Open discussion for projects on this forum.

[citfta]

Hi again UFO,

If I understand you correctly your biggest complaint about Ron't build is where he chose to put the pivot point or fulcrum point. If I am wrong about that then please correct my misunderstanding.

You are asserting that moving the pivot to the left will allow the off-balance wheel to exert more force on whatever we are using as an output. I agree with that. But what you don't seem to be getting although a couple of us have tried to explain it to you is that more force equals less movement and also means slower movement of the output end of the arm.

As I know you know from your work with generators you have to have a minimum speed for the generator to put out useful power. So even if you have more force it does no good if it is moving too slow to produce any power. Now to get the speed back up we then have to gear the output back up which will load the beam back down again the same as if the pivot were moved back to the right. It is all a matter of simple gear ratios.

It might interest you to know that Ron tried some different gear ratios to see if he could get the efficiency to go up. The interesting thing is if I recall correctly the different gear ratios from the motor to the out of balance wheel and the different ratios from the counter shaft to the output flywheel actually changed the efficiency very little. The change was so small the margin of error in measurement may have been all it was.

What is also surprising to me is that as far as I can tell no one seems to be paying any attention to the video Ron did where he measured the input current under different loads. I will admit I can't explain that but the testing is right there for all to see. Somehow when the beam gets loaded that reflects back to the drive motor. It has been almost 40 years since I took a college physics class but I don't recall any of the principles of physics that would explain why restricting the beam from moving would cause the motor to see a higher load. The motor is only spinning the out of balance wheel. But not allowing that wheel to move up and down freely does cause the motor current to go up. Maybe bistander can give us some insight into that as his math skills are much sharper than mine. The conservation of energy seems to be coming into play through some mechanism here that is not obvious.

Take care all,
Carroll

[yaro1776]

Hello to all,

I have been following this thread with interest and am entertained by the ongoing discussions.

One of the items that has caught my attention is the seeming confusion related to weight and mass used in calculations of Kinetic energy and Rotational energy. The common units of Kg and Lbs are normally used in day to day conversation and trade, but in energy calculations mass is really the weight (Newtons or Lbs) divided by g (9.8m/sec^2 or 32.17ft/sec^2). The correct terms for mass are kilograms or slugs.

Therefore, a 10 lb weight has a mass of 0.311 slugs (10/32.17) with the latter value used in the F=mv^2/2 and other calculations, and it is apparent that the result is diminished from just using pounds as mass.

For kilograms the energy results become trickier to avoid confusion and calculation error, hence the term Newtons for Force. Best to be careful here.

BTW - The unbalanced rotating wheel utilizes the centrifugal force of the eccentric load F= (mv^2)/r as the driving force to raise and lower the lever arm. One can visualize an unbalanced tire with a very dead shock absorber. There are additional potential energy sources and withdrawals from the lowering and raising of the weighted lever arm assembly. This force is sinusoidal in nature. In all an engaging straightforward mess.

Have fun with this,
Yaro

[Ufopolitics]

Hi again UFO,

If I understand you correctly your biggest complaint about Ron't build is where he chose to put the pivot point or fulcrum point. If I am wrong about that then please correct my misunderstanding.

Hello again Citfta,

I could say that was the "primary" one...and are not "complaints"...just corrections based on the original work device by K.H.

Second part relates to the positioning of the Motor, hence the length of the V belt.

As it was shown previously in ALL K.H. Designs, motor is right next to the Imbalanced Wheel, on the longest side arm.

You are asserting that moving the pivot to the left will allow the off-balance wheel to exert more force on whatever we are using as an output. I agree with that. But what you don't seem to be getting although a couple of us have tried to explain it to you is that more force equals less movement and also means slower movement of the output end of the arm.

All I was saying, is that Ron had approx to a 1:1 Ratio, and if my simple perspective calculations do not fail, I could say he has more length on the left arm than the right side where imbalanced wheel is.

