Mikhail Dmitriyev - Input 1000 W, Output near 3000 W.

[purelyprimitives]

I am very interested in how you came to idea of your last statement. I am wondering this too.

I could be wrong, but I had originally thought that the swinging of the weights had more of an effect than they do. In his original video he says that the total rotating mass is 250 kg. If we assume 45 kg for the wheel structure itself, we are left with about 205 kg for the weights. That means that each of the 32 weight sets is only about 6.5 kg or only a little over 2% of the overall mass. Combine this with the fact that moving the weights out at an initial 45 degree angle is less than optimal, as well as propelling the weights attached to an object moving in roughly the same direction adds little.

I think we are all familar with Moment of Inertia and once we have 250 kg moving along at a fairly good clip, a 6.5 kg weight is probably barely noticable to the wheel. Time is available for opposing viewpoints...

[Gdez]

agreed

@ purelyprimitives,
I agree completely with your thinking. Watching mikhails and rep1's vids, it seems like we are just missing one little thing.The video of mikhails machine running without the "kick wheel" first made me look at this. In one of replicator 1's videos, it seems his hanging weights are too far out (at 6 to 9:00
) to get the effect that mikhails machine is(from my thinking only) not what you want. so the one way bearings aren't letting the weights stay as vertical as possible. I haven't had time to really dissect the videos , so I am just stating this as a quick observation.
I had a thought tonite about how some of my previous projects relate to Mikhails invention.
I would suggest that you read this pdf:

http://staff.kfupm.edu.sa/phys/tahme...0a%20swing.pdf

Don't worry about all the heavy math when you see this, just look at figure 10 and 14. read on from there, but fig. 10 and 14, basically explains what we are trying to do here.
I have to say that from my "swing experiments", I learned a tremendous amount about pendulums, and also believe that there is a type of overunity effect possible in these devices is possible.
for naysayers..
I have made double pendulum devices that only take a small amount of energy to put in motion, but have the force to maim or kill you if you don't follow strict safety rules, in just several seconds of operation.
Hope everybody enjoys the pdf, and you can check out some stupid videos I made of my swing projects at Gdez1000 on yt. like I said, I think we are just missing something simple here,
Good luck to all,
Gdez

[i_ron]

kudoos

@ purelyprimitives,
snip
Hope everybody enjoys the pdf, and you can check out some stupid videos I made of my swing projects at Gdez1000 on yt. like I said, I think we are just missing something simple here,
Good luck to all,
Gdez

I did, thanks

Most impressed with your vids, especially 'swing 5', I like your approach

Ron

[Gdez]

thanks ron

Hopefully soon I can get some nicer tools and a lathe to start building better quality projects like yours. Swing 5 is basically the same principal as mikhails wheel, it just uses one weight to be thrown out, and then drawn back in with the springs. Perhaps a similar idea would work on mikhails wheel. Purelyprimitives mentioned something about using solenoids and I thought that replacing the springs on the hanging weight of swing 5 would make it more controllable. Another problem I had when building this was the same problem we are having with mikhails wheel-- I was trying to build something I had designed on Phun, but had trouble translating it to a real model, as far as exact weights. This is why I tend to not get excited, when I see an idea that is modeled on a computer simulator. On the other hand though If it works on a program like phun, then there must be some solid math to it. I have had half a dozen designs that I put together on Phun that ran for as long as I left the computer turned on, and I don't think they were all computer glitches. I tried some simulations of mikhails wheel but I found it was hard and gave up. It just didn't seem to be reliable for getting good observations.
I agree with paul about trying to build a smaller model, mainly because of price. I think if your going to try to do a replica of Mikhails wheel to validate it, it would have to be scaled down exactly. The exactness may not be nessacary to prove the concept though.
Good luck all,
greg

[purelyprimitives]

Good Morning Greg,

I agree with i_ron. Your 'swing 5' video is very impressive.

I'm sure that you've seen Mr. Chalkalis' latest creation that also seems to go on forever with just a particular arrangement of weights and one small push. Unfortunately he has yet to give us the detail of that arrangement, but to your point, there is certainly more to be learned.

Because I apparently suffer from Adult Attention Deficit Disorder I'm also working on a side project with one arm and one moving weight specifically to study the optimum movement/location of that weight with respect to overall rotation. If I learn anything new, I will definitely share it here.

Talk to you soon,
Charlie

[Gdez]

Adult Attention Deficit Disorder

I also seem to suffer from this ailment.
Greg

[soundiceuk]

@ purelyprimitives,
I agree completely with your thinking. Watching mikhails and rep1's vids, it seems like we are just missing one little thing.The video of mikhails machine running without the "kick wheel" first made me look at this. In one of replicator 1's videos, it seems his hanging weights are too far out (at 6 to 9:00
) to get the effect that mikhails machine is(from my thinking only) not what you want. so the one way bearings aren't letting the weights stay as vertical as possible. I haven't had time to really dissect the videos , so I am just stating this as a quick observation.
I had a thought tonite about how some of my previous projects relate to Mikhails invention.
I would suggest that you read this pdf:

http://staff.kfupm.edu.sa/phys/tahme...0a%20swing.pdf

Don't worry about all the heavy math when you see this, just look at figure 10 and 14. read on from there, but fig. 10 and 14, basically explains what we are trying to do here.
I have to say that from my "swing experiments", I learned a tremendous amount about pendulums, and also believe that there is a type of overunity effect possible in these devices is possible.
for naysayers..
I have made double pendulum devices that only take a small amount of energy to put in motion, but have the force to maim or kill you if you don't follow strict safety rules, in just several seconds of operation.
Hope everybody enjoys the pdf, and you can check out some stupid videos I made of my swing projects at Gdez1000 on yt. like I said, I think we are just missing something simple here,
Good luck to all,
Gdez

I have only had time to look at the "swing 5" video so far and it looks impressive.

