Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Gravity powered devices => Gravity powered devices => Topic started by: teslaalset on July 10, 2010, 02:52:57 PM

Title: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: teslaalset on July 10, 2010, 02:52:57 PM
This thread is to discuss the open source gravity wheel of Chalkalis.
Info:
http://chalkalis.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHhZZ9DuzK4
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 15, 2010, 04:49:47 PM
I am trying to replicate this as we speak.

jake
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: sm0ky2 on July 16, 2010, 06:38:09 AM
I am trying to replicate this as we speak.

jake

i look forward to your results. i had to put this one on my list.
but i have a few too many projects going on right now, and one very important one i must build before i can get to this one.

theres a lot of things about chalkalis' wheel that i find promising in the way that its designed. wether it turns out to be OU or not, it definately seems like a "learning experience" worthy of engaging in.

Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: teslaalset on July 16, 2010, 11:32:56 AM
Some interesting discussions on this topic here: http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5957-f-m-chalkalis-gravity-system-donation.html
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 16, 2010, 03:54:19 PM
of course mine can't be to-scale. the radius of mine is only 20cm, and the triangle shape is of 1/4in plexi glass. I couldn't find a way to drive it the way he does, so I am going to drive it by the outside edge with one wheel that weighs 1/3 of the triangle flywheel which I think mine will have 1lb of weight attached. I have heard people talking about driving this from the center axle with a motor/generator combo, but from what I am seeing, that won't work at all like the original design. It seems like the outer drive force is very important so as to give a mechanical advantage over the generator at the center. I am seeing that the drive wheel(s) must also have a good mass to them also as he says in the plans. i should be uploading pics this evening.

jake
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 16, 2010, 04:35:48 PM
thinking that some combination of motor/gen of these DC motors should give OU. I glued a rubber band on the outside edge of the plexi triangle for better traction with flywheel
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 16, 2010, 05:08:27 PM
also, i have built a thane c heins generator which does exactly what all his videos show. seems like that would be a perfect addition for these replications to extract and perhaps further increase output and add more torque to the device

ps: Ken rauen(who was an editor for peswiki) lives in lubbock just a few miles from me, I showed him the  Heins generator and his final word was that he cannot easily explain what is happening with conventional physics and that it has promise
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: teslaalset on July 16, 2010, 07:46:04 PM
also, i have built a thane c heins generator which does exactly what all his videos show. seems like that would be a perfect addition for these replications to extract and perhaps further increase output and add more torque to the device

ps: Ken rauen(who was an editor for peswiki) lives in lubbock just a few miles from me, I showed him the  Heins generator and his final word was that he cannot easily explain what is happening with conventional physics and that it has promise

@lespaul,
There is an active discussion ongoing on Thanes transformer at this forum:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=7833.msg248866#new
I wonder whether you like to participate and maybe show some pictures and data ?
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: ramset on July 17, 2010, 04:06:28 AM
Jake.
Your one cool guy!
Looking forward to your findings.
Thanks for sharing !
Chet
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 17, 2010, 04:46:46 AM
lol why do you say that, chet? because of my homies?
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: poplianil on July 17, 2010, 05:51:46 AM
See this on same line but with output

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yheVAF-Zrvo&feature=player_embedded



or

http://gravityassistedpower.com/?page_id=5
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: tbird on July 17, 2010, 04:04:18 PM
i think i saw someone make the comment....use electrical pulse to kick the arm... or something like that.

couldn't harry paul sprain's motor be modified to fill the bill?

(http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Paul_Harry_Sprain_magnet_motor)

if instead of the rotor being in a horizontal plane, put it in a vertical plane (the whole motor) and remove one of the rotor magnets (to give the pendulum effect).  this would require half of the power since there would only be one pulse per rpm instead of two.

i'm not sure where the coil should be located, but i would think at about the 10-11 o'clock position (ccw rotation).

to make it a self runner, a gen could be driven by the output shaft that charged a cap.  would 95% of one rpm be enough to charge the cap enough to pulse the coil?  would there be power left over?

anyone see anything to keep it from working/being ou (maybe the answers to the questions above)?

tom
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: FreeEnergy on July 17, 2010, 08:19:40 PM
See this on same line but with output

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yheVAF-Zrvo&feature=player_embedded (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yheVAF-Zrvo&feature=player_embedded)



or

http://gravityassistedpower.com/?page_id=5 (http://gravityassistedpower.com/?page_id=5)

outstanding!
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: Ted Ewert on July 17, 2010, 08:43:23 PM
This thing is no more than a rotating pendulum. If it were really gaining energy it would continue to accelerate when the power is removed. It does not. I wrote the following on Energetic Forum following a lengthly discussion on this device's merits:

Quote
Open letter to Mr Chalkalis...
Our discussion here has revealed a few serious problems which call into question your claims.
1. The most glaring is the most obvious: If your device actually gained energy, why is it not self rotating? Where does all that extra energy go when the power is removed? There can't be that much bearing friction and wind resistance to overcome.
2. You suggest that the power be taken off the main shaft. Why haven't you simply attached a cheap alternator to the shaft and measured it's output? You have a pulley right on the shaft! Use a 24 volt model and you could run your drive motor and measure how much extra you have left over.
3. Your math proves nothing. Do you know the difference between torque and horsepower? You calculate torque based on a no load situation, then compare it to input power. Apples and oranges my friend.
If you can't manage a generator, it's very simple to construct a Prony break which will give you a fairly accurate measurement of your actual power out.

After working on this concept for 28 years, it's hard to believe you built that whole device and didn't take some simple output power measurements. I see a pulley right on your main shaft for Pete's sake! Why are you withholding this information?
You immediately start whining about people pointing out legitimate errors in your statements, and asking perfectly reasonable questions (red flag). Yet, without answering anything you still want us to go to all the expense and trouble of building a replica just based on your opinion? I don't think so.
None of this adds up Chalkalis, and you know it. We are more than willing to extend the benefit of the doubt, and I think we have here, but we don't appreciate being played for fools.
What is your real reason for doing all of this?

Ted Ewert

I am not implying that a rotating pendulum is incapable of producing extra energy. Milkovic has shown how his oscillator generates energy from a pendulum. The problem is that the Chalkalis device will not produce any extra energy on the main shaft as it has been presented.
You'll see this for yourself if you build a replica. Then you can figure out a real way of extracting energy from this device.

Cheers,

Ted
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: Cloxxki on July 17, 2010, 09:19:01 PM
Milkovic has shown nothing, other than a nice way to get high torque out for short pulses, from longer low-torque, equal work input. Not one replication, even a recent genious one that had full syncronization from output to input, ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJsXLiLNJHA ) was unable to keep going, let alone offer the 12x claimed output.

If you've ever seen a better attempt, let alone by Milkovic himself, please let me know, I'd be most interested to see, study, and replicate it.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: Ted Ewert on July 18, 2010, 03:45:11 PM
Milkovic has shown nothing, other than a nice way to get high torque out for short pulses, from longer low-torque, equal work input. Not one replication, even a recent genious one that had full syncronization from output to input, ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJsXLiLNJHA ) was unable to keep going, let alone offer the 12x claimed output.

If you've ever seen a better attempt, let alone by Milkovic himself, please let me know, I'd be most interested to see, study, and replicate it.
That was indeed an elaborate and clever attempt to loop a pendulum, but I could have told you it wasn't going to work. I've tried the same thing only to find that the timing of the pulse is critical. If the feedback pulse is applied at the wrong time it won't work no matter what you do. The Milkovic device is also primarily an oscillator, which denotes resonance. This attempt never got anywhere near resonance, which in itself invalidates any conclusions.
Not being able to loop the output power only proves that the method used was unsuccessful. It does not prove anything else. The attempt cited here merely shows me that this guy didn't really understand the primary mechanism to begin with.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: Cloxxki on July 18, 2010, 05:52:57 PM
I think your response doesn't do the attempt justice. I, for one, don't believe or at least don't understand the hype about resonances. I've yet to find a situation where 1+1=3.
Would you like to venture that a similarly looped system will prove to be a source of energy when merely timed a bit better? This would imply that indeed timing of an input pulse is vital. And that then would imply that energy is lost or won, depending on timing of release. Such a statement would be going against preservation of energy.
Anyway, what do I know. So many geniouses are devoting their free time to Milkovic, and all we get is odd oscillations, always under unity.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: Ted Ewert on July 18, 2010, 09:58:36 PM
I think your response doesn't do the attempt justice. I, for one, don't believe or at least don't understand the hype about resonances. I've yet to find a situation where 1+1=3.
Would you like to venture that a similarly looped system will prove to be a source of energy when merely timed a bit better? This would imply that indeed timing of an input pulse is vital. And that then would imply that energy is lost or won, depending on timing of release. Such a statement would be going against preservation of energy.
Anyway, what do I know. So many geniouses are devoting their free time to Milkovic, and all we get is odd oscillations, always under unity.
The guy who built that feedback mechanism didn't understand how the Milkovic oscillator really works. It's as simple as that. The impulse should be applied at the top of the stroke, not at the bottom. Also, if you have too much vertical travel, like this guy did, it takes all the velocity out of the pendulum. There is also a delicate balance between the pendulum weight, it's period, the length of the lever and the weight or springs used. He was dead in the water before he started.
Until you build a Milkovic replication and get it into resonance, you are just fooling around with a very inefficient pendulum.
Milkovic calls it an oscillator for the simple reason that it doesn't work worth beans until it is oscillating (in resonance). 
Very few people take the time and effort to really understand what's going on with his device, which is well worth replication and study.