And it is not about getting more force, but finding a balance point (always keeping the longer side to Imbalanced Wheel) between the imbalanced wheel side and whatever he attaches on left side to produce work.

A movable (sliding) mechanism on the pivot point/lever and easy locking up arm, would help save time and work.

Look at below images...how counterweights and levers, working together and opposite, could be adjusted in order to ease the Prime Mover's work...

As I know you know from your work with generators you have to have a minimum speed for the generator to put out useful power. So even if you have more force it does no good if it is moving too slow to produce any power. Now to get the speed back up we then have to gear the output back up which will load the beam back down again the same as if the pivot were moved back to the right. It is all a matter of simple gear ratios.

Yes, I realize that, but also realize that on K.H. set up we have several spinning wheels at different RPM's...

It might interest you to know that Ron tried some different gear ratios to see if he could get the efficiency to go up. The interesting thing is if I recall correctly the different gear ratios from the motor to the out of balance wheel and the different ratios from the counter shaft to the output flywheel actually changed the efficiency very little. The change was so small the margin of error in measurement may have been all it was.

Of course Citfta, just look at his motor distance from wheel...figure the loss would be because of so far apart, than any changes on pulleys or gears he could do.

If he gets his motor closer then a bigger Pulley on motor versus a smaller one would make a difference.

Think geared Flywheel and Starter Motor Gear Ratio on any vehicle?...how close is that starter motor gear to Flywheel?

What is also surprising to me is that as far as I can tell no one seems to be paying any attention to the video Ron did where he measured the input current under different loads. I will admit I can't explain that but the testing is right there for all to see. Somehow when the beam gets loaded that reflects back to the drive motor. It has been almost 40 years since I took a college physics class but I don't recall any of the principles of physics that would explain why restricting the beam from moving would cause the motor to see a higher load. The motor is only spinning the out of balance wheel. But not allowing that wheel to move up and down freely does cause the motor current to go up. Maybe bistander can give us some insight into that as his math skills are much sharper than mine. The conservation of energy seems to be coming into play through some mechanism here that is not obvious.

Take care all,
Carroll

Again, Motor is on the other side of the pivot point...not next to wheel, so any load point on left side of beam would reflect on Motor higher load.

But yes, maybe Bistander would have the "Technical Answer"...

And finally ...I have no more time to spend here...done, I just entered to establish my opinions on the replicated design faults.

I am not interested in using any mechanical rotation to produce ANY Energy Generation...since we do not need that, and so it would be a very obsolete method pretty soon...


Good bye to All...and keep working hard!!!


Ufopolitics

[i_ron]

Ron,

I NEVER wrote about the lever being an OU device...so , do not assume or put words that I have NOT written, please.

snip

You have started with the very wrong Mechanical Set Up approach, period.


Simply, If You do not have the right set up from the start, then you can not move forward to next levels.

Ufopolitics

But UFO, we are talking about Kevin's OVER UNITY LEVER device, are we not?

Incidentally motor position has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with my build not showing a cop of 400

Ron

[i_ron]

OK, to clarify the confusion brought on by UFO,...

Kevin has used the static lever formula to indicate OU. Yes a 5:1 lever will support a 1000 pound weight when you press down on the long end of the lever with 200 pounds. With the lever stationary.

But in a dynamic situation with the lever in motion one should use the formula,
"F1 X D1 = F2 X D2.

The forces on a lever are always in balance so in a dynamic case the 200 pounds over a distance of 4 inches results in 1000 pounds over a distance of 0.8 inches.

My build shows this quite well. There is nothing more I would change. As Carroll points out it takes energy (my words) to run the wheel. When you load the wheel it takes more energy to maintain the RPM, quite consistent with a simple flywheel, but here very inefficiently, 125 watts input to 30 watts output.

Waiting now for an apology from Les, Kevin and UFO

Ron

[bistander]

Forces and pivots

...

Again, Motor is on the other side of the pivot point...not next to wheel, so any load point on left side of beam would reflect on Motor higher load.
...