The maths just blew my head off in the pdf, but I get the jist.

For some reason this jumped into my head today.

Prototype 9:

Magnet - Assisted Gravity Wheel - YouTube

Russian to English translation:

Integrated use of gravity and magnetism.
The use of permanent magnets and electromagnets are alternatives ways (mechanisms) straightening / folding spoke and described in the patent.
Friction losses are absent.


Update 17th November 2012

After zero communication with Mikhail for approx 3 weeks now, I am now under the impression he is just sitting back and waiting for a validation and the snowball to gain momentum before resurfacing.

I know nothing has been proved yet but I think we are very close.

Replicator 1 has been tirelessly adding more weight to his build and a new video should appear within the next week.


I have a 600mm diameter wheel sitting in my garage at the moment.

I am waiting for a 20mm x 500mm bright steel shaft and some shaft collars to arrive so I can safely conduct some more experiments which I will demonstrate on video.

So far I have seen that the deflections can be done with magnets in a number of ways. The N42 magets I have are really strong and I need to make a proper frame to keep things stable to not cloud the results.

One thing that has become clear is a 600mm wheel is unlikely to fit in the trunk (boot) of a car.

Therefore what would you consider be the maximum diameter that would fit in a car taking into consideration it would need to be mounted on a frame?


Here are my current thoughts / questions that I believe need to be explored:

1. Fitting 32 deflecting elements on such a small diameter wheel, doesn't allow much room for weights.

2. Mikhail said that when he ran the wheel without the deflector wheel the chain snapped and HE HAD TO SLOW THE WHEEL DOWN MANUALLY.

There is a message in the statement that only struck me a few days ago.

The wheel did run itself once up to speed, although it wouldn't have been enough to run a load on its own without more weight.

3. Does using a smaller wheel allow a higher RPM because the circumference is shorter and has less distance to travel?

4. A smaller wheel has less torque, but does it have less, more or the same centrifugal force issues / advantages?

5. Is the simpler, more efficient design using 8 lots of 4 weights or 4 lots of 8 weights in a row?

This would mean the length of the deflecting elements would be a lot longer to make up for the smaller wheel diameter.

It would also mean the wheels could be cut out of steel / aluminium and require no welding.

6. Does having a higher RPM increase the torque output? If so, what are the advantages and disadvantages of running a higher RPM?

7. Does the wheel even need 32 deflecting elements at all?

If not, then the key to success is 32 elements to make this self perpetuate and therefore things are leading us to the ultimate in engine design.

My experiments are currently geared towards answering number 7 first.

Apart from using magnets or bike tyres how else could 32 heavy static round bars be manipulated to move the centre of gravity to the left like in all the other prototype designs?

I'm hoping someone else sees what I think I see and it turns out to be what I think it might be.

Either way, we are moving forward as one.

Best regards,

Paul

[purelyprimitives]

Then there is this earlier slightly different magnetic one that he designed:

Imagemitriev grav-mag-mot diagram 400.gif - PESWiki

Its interesting to note that on a lot of his earlier work the weights rotated in as opposed to out.

[purelyprimitives]

@Paul

I'll take a stab at how a smaller wheel might be done. Torque is basically the product of radius and force. And of course, force is equal to mass x acceleration. So we could look at our formula as simply Torque = Radius x (Mass x RPM or Rad/sec). So to get the same torque with a smaller wheel we have to either increase mass or speed up the wheel or BOTH. We've seen R1's video on what effect going to fast can have so I would guess that he would probably opt for larger weights. However, I also think there might be a indirect positive effect by using larger weights that will also allow you speed up the wheel without any negative effect and actually have more torque with a smaller wheel. But this is purely a guess at this point.

Charlie

[i_ron]

On Track

I have only had time to look at the "swing 5" video so far and it looks impressive.

The maths just blew my head off in the pdf, but I get the jist.

For some reason this jumped into my head today.

Prototype 9:

Magnet - Assisted Gravity Wheel - YouTube

Russian to English translation:

Integrated use of gravity and magnetism.
The use of permanent magnets and electromagnets are alternatives ways (mechanisms) straightening / folding spoke and described in the patent.
Friction losses are absent.


Update 17th November 2012

After zero communication with Mikhail for approx 3 weeks now, I am now under the impression he is just sitting back and waiting for a validation and the snowball to gain momentum before resurfacing.

I know nothing has been proved yet but I think we are very close.

Replicator 1 has been tirelessly adding more weight to his build and a new video should appear within the next week.


