F.M.Chalkalis gravity system a donation!

[Ted Ewert]

It is indeed for me also, i think since a while about it,
how you can connect a Flywheel proper to a device.
Thinking from the Base, figure, you have a very huge Stone,
what only get a push at a certain Point, when it turns in a circle.
When you place some generating Parts on it, where you can get Energy from it at a certain Point of the turn,
then the Inertia of the Mass should be bigger then the Point,
when it passes the generator device, as the Energy to keep it turning.
But at all, you would need bigger Coils for Generating as for powering the Device,
because you probatly cant create more Energy in smaller Coils, as what you use to power the Device.
But right now, anyhow a Flywheel is for me the only save way to go,
i think at an other Side, that you can compensate with the Inertia of Mass
the Power what you use or create, even, when now some Physicgenius get wet Eyes.
But then not just a 'little bit Flywheel' but really something what you can call Flywheel, because the relation from Mass to Energy is more in a bigger Scale.

A flywheel should work just as well, although you would have to size it according to your propulsion source. As the paper I mentioned states, it works best if you double the velocity of the flywheel before you harvest the energy. With a large, heavy flywheel this could take some time. It might be better to use a lighter wheel so it could accelerated easier. It's also a good idea to have the weight distributed around the rim of the wheel, as this maximizes the kinetic energy.
I've done enough experiments along the lines of this device to have some confidence in the principal. Nevertheless, the proof will be in the numbers it generates.
Another interesting corollary that I believe uses this principal is the "slingshot" trajectory used by NASA to propel their spacecraft to the outer planets. In the explanation of this technique it is stated that the extra energy used is from the gravitational pull of the sun (pulse motor), which accelerates the spacecraft in conjunction with the gravitational pull of a selected planet. These together generate enough velocity in the spacecraft to not only allow it to escape the gravitational field of the planet, but to also propel it into the outer realms of our solar system (in opposition to the Suns gravitational pull).
If it works for NASA, why shouldn't it work for us? Chalkalis is doing the exact same thing with his pendulum. Milkovic has been telling us it works too, along with a number of other inventors using this principal. It is certainly not without president.
The only hurdles to be overcome are engineering issues: Delivering efficient acceleration pulses to the pendulum, or flywheel; when, and how much energy to extract; sizing everything properly, etc... This work needs to be done in order to develop the principal into a usable device. Who's going to volunteer?

[Matthew Jones]

I would like to give it try but the cost is somewhere around 900 dollars for the exact replica. I am not worried about that but I don't want to build just to find out the numbers are not lining up with the mechanism.
I want to understand the math, because the math I understand and apply to it doesn't let it add up.
What Milkovic is doing is quite different. I understand it. But this device does not appear to me to be the same thing although it may be. I just wish we could get some clear definition of what is supposed to be happening.

ON a side note Cloxxi brought up the gravity wheel. I was looking around the other day that machine that has the ball and spins around around and around by Reidar Finsrud. He has Movie on his website it covers several people but he info on a Frenchman who built a wheel unbalnced wheel that appears to work.
Not trying to start a discussion just a little side note.

Matt

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, I have to say, this is odd, because only a few months back I drew up an idea I had on cad that was somewhat similar to this, it used rubber mallet hammers on the periphery of a rotor that would spin freely in flywheel like action, just like his 2 pulse drive flywheels and would impact a rotor with other rubber mallet hammers, though i drew my rotor symmetrically and i never built it because the timing looked difficult. Thought I'd mention that design in case it's of use to anyone here.
peace love light
Tyson

[Ted Ewert]

I want to understand the math, because the math I understand and apply to it doesn't let it add up.
What Milkovic is doing is quite different. I understand it. But this device does not appear to me to be the same thing although it may be. I just wish we could get some clear definition of what is supposed to be happening.