Hi Ufo and citfta,

First, it does not matter which side of the pivot point the motor is attached except for the position of the motor's mass on the beam. The center distance between the motor and pulley on the imbalanced wheel is inconsequential.

Next, the motor delivers power which causes the centrifugal forces responsible for the up and down motion of the right side of the beam. If an opposing force (to the centrifugal force) is encountered, then it is logical for the motor torque to increase to maintain the same acceleration. In the video where Ron loads the output shaft with the wooden torque arm, it sounds and looks like the apparatus slows as well as current increasing. The imbalanced wheel is unseen as that happened, but I'm thinking it slowed as well.

The oil well pumpjack is an interesting comparison. Notice the imbalanced member is attached to the ground. Quite a different system than what we're talking about. The counterweights offset the weight of the downhole plunger, cable and column of oil, which I imagine can be tons for deep wells.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Really Bistander?

Hi Ufo and citfta,

First, it does not matter which side of the pivot point the motor is attached except for the position of the motor's mass on the beam. The center distance between the motor and pulley on the imbalanced wheel is inconsequential.

Hello Bistander,

Really it don't matter?...Again...are you sure?

Take a look -again-at graphic below, showing differences between Kevin Hay's Original Design and then Ron's replication...



Ron "decided" to add Motor on the other side of lever...maybe because holes were already made and bracket to hold motor assy fitted "perfect"...oh yeah, well...what the heck...right?

It seems now that by the Motor, Bracket, Bolts and pulley being on other side of lever...they would not affect weights towards the wrong side of Lever as in the Original Design?

Then Ron "also decided" to use this long belt, but not attached to the unbalanced wheel OUTER CIRCUMFERENCE, but instead -whatever was "handy" right?...used a much smaller pulley attached to Unbalanced Wheel...

Is it the same way to transfer Speed and Torque from Motor to Unbalanced Wheel between both sets?

Absolutely NOT!!

Next, the motor delivers power which causes the centrifugal forces responsible for the up and down motion of the right side of the beam. If an opposing force (to the centrifugal force) is encountered, then it is logical for the motor torque to increase to maintain the same acceleration. In the video where Ron loads the output shaft with the wooden torque arm, it sounds and looks like the apparatus slows as well as current increasing. The imbalanced wheel is unseen as that happened, but I'm thinking it slowed as well.

I do not think so...

If Motor, bracket and transfer mechanism (whether a rubber wheel or a belt) is turning the EXTERNAL CIRCUMFERENCE of the Unbalanced Wheel PLUS on the other side of Lever and right next to wheel...THEN whenever an opposite force is applied on the other side of lever, UNBALANCED WHEEL-MOTOR ASSY WILL SWING TOGETHER AS A WHOLE COMPACT SYSTEM, COUNTERACTING ALL FORCES IN UNISON.

The way Ron have it, Motor Assy would be actually "FIGHTING" against Unbalanced Wheel Assy in the rocking-swinging operation.

The oil well pumpjack is an interesting comparison. Notice the imbalanced member is attached to the ground. Quite a different system than what we're talking about. The counterweights offset the weight of the downhole plunger, cable and column of oil, which I imagine can be tons for deep wells.

Regards,

bi

Yeah, but also notice the proximity of the Prime Mover (Motor) to the whole Unbalanced Wheel (which here is just a "Virtual Trace" defined by C.W travel) Assembly (ACTUALLY IS WITHIN the whole Assy), plus the RATIO of Motor Pulley to Wheel Pulley...but mainly, observe the size of Motor, compared to the Tons of Massive Steel VOLUME being moved...

All the red specifications shown by me on above image, just REINFORCES ALL I have written previously referring to Original Hay's Set Up versus Ron's wrong replication...and that was just referring to Unbalanced Wheel-Motor Assembly positioning...

EDIT 1: And btw Bistander... it really don't matter where we locate the Unbalanced Wheel-Motor Assy...whether attached to the floor, like seen above or also swinging...it takes just a TRANSFER BRACKET from ground wheel assy to Lever as also seen above...and vualá...we have same thing as Hay's.