Ted
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: FreeEnergy on July 19, 2010, 06:36:22 AM
how do you make this thing a self runner!?

HOW???????????????????????????!
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: Ted Ewert on July 19, 2010, 07:02:59 AM
how do you make this thing a self runner!?

HOW???????????????????????????!

I would suggest starting with a full rotation pendulum. This mode would be much easier than a swinging type. If you need any more help, let me know.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: tagor on July 19, 2010, 09:16:39 AM

I would suggest starting with a full rotation pendulum. This mode would be much easier than a swinging type. If you need any more help, let me know.

I have one !
how can I get OU ?
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: teslaalset on July 19, 2010, 11:29:09 AM
This construction can be simplified to the following test case:

Is there a difference in kinetic energy gain between the following two cases:
-you drop a stone from a bridge
-throwing a stone downwards from the same bridge

Kinetic energy gain when dropping = delta (potential energy) = mass * gravitational constant * delta hight.
Kinetic energy gain when throwing = deta (potential energy) + throwing energy = mass * (gravitational constant + extra acceleration) * delta hight

In other words: is there a gain in the energy that was spend by throwing down?
Energy spend to throw: E=F*t=m*a*t, with "a" being the extra acceleration caused by the throw.
Should be easy to calculate how much the extra kinetic energy is at point of reception

I see some resemblance with bungee jumping  ;)
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: tagor on July 19, 2010, 11:58:46 AM
...

In other words: is there a gain in the energy that was spend by throwing down?
Energy spend to throw: E=F*t=m*a*t, with "a" being the extra acceleration caused by the throw.
Should be easy to calculate how much the extra kinetic energy is at point of reception.

no
no gain , because gravity is conservative ...
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: teslaalset on July 19, 2010, 12:11:06 PM

no
no gain , because gravity is conservative ...

I agree with you.
If you work out my given example case and use an elastic band than you should see following:
If the claimed extra energy at the bottom is not tapped, the extra energy will be spend in launching the stone upwards after reaching its minimum hight.
If there would be an energy gain, the peak hight, obtained after spending the upward force, will be higher than when simply shoot the stone upwards from the bridge with the same energy spend for throwing down the stone.
This will not happen, otherwise this would have been observed much earlier in time.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: TechStuf on July 19, 2010, 12:17:07 PM

Quote
no gain , because gravity is conservative ...


Yes, but not too conservative.  Besides, sometimes two conservatives, like, say, gravity + angular momentum = .......


Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: tagor on July 19, 2010, 03:25:13 PM

Yes, but not too conservative.  Besides, sometimes two conservatives, like, say, gravity + angular momentum = .......

 
can you give me an example of not conservative case ?
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 20, 2010, 04:42:44 PM
AN UPDATE
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 22, 2010, 05:54:30 AM
just an update
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: sm0ky2 on July 22, 2010, 08:19:19 AM

 
can you give me an example of not conservative case ?

the archer quinn S.O.G. device comes to mind.....
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gravity is only conservative when analyzed from the perspective of lift vs fall. (mgh)
an object accelerates with the square of time on the way down, and inversly deccelerates on the way up.

If the object already has a velocity when it is released (i.e. throwing it down), then is allowed to fall, it is the same as dropping it from a higher altitude.
This higher altitude, would be equivalent to the original (mgh) + the kinetic energy of the 'throw'.
However, the momentum of the object, is its mass times its velocity. The time derrivative is not squared.
When you impart this 'throw' energy in the same directional vector as the gravitational force, the momentum force added to it, results in a greater final momentum than when the object is allowed to free-fall from the 'higher' altitude.

for instance, take the Chalkalis device, and move the drive-wheels to the other side of the wheel; Such that they are driving the wheel up and over the top, instead of pushing it on the down side. If the drive-wheels are set so that the wheel just barely completes the full circle when pushed on the down side,
when you move them to the up side, the wheel will not make it around the top, and back into the drive-wheels.
too much momentum is eaten by the gravitational decceleration.
it goes up, over the top, then pendulates to a stop at bottom dead center, never re-entering the drive-wheels for another cycle.

The same ammount of energy was added to the system, yet the wheel retains less momentum.
-------------------------------------------------------
using the rock thrown from a bridge example::
you calculate the gravitational displacement from the top of the bridge (mgh), and add the energy of the "throw", then launch the rock with this set ammount of energy, vertically upwards from the ground.
You will observe the 'conservative' gravitational field. Up / Down.
allow the rock to land on an impact-scale.
the rock arrives back at the ground with the same ammount of force you imparted upon it.

Now, take this rock to the top of the bridge (mgh input), and give it an equal 'throw' downwards.(same total input energy) and allow this rock to strike an impact-scale on the ground. the impact force(momentum) of the rock, moving faster now, is greater than in the first test. This is defined in Newton's second law.

The total Energy in both cases is the same yet the momentum (impact force) is quite different. Momentum is a vector quantity (directional) and does not significantly affect the total energy of the system until you approach relativistic velocities.
It does however affect the kinetic energy of the system in motion.
and in the case of the unbalanced wheel, this becomes more complex. Momentum is increasing and decreasing during different parts of the cycle (up / down).
--------------------------------------------------------------
When the mass is attached to a fixed wheel, and the additional momentum is in the same vector are the gravitational force, this momentum is added to the gravitationally imparted velocity as the wheel turns around. Because the added momentum is conserved all the way around the wheel.

This is why when the drive-wheels are placed on the down-side of the chalkalis wheel, it allows the wheel to complete a full circle and re-enter the drive-wheels.
--------------------------------------------------------------
another example would be if you have a mass, rotating at a set distance around a fixed axis. Then you change this distance.
like a kid on a whirl-a-round, moving inwards or outwards.
The momentum increases or decreases accordingly, and this affects the rotational velocity of the whirl-a-round.
Yet no "energy" is added to or subtracted from the system.
------------------------------------------------------------

The important difference in the Chalkalis device, is that extra energy IS actually added to the system, from the drive-wheels.
When this translates to increased momentum, there is a greater rotational force imparted upon the axis.
To determine the extent of this effect, would require a "load" placed upon the axis, increasing until the wheel no longer makes it over the top. When this maximum output is reached, it should then be compared to the energy input INTO the drive-wheels.

This would be the ONLY definitive test, to determine wether or not the Chalkalis device is "OU".






Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: teslaalset on July 22, 2010, 09:39:46 AM
just an update

Looking good, please keep posting your progress. We need replicators like you.
I admire your skills  ;)
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: tbird on July 22, 2010, 12:26:49 PM
[quote author=sm0ky2
for instance, take the Chalkalis device, and move the drive-wheels to the other side of the wheel; Such that they are driving the wheel up and over the top, instead of pushing it on the down side. If the drive-wheels are set so that the wheel just barely completes the full circle when pushed on the down side,
when you move them to the up side, the wheel will not make it around the top, and back into the drive-wheels.
too much momentum is eaten by the gravitational decceleration.
[/quote]

did you really mean to say "...the wheel will not make it around the top,..."?

since you have the drive wheels on the up side (assumed the same distance from top dead center), isn't that as far as the wheel has to travel?

it sounds like what you are saying is the wheel won't make it back to even that distance unless you add more energy than it would take if the drive wheels where on the down side.

is that right?

tom
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: sm0ky2 on July 22, 2010, 01:24:44 PM
thats exactly the point im trying to make Tom.

it requires MORE energy to flip the mass around the top of the curve when the force is added on the "up" side than it does when you add the force in the same directional vector as the gravitational force. (down side)

NOW,. is doing so truly "overunity"? or simply "more efficient"?
that's the question.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: tbird on July 23, 2010, 04:07:26 PM
from his blog....

