Mechanical Devices with Energy Gain

[i_ron]

Intriguing comments; glad to see AC and Jean joining in the discussion.
I'm still traveling or would say more; but I've a quick question:



@Ron: So is this your replication, photo below?
If so, can you tell us more about how it performed?
I find torque-converters fascinating, and would like to climb the learning curve here.

Short answer, it didn't. It looks sturdy but wasn't. I don't have have any way to cut keyways in hubs so it was built with only setscrews for drive. With the forces involved this proved inadaquate and it beat itself to death, I was only
able to run it at less than 400 RPM and this was too slow to manifest any gain.

There was a comparison with Terawatt

Terawatt Research LLC defies free energy stereotypes

And their torque curve

Ron

[markusbraunfe]

Hi Allcanadian, thanks for your interesting thoughts.

Assume we have a way to propel forward a vehicle by using an unidirectional force by using a combination of eccentric masses or, like Milkovic and others have shown, one or more swinging pendulums which point in the direction we want the vehicle to move.
Milkovic has his gravity powered pendulum cart but I'm thinking about a motorized pendulum because you can achieve high swinging frequencies and thus centrifugal forces that are orders of magnitude bigger.
The drawback is that it is hard to make a sturdy devices which does not break at high swinging frequencies. But the pros are that the kickbacks against the driving direction are smaller and you could use more pendulums out of phase to produce more force impulses per time unit therefore achieving a smoother movement.

I agree with you that such a reaction-less drive would have many advantages, you can drive on ice, snow without the wheels of the car slipping since the propelling force is applied to the car's body and not on the wheels.
And of course no friction due to gearboxes and other transmission mechanisms.

About the system being overunity or not: even if it is not, it would be very efficient and would probably significantly cut the fuel usage of vehicles and make them simpler and cheaper (no gearbox, no differential transmission etc).

But I think there is a possibility that the system is overunity, otherwise, IMHO, all devices like Milkovich pendulum, centrifugal/inertia amplifiers would not work.

Assume we travel in the car at constant speed and the inertial engine (rotating eccentric masses, pendulums etc) is driving us forward.

Now my logic says we have a friction force Ff (air friction, tire friction, bearings on the wheels) that acts against the movement of the car thus slowing it down.
To maintain constant speed we need to counter the friction force with the force Fc generated by our inertial engine.
Therefore if Ff = Fc, the car will move forward with constant speed.

Assume Ff increases (going up to a hill), at that point if Fc remains constant, the car will decelerate and eventually move backwards (in case of a hill).

This means to keep the speed of the car constant, we need to increase Fc. We can do this by simply increasing the RPM of the system (rotating eccentric masses or swinging pendulums).

Since we travel at constant speed, inside the car we do not experience acceleration (the reference frame of the car is not accelerated). This means that the rotating masses should conserve their angular momentum and in theory if the system is mechanically well designed (low friction in bearings and links), it should take only a small amount of power to keep the system rotating at the desired RPM.

To me, this sounds like an overunity system.

During acceleration the rotating system might lose some of it's angular momentum since the inertia is transferred to the body of the car, but most of time the car travels at constant speed and and thus the reference frame of the car is not accelerated and a rotating masses will not lose their angular momentum.

My opinion is that all those mechanical overunity devices are all based on the same principle of transfer of inertia and using the centrifugal force is one way to do it.
If the above inertial car is not OU, then I believe all others like those of Milkovic, Fernando, Clem (Clem centrifugal oil car engine) do not work.

As some scientists said, one theory about why the centrifugal force manifests itself is, because by rotating an object, we force it along a curved path and the rest of the mass of the universe (the planets, stars etc) will react to it an apply a gravitational pull force on the rotating mass.

And since when two masses do attract each other, both masses move a bit agains the center (the bigger moves much less), the process of rotating a mass will cause the rest of the masses in the universe to come closer to that mass.
Of course we cannot measure the effect, because the masses we rotate on earth are many many orders of magnitude smaller than the rest of the masses present in the universe.
But the above concept would explain that a free energy device that exploits the centrifugal force (Milkovic, Clem) or transfer of inertia (like Fernando's or Ucros'), would not actually generate free energy but consume some of the gravitational potential of the masses within the universe. So basically our "free energy" devices would have the "negative" consequence that we would influence the whole universe and make it come a bit closer to us.
But fortunately we are so small that we would not be able to cause any measurable difference.
So in fact for us, those are "free energy" devices.

