeare!

TS

onthecuttingedge2005

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1336
Re: Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.
« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2009, 06:43:10 PM »
If apes can be taught sign language then they can be taught the fire bow.

Koko the Gorilla, it is to bad she passed away, I think she of all could of used the fire bow. she knew over a 1000 different sign language symbols and converse this way with Humans, she also invented new signs to add to the language.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCMc9IEFoMY

Jerry 8)

neptune

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1127
Re: Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.
« Reply #13 on: October 06, 2009, 07:36:25 PM »
@ TechStuf If you are against Free Energy, perhaps you have made a bad decision on your choice of website.

TechStuf

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1280
    • Biblical Record Proves True
Re: Mechanical overunity, call it a Gravity engine if you wish.
« Reply #14 on: October 07, 2009, 11:28:53 AM »

Quote
@ TechStuf If you are against Free Energy, perhaps you have made a bad decision on your choice of website.

Are you kidding?  ME against free energy??!  We're all made of free energy!  I don't know how our electrons got started spinning, and I don't know how to stop them.....

Do you?

Perhaps you missed the essence of my illustration.  Which is basically.....Let us not forget that everything 'Free' comes with a price.


Quote
Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. If we continue to develop our technology without wisdom or prudence, our servant may prove to be our executioner. Omar Bradley (1893 - 1981)


TS