Calculation method:
Central weight F 45,69Kg = 448,2Ν ∙ r 0,51m = 228.58Nm ∙ 160 RPM ÷ 9550 = 3,829Κw
Additional weight F 4,5Kg = 44,145Ν ∙ r 1,12m = 49.44Nm ∙ 160 RPM ÷ 9550 = 0,828Κw
                                                                                                                       Tot. 4,657Κw

did he do this right?  is he saying his machine could, at 160 rpm, produce 4,657 watts (i think the K is a misprint, oh no! he uses a comma in a number like i do a period.  commas for me are for a different use, like above....separates thousands from hundreds, etc.) if he had a 100% efficient alt hooked to it?

anybody else think this is what he means?

tom
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 23, 2010, 04:15:47 PM
I do know that some cultures use a comma for our "period" and vis versa. My wife is peruvian and uses commas to seperate cents from dollars. This is my two cents. Not to sure about Greeks

jake
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: tbird on July 24, 2010, 05:54:42 PM
sorry i confused you with that question.  i meant it to address Chalkalis's numbers (how he got the 8-11 times output).

to continue, let's say it is ou.  to be a self runner, what would be the most efficient way to draw off the input power?

he says......"It could also be auto supplied (run on its own power) with the appropriate technical means which unfortunately I do not have."

i think he said some place he had tried using electricity too, but failed.

off-the-shelf motors, in general, don't seem to be very efficient.  direct drive would be nice, but.... anyone have a simple design to pulse the arm as his does with the 2 smaller wheels?

how about putting an alt on the output shaft (as efficient as possible, not a car alt) and an electric magnet where he has the 2 small wheels?  the coil could be fixed in position and the magnet/core could be on the edge of the arm.  then attracted/repulsed at the proper time.

any thoughts?

tom
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 24, 2010, 09:09:56 PM
this where i'm at so far:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsNFQvFKN8g
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: ramset on July 24, 2010, 09:19:39 PM
Jake,
Nice Jig you have there!

Should make a nice test bed!

Thanks for sharing your hard work !!

Chet
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 24, 2010, 09:43:56 PM
My single outer drive wheel.....hope it works
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 25, 2010, 01:08:33 AM
have new video of running machine now

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bHCWyiVOBY
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 25, 2010, 03:40:41 AM
now is the time when I ask for ideas about how to extract energy(electrical).........anyone
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: sm0ky2 on July 25, 2010, 05:37:15 AM
now is the time when I ask for ideas about how to extract energy(electrical).........anyone

nice work. i would look at adjusting the distance between the rotor and the drive-wheel. it looks from that video that its knocking pretty hard, maybe a little "too close" together ??
it should rub enough to kick the rotor around, but probably shouldn't be jolting the drivewheel back like it is in thiis video.

im sure theres a lot of power lost in that action.
"strain" on the motor or whatever...

Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 25, 2010, 06:01:51 AM
enlightening
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 25, 2010, 05:40:17 PM
ok, tested my motor that has two coils. Each produces 8v peak to peak @ 300rpm. My drive motor needs about 3v @ 600mA can some one tell me how to wire both coils using diodes and/or rectifiers and caps to power my DC motor? Color codes are:

Coil 1: Yellow & Black
Coil 2: Red & Grey

thanks,
jake
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: tbird on July 25, 2010, 06:10:13 PM
hi jake,

you've been a busy boy!!  well done!

did you check the rpm of the main shaft?

2 volts x .6 amps = 1.2 watts...not much needed to keep it turning!  what rpm was that wheel?

i'm not the best here to tell you how to wire, but if that is dc output from your motor, the 8 volts from each coil should be enough to run your motor. if you hooked the 2 in parallel, you would still have the 8 volts, but would double the amps available.  of course if the rpm is much less than 300, so will the voltage be.

i guess there are others who can ask better questions and give better answers.  let's see who will speak up.

again, GREAT JOB!!!

tom
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: FreeEnergy on July 25, 2010, 06:53:58 PM
nice pics/vid lespaul109, i think i understand now how this machine is suppose to work to produce free energy/over unity.fascinating idea!
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: Cloxxki on July 25, 2010, 08:13:51 PM
nice pics/vid lespaul109, i think i understand now how this machine is suppose to work to produce free energy/over unity.fascinating idea!
Could you share? Most people do not understand.
Thanks!
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: woopy on July 25, 2010, 10:10:54 PM
hi all

just 2 cents, trying to harness the gravity power on a longer shaft. The setup seems to work, now lets do some measurement to see if Milkovic and Chalkalis together can do some usefull work.

any idea ?

Good night

Laurent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr69L9fJpY4
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: gyulasun on July 25, 2010, 11:34:10 PM
ok, tested my motor that has two coils. Each produces 8v peak to peak @ 300rpm. My drive motor needs about 3v @ 600mA can some one tell me how to wire both coils using diodes and/or rectifiers and caps to power my DC motor? Color codes are:

Coil 1: Yellow & Black
Coil 2: Red & Grey

thanks,
jake

Hi Jake,

The best circuit for you would be a DC / DC converter because it can have a 85-90% efficiency. It is basically a switch mode power supply. 
However, first you can test an important thing: try to load your stepper motor's two coils output to see how much output power they are able to produce and how much drag it causes to your main motor?

Just build a full wave rectifier with two diodes like the first schematic in this link shows:
http://www.electronics-tutorials.ws/diode/diode_6.html 

Of course your coils will connect to A, B and C points in the schematic (they will have one common point of course) instead of the transformer secondary and you have to find the correct phasing for your coils. Not shown in the that schematic a puffer capacitor arcoss the loading resistor symbol, you have to use at least a 470-2200uF 25V electrolytic capacitor to filter the output "half waves".
So if your drive motor needs about 1.8W (3V @ 600mA) then your stepper motor output also has to give at least 1.8W or a bit even higher...
Do not care how many DC output voltage you will measure across your resistor load, just test. Use the P=V2/R  where V=output DC voltage measured across the R load resistor you choose and vary.

rgds, Gyula
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: sm0ky2 on July 26, 2010, 05:43:45 AM
hi all

just 2 cents, trying to harness the gravity power on a longer shaft. The setup seems to work, now lets do some measurement to see if Milkovic and Chalkalis together can do some usefull work.

any idea ?

Good night

Laurent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr69L9fJpY4

for what its worth.... here is my idea

You could use the 2-stage lever oscillations to actuate a Solenoid.
Feed the energy into a capacitor, and use it to re-charge the battery.

Then it is simply a matter of monitoring the level of the battery to see what happens.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: FreeEnergy on July 27, 2010, 06:43:06 AM
Could you share? Most people do not understand.
Thanks!

simple, the weaker small motor will spin in high rpm which will keep the pendulum rotating. now just attach a generator to the pendulum's shaft for greater output.
i am not sure if this will work, but it is how i understand the functioning of this system.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: FatChance!!! on July 27, 2010, 04:12:49 PM
ok, tested my motor that has two coils. Each produces 8v peak to peak @ 300rpm.
Did you test the motorgenerator output with a connected load?
A suitable load must simulate the needs of your drive motor.
Use 68R at each coil. Check the the voltage at 300RPM.
If it drops to much, like 5V or so, then switch resistors to 27R.

My drive motor needs about 3v @ 600mA
This sounds terribly inefficient. You need a motor with much lower no load current.
Most of your input is wasted while waiting for the pendulum to return.
Find an old battery operated tape recorder and try the motor inside. Those are
usually of good quality and have a very low no load current while producing pretty
good torque and speed. All to save batteries...

One of the motors I have scavenged, uses only 6mA no load at 800RPM at 8V.
That's only 0.048W and it's a lot less than your 1.8W input.
And it pretty much tells us that your design is far from from being close to OU.
Your only chance is to slash input power to your drive motor by 40 times or so.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: FatChance!!! on July 27, 2010, 04:28:07 PM
I can give you another tip for improvement.

Scrap the drive motor.
Mount a small electromagnet in the same area.
Add a small magnet to the pendulum. Ceramics is OK.
When the pendulum swings close to the electromagnet it gets
attracted to the iron core and procedes instead of falling backwards.
When it get top dead center you just give a small pulse to break the
attraction and there you have it, the pendulum falls into next loop.
The good part is that no power what so ever is used while waiting
for the pendulum to get into position.

The pulse can be self triggered by a small Reed switch, simple and good.
You only have to adjust voltage to break the attraction from the electromagnet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_switch
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 28, 2010, 05:14:18 AM
those are some great ideas man will do my best
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 29, 2010, 05:45:14 AM
@fatchance

can you send me pic of this recorder?

thanks,
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: FatChance!!! on July 30, 2010, 08:23:50 AM
No, I have no pics, I have scraped the recorder parts a long time ago.
But I can update you with new fresh motor numbers.
I tested my motor yesterday at 8V to get precise readings.
It uses 4mA at 8V = 32mW, while spinning at 1020 RPM.

0.032W vs 1.8W at no-load.
I do think you need go digging for old recorders and test their motors.
Please have in mind that all motors will use more power at load, aka kicking the pendulum.