Matt

What calculations did you use? I did some research on trying to find out how to calculate the power it takes to accelerate a mass which already has a velocity. I found how to calculate the momentum (kg-meter/sec), the force (Newton) but the energy remained elusive. What I found was that the energy is assumed to be the total kinetic energy minus the initial kinetic energy. This is taking the KE as 1/2m v^2 for the initial velocity and subtracting it from the KE of the final velocity. This is justified by the conservation of energy rule, which doesn't help us here.
I could have very well missed something since my basic academic physics is a bit spotty. What I did was to access a few physics calculator sites to try and determine the formula needed to calculate the power needed to accelerate a mass from one velocity to another. If any of you guys have better information I'd appreciate a heads up.
I think this mechanism is very close to the Milkovic oscillator. They both derive their "extra" energy from a pulse added to a falling pendulum. the only difference is that Milkovic uses the centrifugal force in his lever and Chalkalis uses the angular KE.
That's why I referenced his paper, "Kinetic Energy and Over unity". Did you read this one?

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Docs/J..._Overunity.pdf

I have a few questions about how he came to his conclusions, like in this part:

The ball is moving with constant velocity v and has kinetic energy E received from the force F. This means that force F performed work equal to
energy passed to the ball and then stopped passing the energy to the ball. Let’s suppose that the ball had mass equal to 2 kg and had received velocity of 1m/s. It would mean that the ball got kinetic energy ½ x 2 x 12 equal to 1 Joule. The same energy force F lost on its side.
Let’s suppose that force F acted again against the ball pushing it for the same period of the time and with the same intensity. Because Newton’s laws are equally valid for the body in the rest or the body with constant and straightforward movement, it is logical to assume that force F passed the same kinetic energy of 1 Joule to the ball and increased the velocity of the ball for 1m/s again. This means that force F passed totally energy of 2 Joules to the ball and caused it to move with constant speed of 2m/s.
Because the ball got velocity of 2 m/s its kinetic energy is ½ x 2 x 22 and equals to 4 Joules. So, the final result is that force F passed 2J, but the ball got 4J. This is a clear case of over unity behavior of the ball receiving energy in portions. Note also that if the force F passed the same energy of 2J in one double longer push, the ball would have received the same energy the force spent for the push.

That part doesn't make sense to me. I know it takes more energy to accelerate a car from 30 to 60 MPH than it does to accelerate it from 0 to 30. Does this square with what he's proved here since he's essentially saying that the energy to accelerate a mass is the same no matter what it's initial velocity is? What am I missing?

Ted

[Cloxxki]

All my life I've been bugged by the square of velocity here. It's so counter-intuitive. If someone could "trick" that...but I'm not sure it's meant to be tricked.

Pulses are used in various OU atempts, it seems. Like a pulse is more efficient somehow. I don't see why. With light, because the way we perceive it, yes, pulsed current might be quite helpful to save energy for the same illumination according to the eyes. But with weight transferring energy, is a pulse any different from a gradual energy transfer, apart from the duration?

"Let’s suppose that force F acted again against the ball pushing it for the same period of the time and with the same intensity. Because Newton’s laws are equally valid for the body in the rest or the body with constant and straightforward movement, it is logical to assume that force F passed the same kinetic energy of 1 Joule to the ball and increased the velocity of the ball for 1m/s again. This means that force F passed totally energy of 2 Joules to the ball and caused it to move with constant speed of 2m/s."
He seems to forget to use formulae, and just work with the seemingly correct principle that input is proportionate to velocity increase. Hit the baseball once, it goes 100mph. Then hit it once more, and it goes 200mph. Not gonna work. That's creating energy out of nothing. If will power or religious belief could make this true, we'd need to try our car's acceleration performance again, the factory may have been off by power of magnitude...

[W32]

Hello people,
This is my first post in the forum and because English is not my native language I apologize for any typing mistakes.
For a week now I observe Mr. FM Chalkalis’s invention and the comments.
I will not refer to how much energy it consumes or all the other parameters but the lever that none so far have comment.
Mr. F.M.Chalkalis writes that in order to complete a full rotation of a 50kg weight with no speed thanks to the lever only 5kg needed. You realize how much the 5Kg force reduces when the centrifugal starts to ascribe.
Also Mr. F.M.Chalkalis writes that he has a torque of 278Nm and a speed of 300RPM which can increase with the appropriate power input. Today I found this site on torque conversion: www.kfz-tech.de that verifies the way he calculates the power.
Shouldn’t we focus on how much of this power we may collect or maybe even ask M.r F.M.Chalkalis about the way?
W32