Anyone, let me know that do you think about the above theories.
best regards,
Markus

@NerzhDishual
....
The process is simple, attach an eccentric mass ( a weighted arm) onto the shaft of an electric motor. Attach this motor to a cart with one way bearings or a sprague clutch so the wheels can only rotate in one direction. Now when the mass rotates it produces a force both forward then backwards but the wheels can only rotate forward so that is the direction it moves. Now if we attach a load to the cart two things can happen, one the cart moves forward and the rotating mass experiences a change in inertia and the motor does an equivalent amount of work or two the cart does not move and there is no change in the inertia of the rotating mass thus the motor does no work.

....

Rule #1: If we want to change the velocity of an object (a load) then we must change it's interia (Mass-Velocity). The most efficient way to change the inertia of the load is to use another objects inertia against it. We transfer inertia from the eccentric mass(Mass-Velocity) to the load(Mass-Velocity) cyclically. No free energy here but energy is near perfectly conserved, almost all of the input energy must always perform an equivalent amount of work as a change in velocity of the load.
....

[Matthew Jones]

There are many ways to convert torque in a system. Remember, torque X RPM=horsepower. Whenever you change one one, you most likely change the other. Just like how a welder works, when you change voltage up or down, the amperage goes up or down by the same amount, in reverse. Most ICE manufacturers use flywheels to increase torque without sacrifcing power. Once moving, the flywheel effect takes over increasing torque. In the late 70's, during the oil embargo, Ford tried putting a 4 cylinder engine in a school bus to try and see if it was feasible to power buses and use less fuel. knowing that a four cylinder would be underpowered, they used a 5 foot flywheel. When they reved up the engine and popped the clutch, the momentum from the flywheel, flipped the bus on its side. Small engine manufacturers use larger flywheels to increase torque on their engines as well. Back when I used to race go carts, I was in a 5HP class. so I would take a flywheel from an 8HP engine and use on my 5HP motors. It gave me a distinct advantage and I won many races. To overcome the ratio game to gain torque, you must first find a way to change the reference point of your system, rotational to recirprocal is one way, another is through leverage and fulcrum. Using both can signifigantly increase both torque and power and RPM. Other ways are to use a centrifugal clutch, as mentioned, and a large flywheel to gain momentum before the flywheel kicks in. Another is to use a centrifugal flywheel, which I have designed but not tested yet. Watch a dragster going down the dragway, after it starts moving, the tires grow larger until they get to maximum diameter. This changes the gear ratio and propels it faster and faster. Same power, more torque. More later, Good Luck. stealth

GyroBus

Matt

[Aaron]

hydraulic accumulators

GyroBus

Matt

Says in 1980 Volvo tried it and abandoned it in favor of hydraulic accumulators.

UPS, the shipping company, uses hydraulic accumulator / hybrid systems in their trucks (not sure what % of them have them) but they cut their fuel usage by about 35% or more.

[Matthew Jones]

Says in 1980 Volvo tried it and abandoned it in favor of hydraulic accumulators.

UPS, the shipping company, uses hydraulic accumulator / hybrid systems in their trucks (not sure what % of them have them) but they cut their fuel usage by about 35% or more.

Ya I would favor an accumulator over anything. I'll try to find the particular one I am thinking of but it uses 2 neo's face to face for a spring. The storage of the energy is at 100% without loss (short of leaky valve after use) but the release of the energy is scalable. And Hydraulic can convert in any direction for use.

Where as a Gyro or Flywheel is continually loosing energy just from friction which is inevitable.

Matt

[Rubberband]

Hybrids

Coca Cola is using the diesel / accumulator trucks here in Florida as well.

[PhysicsProf]

Sorry to be a bit off-topic, but wanted to share something from today.

Fun day! I'm traveling in Missouri with my wife, and just yesterday I asked if I could meet with Prof John Gaul, an active "cold fusion/LENR" researcher. He said yes, and invited others to a 1.3 hour meeting that took place this morning on campus, University of Missouri at Columbia.

The talk went very well! Six people attended on one-day notice. I hypothesized that anomalous excess heat in "cold fusion" cells is probably not nuclear after all but rather "Tesla-Moray-Davey" energy. PPT presentation I have worked up.