Anyway, I can't see your device having the slightest chance of harvesting gravity power.
All gain from the pendulum falling down, is spent when swinging back up to the spin wheel.
You will make the device spin just nicely by the help of a motor but any load to the pendulum
shaft will prohibit the pendulum from swinging back far enough for another kick.
Just to make it spin at shaft load, you must increase the pendulum falling speed by increasing
voltage and power to the motor kicker, and this pretty much nails it.
You will only see the motor input at the pendulum shaft. No overunity or gravity power here.
 
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on July 30, 2010, 04:01:39 PM
I would like to have those motors for other projects also, but I'm not sure I know what machine they come from. Your motor does have some awesome stats though!
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: mscoffman on July 30, 2010, 05:59:16 PM
No, I have no pics, I have scraped the recorder parts a long time ago.
But I can update you with new fresh motor numbers.
I tested my motor yesterday at 8V to get precise readings.
It uses 4mA at 8V = 32mW, while spinning at 1020 RPM.

0.032W vs 1.8W at no-load.
I do think you need go digging for old recorders and test their motors.
Please have in mind that all motors will use more power at load, aka kicking the pendulum.


Yes...to confirm what you are saying.
Web link picture for recognition only;

http://www.radioshack.com/product/index.jsp?productId=2103597

---

Battery Life Spec for Recorder:
Battery Features

Battery Type                     Product    
Chemistry                         Alkaline    
Size                                 C    
Voltage                            1.5 Volts    
Battery Average Run Time    45 HOURS    

These capstan motors often have electrical connections on back
to produce pulses for something called a velocity control servo to
set RPM's to a fixed setpoint.

:S:MarkSCoffman
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on August 01, 2010, 06:55:05 PM
ok, that makes more sense now

thanks a lot
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: FatChance!!! on August 02, 2010, 08:44:19 AM
@lespaul109

What makes sense?
The motor advice or my explanation of no excess energy?
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: lespaul109 on August 02, 2010, 05:49:20 PM
The motor advice
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: FatChance!!! on August 02, 2010, 09:30:01 PM
The motor advice
That's good but did you read and understand my explanation how your pendulum contrapment works?
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: conradelektro on August 16, 2010, 07:33:02 PM
just 2 cents, trying to harness the gravity power on a longer shaft. The setup seems to work, now lets do some measurement to see if Milkovic and Chalkalis together can do some usefull work.
any idea ?
Good night
Laurent
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr69L9fJpY4

@Laurent

Very nice Milkovic pendulum and a clever way of driving it.

But I do not understand how you are driving the Chalkalis wheel. In the video you say that there is small motor? Would you mind to explain that?


What to do with the "NOD" of the Milkovic pendulum lever:

Milkovic suggests in two of his patents to convert the "nod" into electricity by moving a magnet in relation to a spool.

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Patenti/Patent8.jpg
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Patenti/Patent3.jpg
( http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/PatentiEng.html )

If the "nod" (at the end of the lever, where it strikes the confinement) is strong, one could move a very massive and powerful neodymium magnet (shaped like a rod) in and out of a big spool. The magnet induces an alternating current into the spool which could be rectified with a full diode bridge (and a big smoothing electrolyte capacitor) into fairly good DC.

Measuring the DC Voltage over a resistor could allow to calculate the electric power generated. Of course, this "dynamo" has losses, may be only an efficiency of about 60%. But it would give a rough indication of how close on comes to "unity".

Imagine a horse-head-pump as used to pump oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumpjack, where the travelling valve is the magnet and around it not the oil pipe, but the spool.

I hope one can understand this cryptic way of putting it.

Greetings, Conrad
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: woopy on August 17, 2010, 03:12:38 PM
Hi Conrad

this set up is a test to see how i could power the Chalkalis assymetric weight.

So i simply took one of my other pulse motor test. I enclose here a video where you can see this motor working and the shematic if you want to replicate.

Than i simply remade a rotor without the 6 magnets but only 2 bigger and glued on one side of the rotor. So these 2 magnets are so to say a selfmotorising pendulum.

I did not try to test any output power at the end of the lever. But i think a solenoid and a magnet could be a good solution, as per the Milkovic's patent you mentionned.

Hopes this help

good luck

Laurent

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjzLKp8bReQ
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: conradelektro on August 17, 2010, 04:54:22 PM
Than i simply remade a rotor without the 6 magnets but only 2 bigger and glued on one side of the rotor. So these 2 magnets are so to say a selfmotorising pendulum.

Laurent

Even more impressive than I imagined.

You got rid of the ungainly vertical lever of the Milcovic pendulum and you replaced it with a very efficiently driven unbalanced wheel (pulse motor principle). Very compact and an amazingly smooth running machine. It runs like clockwork and like all good ideas, it looks so simple.

Great stuff, I feel the urge to replicate your set up.

Does anybody have an idea how efficient it is (as a dynamo) to move a powerful magnet in and out of a big spool?

You see the slow speed and the relatively short stroke of the nod
(in Laurent's video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lr69L9fJpY4),
is this a big draw back for the dynamo effect?

Greetings, Conrad

P.S.: Why does it always happen? I do something (like now I play with Joule Thieves and self made batteries), and then I see something intriguing which lets me drop what I am doing and I start something new. (And of course, nothing gets ever finished!)
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: woopy on August 17, 2010, 05:21:54 PM
Hehe Conrad

just for thinking

Imagine that you will power your JT with your self made battery, than the JT recharge a supercap ,which recharges a battery which powers a pulse motor which power a Milko pendulum which power a solenoid ,which of course charge a battery and by doing this you can recycle the kickback energy of the pulse motor to recharge another battery which can power a Garry stanley motor and your electric bike and ............

So you see don't worry about having an open mind and be interested in all these very interesting stuff. As we are not pro and have the great chance not to have to obligatory get results, my advice is try, try try and have great fun. An wy not once perhaps a big surprise.

Good luck

Laurent
Title: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: w32 on September 12, 2010, 12:13:46 PM
Hello world,
Once again I will remind you that I am neither Mr.Milkovic’s or Mr.Chalkalis’s or anyone else’s attorney, but anyone reading the following posts can understand that the results of my interventions are beneficial for everyone.
For example, after my post No #206 (07-29-2010) http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5957-f-m-chalkalis-gravity-system-donation-7.html#post105788 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5957-f-m-chalkalis-gravity-system-donation-7.html#post105788) in energetic forum and the reply No #207 of Mr. Matthew Jones appeared a statement on PEWiki’s page on Mr. Feltenberger saying that “It is basically a commercially-available version of Milkovic's secondary oscillation technology.” http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Feltenberger_Pendulum_by_Gravitational_Energy_Corporation (http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Feltenberger_Pendulum_by_Gravitational_Energy_Corporation)
Here are some of my thoughts I would like to share with you:
Mr. Rickoff ‘s references on the Swinging Gym confirms the operating principle of Mr. Chalkalis Device.
The properties of the flywheel and wide range of its use is something we all know. Mr. Matthew Jones in his experiment (post No #214) http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5957-f-m-chalkalis-gravity-system-donation-8.html#post106755 (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5957-f-m-chalkalis-gravity-system-donation-8.html#post106755) confirms that Mr.Chalkalis 60⁰ triangle is superior compared to common flywheel and in my humble opinion we’ll see it pretty soon in use by industries.
I myself did another experiment, using a spring scale to count the needed force in order to complete a rotation of the pendulum.
In the first case, counting from the center of the 50 kg weight at 51cm on the arm and starting at “8 minutes to 12 o’clock” the scale, shows that 20 kg of force are needed in order to complete the rotation.
In the second case however, when pulling from the end of the arm (lever) at 1.12cm the spring scale shows that only 4.8 kg of force are needed in order to complete the rotation.
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?d282aa13e2.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/image.php?d282aa13e2.jpg)