However, having whole assy in the moving zone would be more expensive...as motor wiring specific flex connections...plus access to give maintenance to whole Unit...

Regards Bistander.

OK, to clarify the confusion brought on by UFO,...

...Waiting now for an apology from Les, Kevin and UFO

Ron

Finally, it is IN MY BELIEVE, that WHETHER TO PROVE RIGHT OR WRONG ANY CLAIMS... Absolutely ANY REPLICATION presented on this Forums...MUST BE BUILT, BASED AND WITHIN, THE PROPOSED ORIGINAL SPECIFICATIONS

And NOT based on "Whatever" We have "Handy"...

After all it would reflect the Seriousness that we -the Members, as the Entire Energetic Forum- dedicate to TRUE SCIENTIFIC PROOF.

As any CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM which is based on Enforcing the above rules, should be taken ACCORDINGLY to TRUTHFULLY VERIFY ANY CLAIMS ARE RIGHT OR WRONG!!!


CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM DOES NOT "BRING IN ANY CONFUSION", BUT ON THE CONTRARY, BRINGING CLARITY AND ENLIGHTENMENT TO THE DISCUSSION

Therefore, I do NOT think, I OWE ABSOLUTELY ANY Apologies because of criticizing what is NOT BEING BUILT RIGHT according to above rules.


Sincerely


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

About my previously "Misunderstood" Timing...

Hello again,

Now, I am going to illustrate with the Jack Pump Hammer example...the previously misunderstood "Timing" I was talking about...



Now, observe FIRST that TRANSFER BRACKET from Unbalanced Wheel ASSEMBLY to LEVER is at MAX EXTENSION, as shown in red...and this simply means that LEVER IS AT MAX DOWN POSITION...

Which means that LEVER will not travel even an inch more downwards...BUT INSTEAD, STARTS TO RISE UP from THIS POINT ON...

So now watch the HUGE DUAL COUNTERWEIGHT POSITION...STARTING TO FALL DOWN...

And of course, on this fall down vector, Gravity would be assisting Weight Forces...in order to BRING UP WHOLE LEVER ASSEMBLY.

Now, please look at Image below... if Timing will not be that important here...then let's set Counterweight all the way down at BOTTOM LINE MAX (180º from Position now) to then see if Motor will not BURNT CRISPY, trying to PULL UP LEVER PLUS COUNTERWEIGHT MASSIVE TONS OF STEEL AGAINST GRAVITY FORCES?



That was the Timing I was referring to, guys...

Hope you all understand me now.

And, yes, EXACT SAME DEAL takes place in an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Counterweight-Piston Timing as set OEM on CRANKSHAFT...Counterweight "falling down" FORCE will PUSH PISTON TOWARDS MAX COMPRESSION STROKE, while PISTON downward EXPLOSION FORCES STROKE will BRING UP COUNTERWEIGHT BACK UP...And so on and on like the Energizer Bunny Rabbit story...

For all who still do not understand what I have written above...then, I highly recommend the Book:

Mechanical Engineering for Dummies...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Belts and Pumpjacks

...

Really it don't matter?...Again...are you sure?

Take a look -again-at graphic below, showing differences between Kevin Hay's Original Design and then Ron's replication...



Ron "decided" to add Motor on the other side of lever...maybe because holes were already made and bracket to hold motor assy fitted "perfect"...oh yeah, well...what the heck...right?

It seems now that by the Motor, Bracket, Bolts and pulley being on other side of lever...they would not affect weights towards the wrong side of Lever as in the Original Design?
...

... it does not matter which side of the pivot point the motor is attached except for the position of the motor's mass on the beam. ...

Yes Ufo, I mentioned that. But Ron apparently needed to balance the beam on the pivot which is evident by the addition of the large mass on the left end. Kevin's diagrams do not need to be balanced. I suspect Ron's motor and reduction were insufficient to lift the left side of the beam without it being balanced.