The talk was well-received, not that they fully believe it yet (they had not heard of Peter Davey cells before, for instance). But they admitted that they see xs heat but have not seen ANY nuclear products at the same TIME as the xs heat episodes. They also said they are not able to get their xs heat process with full reproducibility at all.

Also -- there is a meeting at Mizzou next summer on this alt-energy field, and they invited me to submit a paper for presentation!

I encourage you, top BUILDERS of significant devices, to participate in this conference... Demonstrations of self-running devices -- will you take this challenge as a goal for next July?


ICCF 18: International Conference on Cold Fusion | University of Missouri

It's time IMHO to join these two fields, or at least increase inter-communications. FE + LENR , the confluence of two (IMO related) fields.

What do you think?

[myenergetic]

Concentrate on most promising and reproducible devices

Sorry to be a bit off-topic, but wanted to share something from today.

Fun day! I'm traveling in Missouri with my wife, and just yesterday I asked if I could meet with Prof John Gaul, an active "cold fusion/LENR" researcher. He said yes, and invited others to a 1.3 hour meeting that took place this morning on campus, University of Missouri at Columbia.

The talk went very well! Six people attended on one-day notice. I hypothesized that anomalous excess heat in "cold fusion" cells is probably not nuclear after all but rather "Tesla-Moray-Davey" energy. PPT presentation I have worked up.

The talk was well-received, not that they fully believe it yet (they had not heard of Peter Davey cells before, for instance). But they admitted that they see xs heat but have not seen ANY nuclear products at the same TIME as the xs heat episodes. They also said they are not able to get their xs heat process with full reproducibility at all.

Also -- there is a meeting at Mizzou next summer on this alt-energy field, and they invited me to submit a paper for presentation!

I encourage you, top BUILDERS of significant devices, to participate in this conference... Demonstrations of self-running devices -- will you take this challenge as a goal for next July?


ICCF 18: International Conference on Cold Fusion | University of Missouri

It's time IMHO to join these two fields, or at least increase inter-communications. FE + LENR , the confluence of two (IMO related) fields.

What do you think?

@PhysicsProf

Thank you for your efforts. Even though it is a short notice but it worth a try.
To make it more feasible we may have to concentrate on the most promising and reproducible devices.

Hope it helps

jj

[i_ron]

Hi..Thank you for your message.. I doing good ..I had not time..her with Ramos dives I am testing and construction big one and small one..I will update with photo and drawing for you.but need same time ..we working with CNC and put out nice dives for use. B.R Antonio

Antonio,

What offset do you have on the eccentrics? total stroke?

Thanks

Ron

[NerzhDishual]

Hi Honourable Gentelmen,

Thanks for your comments (especialy to AllCanadian).
Meanwhile, I wish I would have been able to consult any schematic.
--------------------
My few neurons are aware that the G. Contantinesco's torque converter is not a mere meccano gizmo.

But, had not G.C.(Gogu Constantisnescu) given an interwiev in the Meccano Magazine (Feb 1924 isssue)?
You can find it here:
http://freenrg.info/GEORGE_CONSTANTI...M_24020036.jpg
http://freenrg.info/GEORGE_CONSTANTI...M_24020037.jpg
http://freenrg.info/GEORGE_CONSTANTI...M_24020056.jpg

More informations about G.C. here:
Index of /GEORGE_CONSTANTINESCO
---------------
While we are at G.C, Prof Jones is not so off topic (10-25-2012), when talking about "sonic". Davey (and Nenad Savic) are "sonic". Are they not?

Actually, G.C. studied "Sonic" a lot. In the second page of the interview I can read "Musical Harmony and Transmission of Energy by Sound"

Very Best
Jean

[i_ron]

Hi Honourable Gentelmen,
snip

My few neurons are aware that the G. Contantinesco's torque converter is not a mere meccano gizmo.

snip
Very Best
Jean

Sorry if I took your question in the wrong sense but as you posted:

So, who were "George Constantinesco"? This might be a clue. Google is (often) your friend:
"George CONSTANTINESCO - Inertial Transmission"
George Constantinesco: Inertial Transmission (US Patent 1591471 etc)
On this page you can see some pictures of a "Mecccano model" torque converter.

Meccano?
Meccano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Meccano - Wikipédia (more pictures)

More informations please.