Mr. Chalkalis had the genius idea to add external energy in order to expliot gravity as well as a brilliant driving system to the most ideal point. For that alone he deserves our congratulations on his contribution on the development of overunity.
In a personal correspondence with Mr. Chalkalis, he expressed his query but also the bitterness about the fact that in various websites, the prevailing opinions are, almost always, of the same individuals while most of the rest tolerate them by keeping silent.
He actually said: “I donated my innovation and I asked for the contribution of anyone that may help to develop and make it useful. I never expected that I would be criticized so hard for that action.”
He also added that he cannot understand how is it possible to have the final word on such matters, people with extreme views and people who have built their career by selling books of the works of poor living and deceased inventors.
Unfortunately I do not have the chance to build a proper clone replica of the system but I am pretty sure that the foundations of Mr F.M.Chalkalis’s invention are of great importance to the exploitation of gravity and I believe that they will find their place in history.
W32
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: Paul-R on September 12, 2010, 12:56:33 PM
I believe that they will find their place in history.
This website is about people who simply wish to cooperate and give to the world,
rather then for those with egos.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: Ted Ewert on September 12, 2010, 05:22:53 PM
Hello world,...
W32
After many years of work, Mr Chalkalis selflessly gave to the world the results of his endeavors. He trumpeted this device as an "energy multiplier", and it was going to solve the energy crisis. What was the secret?
Well, this "energy multiplier" consisted of nothing more than a rotating pendulum, which in its present form created no extra energy, exhibited no unusual properties and multiplied nothing.
I have done some experiments with this device. Sure enough, it goes around in a circle just like Chalkalis demonstrated. Unfortunately, it does little else.
Quote
He actually said: “I donated my innovation and I asked for the contribution of anyone that may help to develop and make it useful. I never expected that I would be criticized so hard for that action.”
What horseshit! He claimed to have a device that multiplied energy, not that he needed help with a stalled project. This is the crux of the matter. He offered no evidence when asked for proof of his claims. He wouldn't answer any technical questions, he substantiated nothing, yet whined incessantly about how everybody was mean to him.
A rotating pendulum is anything but new. Milkovic shows how this energy can be transfered and used effectively. Milkovic also beat him to the punch about placement of the drive mechanism near the top of the downward swing, so he doesn't get credit for that one.  All Chalkalis really offers is the 60 degree configuration as his innovation. That's interesting, but hardly earth shaking. 
Why don't you ask Chalkalis why he doesn't put a simple alternator on the axle of his pendulum to see how much power it "multiplies"? Somehow I doubt you'll ever get an answer for that one.

Ted
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: spider4re on January 06, 2011, 09:58:06 PM
have there been any successful attempts to replicate this? It looks simple to replicate and with the weight spinning around it looks like it would be able to power a generator to sustain the drive motors along with additional load. I am surprised there hasn't been more activity on this one?!?!
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: Omnibus on January 07, 2011, 01:15:58 AM
@Ted Ewert,

Quote
I have done some experiments with this device. Sure enough, it goes around in a circle just like Chalkalis demonstrated. Unfortunately, it does little else.

What else? Does your device go around in a circle at a given rpm value without spinning down? If it does, show it. Otherwise, don't even bother to mention it.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: MrMag on January 07, 2011, 02:03:00 AM
LMAO. Omni, the post is 4 months old. What, No newer post are available to whine about?
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: Omnibus on January 07, 2011, 02:10:45 AM
LMAO. Omni, the post is 4 months old. What, No newer post are available to whine about?

spam
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: MrMag on January 07, 2011, 02:20:02 AM
Not spam. I just wanted you to see that you were whining about a 4 month old post.
You need to go back that far to find posts to complain about.
looser..
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: Omnibus on January 07, 2011, 02:40:40 AM
Not spam. I just wanted you to see that you were whining about a 4 month old post.
You need to go back that far to find posts to complain about.
looser..

You're spamming the forum, loser. Loser, clown, loser.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: MrMag on January 07, 2011, 02:54:17 AM
You're spamming the forum, loser. Loser, clown, loser.

ROFLMAO. Sticks and stones. Grow up Omni. Go read a book.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: Omnibus on January 07, 2011, 03:15:50 AM
ROFLMAO. Sticks and stones. Grow up Omni. Go read a book.

spam
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: MrMag on January 07, 2011, 04:03:55 AM
good come back.   ;D
Title: F.M.Chalkalis Energy Multiplier 2011
Post by: w32 on June 29, 2011, 08:47:48 PM
Hello World,
Like you I’m a dreamer of a better future.
Obviously through free energy, things would be a lot different.
No more wars for gasoline and petrol. No more polluting planet earth.
But the system maintaining the profit out of controlled energy is way more organized than one could ever possibly imagine. Just take a minute and think of all the interests that would be affected if people had free energy.
Now think that the source of free energy is Gravity. As Mr.Tutanka says about Mr. chalkalis’s invention (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/5957-f-m-chalkalis-gravity-system-donation-8.html#post142514). 
In a world that science is improving and old facts are proven wrong or obsolete every day, we are still so absolute about some things.
Newton (1643 – 1727) described universal gravitation and the three laws of motion, which dominated the scientific view of the physical universe for the next three centuries… (Wikipedia)
For your consideration I will mention that The first electric bulb light  was made in 1800 by Humphry Davy. In my humble opinion he would have probably been accused of using witchcraft in 17th century.
A year ago I found out about Mr. F.M.chalkalis Energy Multiplier and since then I’m following its course.
Today, with the help of many people we actually have the scientific documentation that proves Mr. Chalkalis claims of Over-Unity.
Proofs,  that should make us reconsider or knowledge on physics we have been taught.
Yet I see none saying a word about it.
So I decided that the least I can do is to inform anyone I can. Hopping that somehow people, will see and realize that free energy exists and is free for everyone on our planet.
This is the update on Mr. F.M.Chalkalis’s Energy Multiplier  from June 25, 2011 (http://chalkalis.blogspot.com/2011/06/big-thank-you.html).
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: w32 on September 18, 2011, 06:40:31 PM
Hello World,
Keeping my promise on informing you of any news on F.M.Chalkalis Energy multiplier,
I would like to bring to your attention the following letter that was posted on Mr Chalkalis page about two week ago.

Link:  chalkalis.blogspot.com  (http://chalkalis.blogspot.com)   Friday, September 9, 2011.

Read and decide on your own.
After all, it is a responsibility and obligation to our children to keep our minds open and decide for our own what is truth.

W32

“Un-Learning is a fundamental requirement of Innovative Thinking.”
A.Kerkar
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: knovos on October 09, 2011, 09:00:40 PM
No serious replications yet seen on this forum. The design of Mr. Chalkalis is probable to big for most of us, but why not trying to replicate it on a smaller scale ?!. You can get all his drawings on his blog http://chalkalis.blogspot.com/ (http://chalkalis.blogspot.com/)
I'm going to try to replicate his device using his specifications, as much as possible, for the materials I have available. I am sick and tired of all the thoughts and math discussions, mixing it sometimes with other devices. Lets build the damn thing and see what comes out. Then we have something to discuss. So, now you all can sit back and wait for me. If I fail, I will accept the title 'loser' no problem.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: w32 on October 15, 2011, 07:21:40 PM
Dear Knovos,
Since you are following the F.M.Chalkalis thread, you must already know I am a supporter, because I honestly believe it can change our world. Unfortunately I do not have the ability to build a copy myself.
Reading your post:
No serious replications yet seen on this forum. The design of Mr. Chalkalis is probable to big for most of us, but why not trying to replicate it on a smaller scale ?!. You can get all his drawings on his blog http://chalkalis.blogspot.com/ (http://chalkalis.blogspot.com/)
I'm going to try to replicate his device using his specifications, as much as possible, for the materials I have available. I am sick and tired of all the thoughts and math discussions, mixing it sometimes with other devices. Lets build the damn thing and see what comes out. Then we have something to discuss. So, now you all can sit back and wait for me. If I fail, I will accept the title 'loser' no problem.
I would like to add that:
As long it concerns smaller scale devices (smaller weights), you should read of Mr.Chalkalis ‘s advices on the mater.
Concerning the possibility you may be called a “loser” as you say, I would like to encourage you that if you follow the instructions and specifications firmly it would be impossible to fail.
Even more, if you google it you will find that there are confirmations from Universities about Mr. F.M.Chalkalis device functionality and even technical data tablet with COP based on the prototype.
I have been studying this innovation for quite a time and I would be more than happy to contribute in your try with any help you might need.
The responsibility of proving that the F.M.Chalkalis device can be successfully copied is of great importance and I do wish you lots of strength.
PS.: You should build an enchased base and underpinned foundations because the forces are huge.

My Best Wishes
W32
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: knovos on October 15, 2011, 10:30:05 PM
Dear W32,

Thank you very much for your encouragement. Yes I know you are a big fan of mister Chalkalis his device. And yes, I have read as much as I can about all the information for building this device. This evening I made a start by making the first drawing for the smaller scale replication. I decided to make a replication that is 25% from the original. My first concerns are how to make two weights each 5711 gram and the motors that I want to use, maybe they are not strong enough. But that are problems that can be solved I'm sure. This device is really simple to build but it must be accurate in the dimensions. Yes the forces will be huge so maybe thats the reason why Mr.Chalkalis did not used bearings. Bearings are no problem I think as long as they are build for the forces. I really don't understand why there are no serious replications yet. Talk to you later.
Kind regards,
Knovos.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: JEJEHO on October 16, 2011, 12:30:58 PM
Dear All,

Please note , Chalkalis wheel cannot do big work. Because When the weights are falling down, due to the weights  are loosing there energy , the wheel can do a work. But when the weights are going up it cannot do the same work, becasue of the weights are gaining there  energy. so when it is connected to a generator, when the weights are falling down it can run the generator but when the weights are going up it cant.