[Ted Ewert]

Hello people,
This is my first post in the forum and because English is not my native language I apologize for any typing mistakes.
For a week now I observe Mr. FM Chalkalis’s invention and the comments.
I will not refer to how much energy it consumes or all the other parameters but the lever that none so far have comment.
Mr. F.M.Chalkalis writes that in order to complete a full rotation of a 50kg weight with no speed thanks to the lever only 5kg needed. You realize how much the 5Kg force reduces when the centrifugal starts to ascribe.
Also Mr. F.M.Chalkalis writes that he has a torque of 278Nm and a speed of 300RPM which can increase with the appropriate power input. Today I found this site on torque conversion: www.kfz-tech.de that verifies the way he calculates the power.
Shouldn’t we focus on how much of this power we may collect or maybe even ask M.r F.M.Chalkalis about the way?
W32

The problem with all those measurements is that they are taken without a load. A pendulum that big traveling at those speeds has a tremendous amount of potential energy. What needs to be determined is how much extra energy can be extracted without slowing the speed down. This is the part that isn't divulged.
I've figured out a simple way to measure the energy but I'm not finished drawing it up yet. I'll post it when I'm finished.

Ted

[ashtweth]

Guys i am waiting for ALL of Ted's ,Matt;s and others Q;s so i can give him ONE email to answer, will post it all to him tomorrow and have asked him to come in and help answer Q's. keep them coming.

Ash

[Ted Ewert]

Thanks Ash, add this one too...

Here is a simple set up to test the efficiency of the Chalkalis machine. The idea here is that the flywheel will both provide impulse power and act as a repository for all recollected energy.
As you can see, the pendulum first gets a pulse of energy from the drive wheel. It then further accelerates due to gravity until it hits the recovery wheel.
If more energy is transferred to the flywheel by the recovery wheel than was expended by the drive wheel, the flywheel will increase in average speed. This in turn will also speed up the rotation of the pendulum. If less energy is transferred, then everything will slow down and eventually stop.
Both the drive wheel and the recovery wheel are the same diameter with the same pulley ratio to the flywheel. This would need to be started by a motor on the flywheel shaft, or by hand cranking everything up to speed.
If this device accelerates the flywheel, over unity will have been achieved and a generator can be attached to the flywheel shaft for output power.

[Matthew Jones]

The only problem TED is it requires the recovery wheel to obtain perfect traction or have a loss no matter what.

If we could achieve the same thing with direct drive overun gear from the shaft than we would be able to prove a unity or over situation.

Follow Me?

ASH the biggest question I have is how fast does he think the wheel can actually go. I am looking a direct horsepower on the shaft of the pendulum. At the current speeds I am only seeing a gear down effect as far horsepower is concerned.

Matt

[ashtweth]

Roger that guys, i wonder if he knows how advanced you guys are and that he is not alone in this quest whether he gets it right the first time or not (like Steorn) you have to work in capacity, you guys are here that's the main thing.

K drooping him a mail now, just before i go there also i got down

1 . What is RPM of motors in driving system (scheme 5 in his drawing )
2. Is the weight of wheels in drive system 15 Kg each of 7.5 Kg each .
3. Has he attached a generator to his output shaft .

Any more guys?

Ash

[ashtweth]

Mean time

Dear Ash

Greetings to you and all the friends

Reading some of the comments and questions, I feel obligated to reply.

1) There is nothing theoretical or Potential. All data are actually
measured.

2) I may not answer to all wonderings, like how much power does every
parameter gives us on its own etc. For example I cannot explain why the
equilateral triangle is working better, but it does. Indicative I could
tell you that the kind of the lever we are using in proportion to the
length, helps reducing the weight’s resistance by 10 to 20 grams per
millimeter.

3) In mechanics the term nominal power of a motor is the power on the
axis. Now how much of this power we may exploit depends on whether the
device we will connect matches and also from the coefficient of performance
of it. In our construction we have one big advantage that with the
appropriate power supply on the input we may increase the rpm thus the
overall power as we need.