...


Yeah, but also notice the proximity of the Prime Mover (Motor) to the whole Unbalanced Wheel Assembly (ACTUALLY IS WITHIN the whole Assy), plus the RATIO of Motor Pulley to Wheel Pulley...but mainly, observe the size of Motor, compared to the Tons of Massive Steel VOLUME being moved...

All the red specifications shown by me on above image, just REINFORCES ALL I have written previously referring to Original Hay's Set Up versus Ron's wrong replication...and that was just referring to Unbalanced Wheel-Motor Assembly positioning...

You are mistaken. The green arrows which I have added to a copy of your image show the real prime mover (electric motor) and belt. Notice the distance from the gearbox.



Pretty much a standard setup.

...

EDIT 1: And btw Bistander... it really don't matter where we locate the Unbalanced Wheel-Motor Assy...whether attached to the floor, like seen above or also swinging...it takes just a TRANSFER BRACKET from ground wheel assy to Lever as also seen above...and vualá...we have same thing as Hay's.
...

Incorrect. It matters a whole bunch.

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Yes Ufo, I mentioned that. But Ron apparently needed to balance the beam on the pivot which is evident by the addition of the large mass on the left end. Kevin's diagrams do not need to be balanced.

I suspect Ron's motor and reduction were insufficient to lift the left side of the beam without it being balanced.

Hello Bistander,

Big Difference between both...don't you think?

You are mistaken. The green arrows which I have added to a copy of your image show the real prime mover (electric motor) and belt. Notice the distance from the gearbox.



Pretty much a standard setup.

It do not matter here, where prime mover is and where Gearbox is, in this case gearbox is the Prime Mover TRANSFER MEANS, which happens to be INCLUDED within Counterweight Rotation Circumference.

Arguments about where gearbox and where motor is located are silly.

Incorrect. It matters a whole bunch.

Regards,

bi

I could put together a CAD graph, based on same Hay's principles, but based on setting Unbalanced Wheel fixed to ground and using a "Pitman" Arm to TRANSFER Movement to the LEVER...However, I would NOT do that UNTIL SPECIFICS ON ORIGINAL HAY'S DIAGRAMS are fully understood.

Otherwise I will be contradicting myself on Replication Rules...

After all, according to you and Ron's set up...changing the Motor to WHEREVER we "decide" won't make a difference nor affect nada right?

Or it only works for you two guys to decide where it is right?...


Regards


Ufopolitics

EDIT: BTW, Please fix your Image Size to fit screen...it is annoying expanding it like you did...thanks!!

[bistander]

pumpjack

Hello again,

Now, I am going to illustrate with the Jack Pump Hammer example...the previously misunderstood "Timing" I was talking about...



Now, observe FIRST that TRANSFER BRACKET from Unbalanced Wheel ASSEMBLY to LEVER is at MAX EXTENSION, as shown in red...and this simply means that LEVER IS AT MAX DOWN POSITION...

Which means that LEVER will not travel even an inch more downwards...BUT INSTEAD, STARTS TO RISE UP from THIS POINT ON...

So now watch the HUGE DUAL COUNTERWEIGHT POSITION...STARTING TO FALL DOWN...

And of course, on this fall down vector, Gravity would be assisting Weight Forces...in order to BRING UP WHOLE LEVER ASSEMBLY.

Now, please look at Image below... if Timing will not be that important here...then let's set Counterweight all the way down at BOTTOM LINE MAX (180º from Position now) to then see if Motor will not BURNT CRISPY, trying to PULL UP LEVER PLUS COUNTERWEIGHT MASSIVE TONS OF STEEL AGAINST GRAVITY FORCES?



That was the Timing I was referring to, guys...

Hope you all understand me now.