Nixon
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: ae_vector on October 19, 2011, 09:51:28 AM
I might attempt to replicate a small scaled version of this (32.9%). Here is a screenshot of the spreadsheet I made calculating the power a scaled version can put out. You can change the parameters, like diameter of the device, rotational speed, weight on the device. The changeable parameters are highlighted yellow.

As you can see, at 60 rpm, the device will produce 33 watts with a 7 lbs combined weight. The scaled diameter of the device in the example is 29 inches, which is roughly the size of a large bike wheel and it is 32.9% (scale ratio) the size of the original. At higher rpms, weights, and diameters, it will obviously produce more power.

If we can rotate this device using only 10 watts at 60 rpm and take out only a fraction of the 33 watts, say 11 watts, then we may have a winner.

-brian
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: knovos on October 19, 2011, 12:30:32 PM

If we can rotate this device using only 10 watts at 60 rpm and take out only a fraction of the 33 watts, say 11 watts, then we may have a winner.

-brian
Thank you very much for your contribution. I can't wait for the results. I certainly going to use this excel sheet to check if the device that I build fits into these numbers. For those who are interested in the building of my device look at http://knovos-chalkalisreplication.blogspot.com/ (http://knovos-chalkalisreplication.blogspot.com/)
knovos
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: ae_vector on October 19, 2011, 06:36:02 PM
Thank you very much for your contribution. I can't wait for the results. I certainly going to use this excel sheet to check if the device that I build fits into these numbers. For those who are interested in the building of my device look at http://knovos-chalkalisreplication.blogspot.com/ (http://knovos-chalkalisreplication.blogspot.com/)
knovos

@knoves, You have a very nice build so far. 5711 g is around 12.6 lbs. Mine is at 7 lbs. I also have a 10 lbs weight set so I can try both. Looking forward to your results.

brian
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: Johnnybedos on October 20, 2011, 09:29:00 PM
Why don`t you use a massive fly Wheel for inertia ?
Dear All,

Please note , Chalkalis wheel cannot do big work. Because When the weights are falling down, due to the weights  are loosing there energy , the wheel can do a work. But when the weights are going up it cannot do the same work, becasue of the weights are gaining there  energy. so when it is connected to a generator, when the weights are falling down it can run the generator but when the weights are going up it cant.

Nixon
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: ae_vector on October 23, 2011, 06:54:23 PM
Thank you very much for your contribution. I can't wait for the results. I certainly going to use this excel sheet to check if the device that I build fits into these numbers. For those who are interested in the building of my device look at http://knovos-chalkalisreplication.blogspot.com/ (http://knovos-chalkalisreplication.blogspot.com/)
knovos

@knovos, I have been following your blog. Thanks for sharing your progress with pictures. I will post pictures as well on my progress. I have all the materials for the most part already.

One problem I see is the weights on your device. It seems like you just multiplied 0.25 to the original weight. But it should be less than that (for the dimensions it is OK to do this, but not for the weight.) For example, if you have 2x2x2 cm^3 block and you half the dimensions, you get 1x1x1 cm^3 block, but the weight is not half the weight, it is 1/8th the weight because you can fit eight 1x1x1 block in the 2x2x2 block. so instead of weighing 4kg (if original weight was 8kg), the block with half the dimension will only weigh 1kg. Hope that makes sense.

-brian
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: knovos on October 23, 2011, 11:21:57 PM
One problem I see is the weights on your device. It seems like you just multiplied 0.25 to the original weight. But it should be less than that (for the dimensions it is OK to do this, but not for the weight.) For example, if you have 2x2x2 cm^3 block and you half the dimensions, you get 1x1x1 cm^3 block, but the weight is not half the weight, it is 1/8th the weight because you can fit eight 1x1x1 block in the 2x2x2 block. so instead of weighing 4kg (if original weight was 8kg), the block with half the dimension will only weigh 1kg. Hope that makes sense.

-brian

O yes that make sense, thank you for this remark! I don't know how to handle with this problem. Is there somebody over here who can do the math for me. My design is 25% from the original design. The original has a 22mm 4,5 kilo outer copper tube, but how long is it and what is the inside diameter of the tube. Without the right math it will be a gambling machine, it will take tons of time to find out what the correct weights are for my design.
Very nice to know there is somebody else in the world who is also building this device. Can't wait to see your pictures. I have updated my blog with building the under construction.http://knovos-chalkalisreplication.blogspot.com/
regards,
Knovos.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: ae_vector on October 24, 2011, 02:42:01 AM
O yes that make sense, thank you for this remark! I don't know how to handle with this problem. Is there somebody over here who can do the math for me. My design is 25% from the original design. The original has a 22mm 4,5 kilo outer copper tube, but how long is it and what is the inside diameter of the tube. Without the right math it will be a gambling machine, it will take tons of time to find out what the correct weights are for my design.
Very nice to know there is somebody else in the world who is also building this device. Can't wait to see your pictures. I have updated my blog with building the under construction.http://knovos-chalkalisreplication.blogspot.com/
regards,
Knovos.

@Knovos, for the dimensions you are using (25%), the scaled weight of one ball should only be 357g (0.357kg). This weight is too small to produce significant power (only 50 Watts at 500 rpm). At 2kg balls (4kg for both) the power goes up to 270 Watts at 500 rpm (560mm diameter). This is why Chalkalis recommends building big like his, but the weights he is using might be too impractical/dangerous for us regular replicators like me.

So my suggestion is to use 2kg weights for the center weights (4kg total) and 0.4 kg (400g) for the outer perimeter tube, which is 1/5th the weight of one of the center weights. The ratio between one ball and the outer tube is about 0.20 or 20% or 1/5th. If you want to go heavier, just take 1/5th of the weight of one center weights (ball) you are using. I am using 1.5kg weights (3kg total) on mine. My diameter is bigger (30 inches vs 22 inches for yours) so I can get by with smaller weights.

-brian
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: ae_vector on October 24, 2011, 04:53:00 AM
Here's what I have so far. I just need to drill some holes. As you can see from the picture, it is 15 inches in radius (30 inch diameter). There are two 3.25 lbs weights (from an 8 lbs Nordictrack dumbbells) which are 6.8 inches from the axis. I plan to make the device adjustable from 24 inch to 30 inch diameter to test different scenarios. Surround the swing arms will be a 2x6 inch wooden frame approximately 3 feet wide by 3.5 feet tall with the axis of the swing arm in the middle of this frame. That way, I will have some safety protection should the weights dislodge from the swing arms. More pics to come.

-brian
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: onthecuttingedge2005 on October 24, 2011, 07:19:10 AM
Person number 1. Hey! Lets invent a gravity wheel!
Person number 2, Hey, Lets go for Broke!
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: knovos on October 24, 2011, 09:17:37 AM
@ae_vector Thank you very much for your help with the weight calculations. This gives me more understanding about this device. Now there is no delay in the building. I have done a lot of replications with no really big results. With this device I will be more than happy if it works. The power output must be more then goes in to make this device self running. I will go from there to make adjustments for more output or to make a bigger device. Your design looks really great! I like that holes in the arms to make adjustments, great job so far.
Knovos
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: w32 on October 24, 2011, 07:13:04 PM
Hello World,
I have studied this device enough to tell you that the external weight must be 10% of the summary that both main weights have together.
As well as that the driving system wheels (flywheels), must be 30% of the summary that the 2 main weights and the outer one have together.  (Without counting the blades or anything else from the system.)
By the way you should know that using smaller diameter on the driving system wheels, leads to less power consumption to drive the system. Without of course to alter the 30% ratio as mentioned before.  Also the elastics used on the flywheels should be soft and the elastics used as contact points on the top of the arc should be made from harder material.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand your arm (blade) is of total 300mm and according to your plans looks like you are going to place the center of the main weights at 15 cm.
On Mr.Chalkalis’s prototype we have arm length 1120mm and the center of main weights is placed on 510mm,  while the rest 610mm of the metal blade, calculating from the center of each disk, work as a lever.
So, I think should you need to add more length to the lever part of your blades.
Dear Knovos, I would like to apologize for the comments I made on the wooden parts. I didn’t realize that the weight is actually placed 15 cm from the shaft. Guess you wouldn’t have any problems working with such small miniature.
Best regards
W32
(PS: Person number 3. Hey! Lets do nothing coz if we do they say we ‘ll go Broke!)
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: knovos on October 24, 2011, 09:25:05 PM
@ae_vector We have got support from W32 who has studied this device for a long time I understand. I thank you for your suggestions but I will go for the best info there is for this device to achieve the best results. I am a little confused now. I will make the device as much as possible editable like the possibility to change the main weights and moving its position.