I assumed you were asking for information about "Meccano" and answered accordingly.

Ron

[NerzhDishual]

OK

Salve a Tutti,

OK I_(Ron). I see what you mean. The apologies are mine.
I did not remember this "More information please" sentence in my previous post.

Actually, as a non native English speaker, I carefully -and most of time laboriously- write my post in the window's Notepad before sending it. I should had wrongly copied and pasted an erratic statement.

This said:
YACC = Yet Another Complier Compiler. Yacc - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
YAAT: Yet Another Abandoned Thread?
-----------
It might not be too difficult to imagine, for an open minded scientifically oriented individual, the feasibility of an electronic circuit with "Energy gain".

Perhaps, as a mere proof of concept, with a Joule Thief + a Captret, for ex?

Why?
Because with a Joule-Thief-like circuit you can observe a charge conservation anomaly. Electrolytic Capacitors-wise.

And because with a Captret, as far I get it straight, you apparently recover twice the charge of an Electrolytic cap. ibpointless2 discovered this effect and nicknamed it Captret (CAPacitor elecTRET).
ibpointless2 - YouTube

OK! I guess that you are aware of this very guy.
No! This is not off topic...

It should be more difficult for the same individual to imagegine the same "Energy Gain" effect with a mechanical (nuts and bolts) device. No?

Unless 'nuts and bolts' mechanical devices follow the same law as electronical ones.

In any case this is worth to be more studied. Is it not?
So, does this very thread deserve a forsaking judgment. That might be a question.

Gwella soñjou a-berz,
Jean

[i_ron]

Salve a Tutti,

OK I_(Ron). I see what you mean. The apologies are mine.
I did not remember this "More information please" sentence in my previous post.

Actually, as a non native English speaker, I carefully -and most of time laboriously- write my post in the window's Notepad before sending it. I should had wrongly copied and pasted an erratic statement.
snip

Unless 'nuts and bolts' mechanical devices follow the same law as electronical ones.

In any case this is worth to be more studied. Is it not?
So, does this very thread deserve a forsaking judgment. That might be a question.

Gwella soñjou a-berz,
Jean

Jean, no apologies necessary, on this list we just try and help one another.

Thank you for the interesting links. Along that line another interesting development is the Mikhail Dmitriyev wheel, have you seen that?

Another two weeks have gone by since we have heard from Antonio?

Ron

[NerzhDishual]

Aldo Costa's crazy huge wheel.

Hi I_RON,

"Mikhail Dmitriyev wheel". Thanks for pointing this out. IMO this is another clever device. It uses gravity. Gravity is free.

Yes, gravity is a conservative force. So, it it useless. Period? But what if we can change the geometry (topology) of the device while running?

According to the Alexander Frolov's "Free Energy" article in
"New Energy Technologies issue #2 March-April 2003"

".....Practically, the cycle is separated here into two processes (the lifting and falling of mass) in the system with different parameters (the topology) for the first stage and the second stage of the cycle, but herewith it is necessary to consider two different physical systems, not one and the same. In that case, the classical theory can explain the work created by potential gravitational field of our planet as energy exchange between two different systems."


This Frolov's article is (also) here:
http://freenrg.info/4NRGtic_F/FreeEnergy.pdf
----------------
Actually, IMO, we do not need trying to reproduce the (claimed) working device as the old self running (controversial) Bessler wheel. Bessler had no motors.

A very very industrious (and a little bit crazy, indeed) French man, Aldo Costa, designed such a wheel. His "apparatus" is litterally "craving" to self run. But it does not.

More about Aldo Costa:
"Aldo Costa - clips of his Giant Perpetual Motion Wheel"
Aldo Costa - clips of his Giant Perpetual Motion Wheel - YouTube

Directory:Aldo Costa's Gravity Motor - PESWiki

Or just google: Aldo Costa's gravity wheel

IMO, a "small" (in the few KW range) electric motor would suffice to otain a gigantic torque multiplier from this amazing huge thing. So, this torque could be used to run a generator that could run the motor and give extra NRG. No?

Of course, this would not be as smart(elegant) than a self running gravity wheel. But it could work. Could it not?

Very Best,
Jean

[Allcanadian]

Or just google: Aldo Costa's gravity wheel

Ay, caramba , maybe he should have built a smaller one first because that thing is a monster.