4) Regarding the conversion from mechanical to electric power I could
give you two examples, in wind power systems we can utilize only 51% of the
nominal power. But in hydro systems we can get more than 90%. Our system is
closer to the hydro systems because we have constantly high torque value.

5) I would kindly request all you thinking in well-intentions to read
with more attention of what is mentioned on the blog and I believe that most
of the questions will be answered.

I cannot describe to you the emotion and the joy of knowing that I am not
alone on that as I was till now. I am at your disposal for any help you may
need.

Sincerely yours

F.M.Chalkalis

[Matthew Jones]

Well thats good at least he'll get on board to help out.

I was thinking about TED's test. We could test this slot easier on a small scale.

It may not show the same results but should show enough to see if the pendulum has an extra effect.

You build the pendulum, and it doesn't be very big. 60 deg v shape like the shown model.
Instead of using it mounted to an axle you mount it to motor. You only need turn the motor on between 30 and 90 degrees on clockwise rotation. Other wise the motor has no power. You will get some Lenz out of the motor but it should pretty minimal.

Now if the pendulum is the key to it you will be able to measure the output of torque on the motor straight, with the same power cycle and flywheel of equal weight of the pendulum then measure the output torque with the pendulum.
If the pendulum adds extra energy to the rotation we should be able to see it.

It doesn't have to be that big just proportional. The motor will not apply the same torque as the motors do in F.M.Chalkalis version but the difference should be clear if all it is is the pendulum.

What you think is it a valid test.

Matt

[elias]

If this thing produces energy it violates Newtons laws. I like to see it.
It is only a rotating pendulum with uneven masses! Wow! that simple is it?

[elias]

"Let’s suppose that force F acted again against the ball pushing it for the same period of the time and with the same intensity. Because Newton’s laws are equally valid for the body in the rest or the body with constant and straightforward movement, it is logical to assume that force F passed the same kinetic energy of 1 Joule to the ball and increased the velocity of the ball for 1m/s again. This means that force F passed totally energy of 2 Joules to the ball and caused it to move with constant speed of 2m/s."

The ball is moving with constant velocity v and has kinetic energy E received from the force F. This means that force F performed work equal to
energy passed to the ball and then stopped passing the energy to the ball. Let’s suppose that the ball had mass equal to 2 kg and had received velocity of 1m/s. It would mean that the ball got kinetic energy ½ x 2 x 12 equal to 1 Joule. The same energy force F lost on its side.
Let’s suppose that force F acted again against the ball pushing it for the same period of the time and with the same intensity. Because Newton’s laws are equally valid for the body in the rest or the body with constant and straightforward movement, it is logical to assume that force F passed the same kinetic energy of 1 Joule to the ball and increased the velocity of the ball for 1m/s again. This means that force F passed totally energy of 2 Joules to the ball and caused it to move with constant speed of 2m/s.
Because the ball got velocity of 2 m/s its kinetic energy is ½ x 2 x 22 and equals to 4 Joules. So, the final result is that force F passed 2J, but the ball got 4J. This is a clear case of over unity behavior of the ball receiving energy in portions. Note also that if the force F passed the same energy of 2J in one double longer push, the ball would have received the same energy the force spent for the push.

Hi,

I'd like to comment on these, because I have been thinking about this recently.

Here is the problem:
Force F CANNOT be exerted alone! Everything we have built needs to push some other mass to increase velocity!! that is why E = 0.5MV^2!

Cars push the ground to increase velocity!
Aeroplanes push the air to move forward...
Ships push the water to move forward ...
So, as we increase our speed we need to push with increased speed and that is why as velocity increases we need to apply more energy to increase speed. See?

Remember that velocity is always measured relative to the ground and we need to push the ground to move forward.
To get a 1kg object from 0m/s to 1m/s needs 0.5 joules of energy, but to get it from 1m/s to 2m/s obviously we need more energy (1.5J), because we must increase the RATE of applying our force, to the ground.

Now that is why if we can build an inertial propulsion device which can exert a force to an object by itself, without any external mass interacting, then we have already achieved free energy! I believe that if we manage to build such a device it is actually an Aetheric Engine, which uses the aether to push itself forward.

Then, none of our so called classical mechanics would make sense any more ...

Elias