@W32 Thank you for popping in here again and help me/us out to make the right decisions.
My outer weight is on this moment 1125 gram on a 300 mm outer diameter. So if the weight of this part must be 10% of the 2 both main weights together then I get: 1125 x 9 / 2 = 5062.5 gram for each main weight. While building the swing part, the outer diameter increased from 280 to 300mm because of the extra copper tube that I added. The position of the main weights with 300mm should be 13.7cm (45.54% from the shaft).
 
Quote
So, I think should you need to add more length to the lever part of your blades.
This confuses me. If you think I have to ad more length. There must be an exact formula calculating from the prototype for smaller devices. The remark ae_vector made for the scaling factor for weights versus the scaling factor for dimensions make sense to me. My original sizes where 1125gram outer 5710gram each main weight. You don't have to apologize for anything I appreciate you want to help. I need some more clearance about the right formula.
What do we need to know first:
1. The outer weight for a smaller diameter
OR
2. The 2 main weights for a smaller diameter
I don't want to think about output watts on this moment. I want to think first to make the device work with the right dimensions/weights.
Kind regards,
Knovos
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: ae_vector on October 25, 2011, 03:10:15 AM
@knovos, your calculation for the location of your main weight is correct: 300 * 0.4554=137 mm (13.7 cm). But the equation for one center weight, if the outer weight is known is: 1125 = 0.1 * (w * 2) solving this equation 1125/0.2=w =5625 g for one center weight. That's very heavy for a small unit. Your would need a strong heavy frame. I would recommend getting rid of one of the copper tubes and halfing your center weight to about 2810 g. By the way, 20% or 1/5th of one center weight is the same as 10% of the sum of both weights.

-brian
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: ae_vector on October 25, 2011, 05:45:33 AM
Here's the frame for the swing arms. As I said earlier, it is about 3.5 feet tall and 3 feet wide. I will put horizontal cross-beams in the middle and mount the bearings at the center of the crossbeams where the axis of the rotor arms will be. At the bottom, I made some space to put weights for securing it down during rotation, and maybe strap some car batteries at the sides.

-brian
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: knovos on October 25, 2011, 08:11:23 PM
@ae_vector Thanks for your suggestions, I will go for the option to remove one tube. Like you said the weight is now already very heavy for such a small swing part. Your under construction looks good, simple and with the extra weights on the bottom it should be solid enough.
Keep on going!
Knovos
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: ae_vector on October 25, 2011, 10:03:39 PM
@Knovos, yes, even with my 1.5kg center weight it seems heavy, especially if it's rotating 300 rpms. Here's some pics of my outer weight. It is a 1/2 inch square tube I manually bent using the center weights bolted on the side of the frame for leverage. I plan on covering the swing arms with the circle cardboard you see. This is to prevent accidental severing of my limbs if I happen to slip between the swing arms and the brace. This device is like a guillotine if you're not careful.

-brian
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: ae_vector on October 25, 2011, 10:41:27 PM
@w32 or @knovos, Do you know if the 42 degrees (where the drive wheels are located) is 42 degrees from the horizontal or is it 42 degrees from vertical? Here's a picture to show what I mean.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: knovos on October 26, 2011, 12:27:25 AM
@ ae_vector Very nice clean building! I have welded the shaft to the disk and rotated by hand to see how it runs. Not bad at all, but oh boy what a tremendous forces already, only with 505gram outer weight and with such a low speed. We need to do all we can to make this device solid and save. I don't know from where the 42 degrees for the drive wheels should be. I hope W32 shows up for some help. The next step for me is to build the heavy weights with layers of lead.
Knovos
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: ae_vector on November 01, 2011, 07:51:41 PM
I tried an electromagnetic pulse driver for the device but it wasn't strong  enough to pull it through the next rotation. The coils are pretty weak. They are the ones I used for my Romero-Muller motor. I could make bigger coils, but I think I'll use driver wheels next. I'll make a timing disc and use the hall sensor driver circuit to power an automotive relay which will power the driver motor.

-brian
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: awais_x on November 01, 2011, 08:26:13 PM
Amazing and nice looking site please love it and make more effective.. keep it up baby..
website development (http://www.legitwebdesign.com.au/)
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: knovos on November 01, 2011, 11:41:09 PM
@ae_vector Nice try. Maybe this system work when the swing is at top speed. At higher speeds the needed input power must be much lesser, but with a hand spin that must be simple to find out. I have two little motors out of old battery hand drills and building on the construction. Not so simple to do when it also must be adjustable. We will get there.
Knovos.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: ae_vector on November 04, 2011, 12:10:04 AM
Here's a new video with motor rpm control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAIFng6Xlc0
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: knovos on November 04, 2011, 11:52:31 AM
Great work. You need to do something to make the construction more stable, but I understand you want to make it run first ;D I would love to get that cirquit to harvest the power at the right moment to a generator. This would make the device much more efficient. I hope to make my device running this weekend. Should be great when there are more builders to join us, but we have to come with some good in/output results, self looping and maximum overunity.
regards, Knovos
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: ae_vector on November 06, 2011, 04:23:14 PM
Great work. You need to do something to make the construction more stable, but I understand you want to make it run first ;D I would love to get that cirquit to harvest the power at the right moment to a generator. This would make the device much more efficient. I hope to make my device running this weekend. Should be great when there are more builders to join us, but we have to come with some good in/output results, self looping and maximum overunity.
regards, Knovos

@Knovos, I visit your blog page often to see your pictures/progress. It helps me to get ideas and keeps me motivated or inspired. Good idea on the adjustable drive wheel position. One suggestion is instead of using two little wheels you can use two larger diameter "flywheel" type wheels. It should be about 32.8% the weight of your center weights according to design. But that may be too heavy for your setup. And also use just one motor to drive one of the wheels. The other wheel is not connected to a motor, but it should be freewheeling. Also, instead of having contact with the whole length of the tube as it spins, it should only have contact at the ends of the tube, so put some "bumps" at both ends of the tube in contact with the wheels. The rest of the tube should not touch the wheel. So you should hear two bump sounds as it rotates one revolution. Watch his video and my video, you can hear two "bump" sounds as it spins one revolution. If you look at Chalkalis design plans, it shows that only the rubber parts located at the ends of the tube only touches the wheels. The drive wheels are spread out wider than the tube diameter so it never touches the tube between those rubber "bumps".  That is how mine is set up right now.

Great progress @Knovos! Keep us motivated!

-@AE_vector
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: knovos on November 06, 2011, 09:55:47 PM
@ AE_Vector Thank you very much for your remarks! I overlooked totally the fact that the wheels don't touch the outer tube the whole time. I did saw that rubber parts but thought they where for guiding the tube between the drive wheels. Thats why I did not used them. Now I understand they are fundamental to get the device to work how it should be. When I looked this day again at your video I saw you are driving just one wheel.

I spend many hours this day in my garage to find out how to go further now and build a drive system which drives the swing arm from above the tube instead of from the sides. That works but I have to redesign it now so it bumps two times. Maybe I have to go back to side tube pushing but I will first stick to this method. Another problem that I have is the motor. My two small ones are to weak and I don't have the money to buy a decent DC motor like you have. I am testing with my electric drill on the grid (220volt). For testing that is ok but I have to get something else.

With bad materials the progress will be slowing down for me now, I have to get motivation from your side to keep on going ;D
Regards Knovos
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: majkl on November 07, 2011, 09:12:03 PM
new Chalkalis video:
http://www.magistrala.cz/freeenergy/2011/11/07/fmchalkalis-driving-system-changes-2011/
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: ae_vector on November 07, 2011, 11:19:04 PM
Here's my Chalkalis EM Replication with generator on system but not attached to the shaft:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WZQmjBNZuw
Title: F.M.Chalkalis Energy Multiplier
Post by: w32 on November 08, 2011, 04:24:49 PM
Hello World,
keeping my promise i am bringing you the latest news from Mr. F.M.Chalkalis blog.

"Sunday, November 6, 2011
"He who thinks freely, thinks well" a quote taken from Rigas Feraios
There were moments, while reading some articles and posts, when I felt that this world just doesn’t deserve to be given anything for free.
These were moments of great disappointment and discouragement from the behavior of some people.  But still, my personal beliefs for a better future, prevailed.
And as it proves there are many more like me out there, sharing the same beliefs.
I am saluting all the purely thinking fighters for Overunity.
The ones having the power to form their own opinion about what is really happening and do not just follow the opinions and directions of some columnists  or organizations that  “allegedly”  care for our well being.
In the following links you can find out on your own what I am talking about as well as Who are some of these gentlemen that supposedly represent the struggle for a better world.
http://www.politaia.org/freie-energie-2/energiewende-ein-brief-an-greenpeace/comment-page-1/#comment-5073   
http://www.panacea-bocaf.org/energysuppression.htm 
Just search on your own “who is behind free energy organizations”

As far it concerns these still negatively commenting, I think it is not necessary to repeat the undisputed scientific certifications about its functionality.
Unfortunately, due to lack of specialized electrical knowledge as well as lack of the necessary funds required to order the appropriate pulse generator, I have not yet been able to harvest power out of the device, which though is calculated to be more than 70% usable. 