And, yes, EXACT SAME DEAL takes place in an Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) Counterweight-Piston Timing as set OEM on CRANKSHAFT...Counterweight "falling down" FORCE will PUSH PISTON TOWARDS MAX COMPRESSION STROKE, while PISTON downward EXPLOSION FORCES STROKE will BRING UP COUNTERWEIGHT BACK UP...And so on and on like the Energizer Bunny Rabbit story...

For all who still do not understand what I have written above...then, I highly recommend the Book:

Mechanical Engineering for Dummies...


Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo,

In Kevin's design there is no connection (called pitman arm) from the counterweight/crank to the beam. "Timing" on Kevin's comes from inertia not a physical linkage. See the image below for definition of terms on the pumpjack.



Also, in Kevin's design, there is no ground reference between the load and the prime mover as in the pumpjack. When the prime mover and unbalanced wheel are mounted on the beam (walking beam) the force cannot react against the ground and push the right side up against gravity or the load. To demonstrate this, turn the prime mover very slowly. The pumpjack will complete the entire cycle on the load. Kevin's beam will not move. See Ron's first video, Version 1.

Regards,

bi

[bistander]

Silly?

Hello Bistander,

Big Difference between both...don't you think?




It do not matter here, where prime mover is and where Gearbox is, in this case gearbox is the Prime Mover TRANSFER MEANS, which happens to be INCLUDED within Counterweight Rotation Circumference.

Arguments about where gearbox and where motor is located are silly.



I could put together a CAD graph, based on same Hay's principles, but based on setting Unbalanced Wheel fixed to ground and using a "Pitman" Arm to TRANSFER Movement to the LEVER...However, I would NOT do that UNTIL SPECIFICS ON ORIGINAL HAY'S DIAGRAMS are fully understood.

Otherwise I will be contradicting myself on Replication Rules...

After all, according to you and Ron's set up...changing the Motor to WHEREVER we "decide" won't make a difference nor affect nada right?

Or it only works for you two guys to decide where it is right?...


Regards


Ufopolitics

EDIT: BTW, Please fix your Image Size to fit screen...it is annoying expanding it like you did...thanks!!

First you say Ron's machine is all wrong due to the location of the motor. Now you say it's silly. I don't get it.

Sorry,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

First you say Ron's machine is all wrong due to the location of the motor. Now you say it's silly. I don't get it.

Sorry,

bi

Also I apologize for my poor graphics. I am far less proficient than yourself. The images appear very nearly the same size as yours when displayed on this laptop. I can go back to edit size. Tell me how much (%).

Bistander,

Please You do not play "silly" with me now...

I was referring the term "silly" ONLY to the argument -between You and Me- on the Jackpump Gearbox and Motor positioning...and NOT about Ron's setup setting Motor on the OTHER SIDE OF LEVER, comparing to Hay's Design.

Graphics should be 800X600 Max, based on what size you have now...reduce it to that percentage.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

First you say Ron's machine is all wrong due to the location of the motor. Now you say it's silly. I don't get it.

Sorry,

bi

Also I apologize for my poor graphics. I am far less proficient than yourself. The images appear very nearly the same size as yours when displayed on this laptop. I can go back to edit size. Tell me how much (%).

Bistander,

Please You do not play "silly"...

This is exactly where I refer to "silly":

It does not matter here, where prime mover is and where Gearbox is, in this case gearbox is the Prime Mover TRANSFER MEANS, which happens to be INCLUDED within Counterweight Rotation Circumference.

Arguments about where gearbox and where motor is located are silly

I was referring the term "silly" ONLY to the argument -between You and Me- on the Jackpump Gearbox and Motor positioning...and NOT about Ron's setup setting Motor on the OTHER SIDE OF LEVER, comparing to Hay's Design.

Graphics should be 800X600 Max, based on what size you have now...reduce it to that percentage.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[i_ron]

snip

about Ron's setup setting Motor on the OTHER SIDE OF LEVER, comparing to Hay's Design.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Works the same either side

https://youtu.be/Ra4NErHztDk

Lets see if I have this right... you want me to build an exact copy of a non-existing device?

Ron