I have a 600mm diameter wheel sitting in my garage at the moment.

I am waiting for a 20mm x 500mm bright steel shaft and some shaft collars to arrive so I can safely conduct some more experiments which I will demonstrate on video.

So far I have seen that the deflections can be done with magnets in a number of ways. The N42 magets I have are really strong and I need to make a proper frame to keep things stable to not cloud the results.

One thing that has become clear is a 600mm wheel is unlikely to fit in the trunk (boot) of a car.

Therefore what would you consider be the maximum diameter that would fit in a car taking into consideration it would need to be mounted on a frame?


Here are my current thoughts / questions that I believe need to be explored:

1. Fitting 32 deflecting elements on such a small diameter wheel, doesn't allow much room for weights.

2. Mikhail said that when he ran the wheel without the deflector wheel the chain snapped and HE HAD TO SLOW THE WHEEL DOWN MANUALLY.

There is a message in the statement that only struck me a few days ago.

The wheel did run itself once up to speed, although it wouldn't have been enough to run a load on its own without more weight.

3. Does using a smaller wheel allow a higher RPM because the circumference is shorter and has less distance to travel?

4. A smaller wheel has less torque, but does it have less, more or the same centrifugal force issues / advantages?

5. Is the simpler, more efficient design using 8 lots of 4 weights or 4 lots of 8 weights in a row?

This would mean the length of the deflecting elements would be a lot longer to make up for the smaller wheel diameter.

It would also mean the wheels could be cut out of steel / aluminium and require no welding.

6. Does having a higher RPM increase the torque output? If so, what are the advantages and disadvantages of running a higher RPM?

7. Does the wheel even need 32 deflecting elements at all?

If not, then the key to success is 32 elements to make this self perpetuate and therefore things are leading us to the ultimate in engine design.

My experiments are currently geared towards answering number 7 first.

Apart from using magnets or bike tyres how else could 32 heavy static round bars be manipulated to move the centre of gravity to the left like in all the other prototype designs?

I'm hoping someone else sees what I think I see and it turns out to be what I think it might be.

Either way, we are moving forward as one.

Best regards,

Paul

Paul, good to see we are somewhat on the same page. I am going with six stations, a wheel size of 333mm radius, axle to axle, with a weights measuring 758 Grams.

Ron

Flickr: Ron HP's Photostream

[purelyprimitives]

Damn Ron! You don't just build machinery, you build works of art!

[drak]

Wow Ron, that looks sweet!

[soundiceuk]

Outstanding work Ron







Clever idea using an aluminium disc with fixed arms. I have lots of questions if you don't mind

Is that your machine shop at home or at work?

What is your hourly rate?

What diameter are your main shaft and deflecting element shafts?

Which bearings did you buy?

Is the hub machined from one block of aluminium? Have you got a close up shot of it?

What is the diameter of the disc?

I'm guessing your stand has been used for quite a few projects now?

Is 758g the weight per round steel bar or for both sides?



I have been looking at manufacturing an aluminium disc 12mm thick for a 1:2 scale replica.

After spotting some smaller bearings 8mm OD, 4mm ID, 6mm I think the smallest we could go is a 1:3 scale replica.

The aim of the model would be to at least power itself and possibly a small filament bulb.

If this works we could flood the universities, colleges and schools with kits so the technology is not buried and students can begin to be study it.


Replicator 1's old weights:



Replicator 1's new weights:



Replicator 1's weights comparison:



Exciting times ahead!

[soundiceuk]

Then there is this earlier slightly different magnetic one that he designed:



Its interesting to note that on a lot of his earlier work the weights rotated in as opposed to out.

Hi, I'm pretty certain the drawing you have shown is later version.

The most important detail, the magnet directions is not shown in the gif.

I discovered the magnet detail shown in the file https://www.dropbox.com/s/nd355rjmn5...asgwheel.dwg?m

I modified the drawing and came up with this, some time last year.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zb0a90q7e8...on%201.2.pdf?m

Zoom right in on the small drawings on the right hand size and you will see the original magnetic positions detail from Mikhail's orginal drawing.

Drawing these drawings is how I ended up gaining Mikhail's trust as I was the only person apart from Sterling making an effort with him. Everyone else sat on the fence.

This led onto me drawing these:









Mikhail then improved the design by changing to one stop pin that would result in a kick because of the way it uses an unusual magnetic and mechanical advantage.





This was me messing around trying to figure out the biggest weights possible for the next design.



Here is the previous design zoomed in on how close the magnets would be running without repulsion.



N42 are very powerful magnets and in a state of repulsion will easily lift 10kg straight up, which will then provide a big kick if the design is done Mikhail's way.

Mikhail had a go at it small but the deflector bent because of the power of the neos.

[purelyprimitives]

Hi Paul,

Wow. I didn't know that you did those drawings! Excellent job!

Regarding your question to Ron about how much he would charge, I don't know but if you have ever seen any of his other devices that he has built and seen his meticulous level of detail and outstanding workmanship, you couldn't find a finer person to make a replication. For those unfamiliar with his work, check out his channel on YouTube under the name rohndoe.

Charlie