These are the latest data and development:

CHANGES IN THE DRIVING SYSTEM
The driving system is placed at 36° degrees and the first pulse is given while the second weight is located at the 1° degree. As a result, there is Smoother operation, almost silent and impressively less power consumption in the driving system.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-HuiYAGMqI&feature=player_embedded

ONE MORE ENERGY OUTPUT POINT OF THE SYSTEM
At number 4 of the comments I wrote, I say that special attention should be given to the base and the elastics.
Later I realized that my calculations «300 RPM x 50 kg = 15000 kg / min which means 900 tons per hour » were wrong. I did not calculate that at the 300 RPM of the existing prototype, the main weight is rotating at a speed of 57,650 Km / h and the external weight is rotating (running) at a speed of 126,604 Km / h.
Therefore  the pulse pressures are much higher and at 300RPM exceed the 25.000 N
Witnessing the size of that force made me realize that we can get output energy from another point of the system as well. Without changing any of the previous data.
Since then, I have conducted various experiments, trying to convert these pulse pressures to a rotary motion, but with no successful results so far. Other, larger forces, appear in the system, changing the expected behavior.
Some friends advise the use of a piezoelectric system for the collection of that power. Insisting and emphasizing, that this energy alone is enough.
Unfortunately I have no knowledge of this technology, nor access to it.

This innovation has been donated and belongs to humanity.
Hopping to the help of Every One of Us for further development.
In the past I have written about who I am and how I work. I have never asked for anything personally.
A kind request.  It would be great, if anyone willing and able to help in any way to this effort, would communicate through email.

Fotios M. Chalkalis"


You can find the letter and all links on chalkalis.blogspot.com
W32 ;)
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: w32 on November 08, 2011, 04:35:15 PM
Dear Knovos and AeVector,
I do congratulate you for your hard work as well as your enthusiasm.
Though, I have to say you are not paying much attention to the specifications.
1)I doubt that your frames will manage to hold the forces even in such smaller scale replicas
2)You have more that 20% losses because of your NON aerodynamic shapes.
3)Mr. Chalkalis uses two pulses on every rotation, which is the 085% of the perimeter
4)The elastics on the driving system have to be with air tubes, not solid, in order to be soft enough.
We must agree with Mathew Jones, because in order to calculate the actual power we must use the new laws of mechanodynamics.

Best regard
W32
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: knovos on November 09, 2011, 08:21:47 PM
Dear Knovos and AeVector,
I do congratulate you for your hard work as well as your enthusiasm.
Though, I have to say you are not paying much attention to the specifications.
1)I doubt that your frames will manage to hold the forces even in such smaller scale replicas
2)You have more that 20% losses because of your NON aerodynamic shapes.
3)Mr. Chalkalis uses two pulses on every rotation, which is the 085% of the perimeter
4)The elastics on the driving system have to be with air tubes, not solid, in order to be soft enough.
We must agree with Mathew Jones, because in order to calculate the actual power we must use the new laws of mechanodynamics.

Best regard
W32

I don't have the money to buy the perfect materials. I have to work with what I have left over from older projects or collected materials pulled out of old machinery and stuff. I understand your concerns but I try to make a replication that works that have at least some overunity. From that point the time comes to make improvements or even build a second better one. Until now there is nobody who build this device and did correct measurements. We simply have to try and see first. I don't understand how you can calculate more than 20% of losses caused by the non aerodynamic shapes I used. You have only seen some pictures.
Knovos.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: knovos on November 12, 2011, 11:23:58 PM
Some progress made on my blog http://knovos-chalkalisreplication.blogspot.com/ (http://knovos-chalkalisreplication.blogspot.com/)
and also a first video with first impressions http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=ruondAGJ6Bs/ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_profilepage&v=ruondAGJ6Bs/) Noting special, next steps are to make an efficient generator and later on the replacement of the AC motor with a DC motor.
Knovos.
Title: Re: Chalkalis Gravity Wheel
Post by: w32 on January 18, 2012, 07:27:18 PM
Hello World & Happy New Year!
I would like to inform you about the 2012 news on Mr. F.M.Chalkalis's Energy Multiplier. I would suggest you read the letter and then watch the video.


Friday, January 13, 2012
ETHELOTIFLIA
(Willful Blindness)
Happy New Year.
My wish for 2012 is for everyone to have good Health and that there be Peace and Love which unfortunately lessen more and more everyday in our civilization.
The congratulation messages of some people that even equate me to the great Leonardo Da Vinci give me the strength to continue my work.
I did not have the opportunity to study physics. Maybe if I had studied I would have never got involved with this matter.
For many years now, there are scientists shouting that Newton's theory is wrong.
I have also proved that in practice using my invention. Because in my opinion, in this theory the centrifugal force is misestimated and the effect (the phenomenon) of the lever disregarded, as well as Gravity.

Dear fellow humans, considering the amount of information exchange and communication available today, e.g. internet, it really makes me sad to realize that the Willful blindness of a large proportion of humanity   place us in a situation, worse than it was in the Middle Ages. They are prisoners of what they have been taught being unable to think on their own.
What I do not understand and troubles me, is that great scientists got to the point of searching the God in CERN and yet they could not change fundamental errors in physics we are being taught for more than 300 years now.
Also, I do not understand the other scientists and leaders of this world, who supposedly care for alternative energy, yet all the various development programs, adopt only solar, wind, bio-fuels, etc. ignoring Gravity, the endless energy to which we owe our existence as written by great scientists such as Stephen Hawking,  F.M. Kanarev  and others.
 
These are the latest development updates:

1.    Part of  Dr. Kanarev 's  article “ABOUT THE PERPETUAL MOTION MACHINE”, dedicated to the young mechanics of the 10th  All-Russian Congress. August 2011.
 Link to the document on Google Docs (http://"https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B6jgkZ778EeOYTZiMDUzNDUtZTU2Ny00N2ZlLTkyZmItMmU5OTNkNzRhYjE1&hl=en_US")
(You can download the document in PDF format from within google docs link by clicking  Ctrl+S )
 
2.    As you can see in the video, the driving system functions with one motor and a single flywheel. Providing the same results with a lot less consumption. It would be ideal with the appropriate tire profile.

3.    In the video you will watch an experiment in which practically, without any electro motion and any need of mathematics, I believe it is being understood, even from the more skeptics, that our system has nothing in common with the ones it is being compared to. Perhaps they will even be able to snap out of their taught physics lethargy and realize the advantages of the triangular shape, the lever and the addition of external pulse motion that make our system  functional.
Also It is clearly visible that:
•    With the use of two toothpicks, applied at 510mm distance from the shaft, we can rotate the 50 kg pendulum.
•    The spectacular amount of force cutting a 30x60mm wooden board while the second weight is still located at 32,6 degrees. The wooden board is placed at a distance of 190mm from the shaft, where we have the Maximum power. That equals to only 11% of the force, torque we had at that given moment.  Now, consider the size of the force, torque on 180 degrees plus the momentum of centrifugal force on higher rpm.

4.    Output energy, as I wrote before, has to be harvested from the main shaft. Starting when the second weight passes the 0 degree point and ending when the second weight again passes the 180 degrees.
In the example with the painted tube (cylinder) on the main shaft, you may see another way of how I imagine a pulse generator with the magnets build on the main shaft and passing the coils only during the falling. The size of the generator can be increased by adding more magnets in length. Every millimeter away from the diameter of the main shaft is as a loss.
5.    Regarding smaller size constructions, I believe that reading the brilliant example used by Hughe at "Nexus" (http://"http://nexus.2012info.ca/forum/showthread.php?7829-PENDULUM-F-M-Chalkalis-mathematical-proof-of-the-device-s-OU-operation") is the best way to make you understand why in the past I wrote that if my space allowed it, I would have used heavier weights or longer arm or even both and certainly longer lever. 

All efforts are welcome in our fight but in smaller size constructions the results (the effect) will be invisible causing disappointment and misleading evidence. Please do not derogate from the specifications.
Good Luck to everyone.

Fotis Miltiadis Chalkalis
Video: http://www.youtube.com/F.M.Chalkalis 2012 Update (http://"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OX1OadXQWus&feature")
__________________
Best wishes to all
W32[/b]