F.M.Chalkalis gravity system a donation!

[Cloxxki]

I used to think it would be avanteous to add energy at 6:00, as a little more speed goes up a hill much further. Just, that little bit of extra speed, costs a lot of extra input. It even out nomatter what.

If Chalkalis' device is OU, it will in my view be due to the unique geometry of the weights. Each at different angles and ditances to the fulcrum, is different phases of the 360º cycle, while all fixed relative to each other. My gut tells me the 3 main weights can be substituted by one for identical performance. If I am wrong, we're close to the definate answer of OU from gravity.

Chalkalis notes to the importance of the geometry, apparently derived from experimentation more than from vision. I still don't understand where he sees the OU.

[Matos de Matos]

The diagram is somewhat similar in that any time the cage rotation is moving downward you are bending your knees, and extending your body when moving upwards, and this is what gives you the feel in your hands and arms of pulling the cage down or lifting it up. Your body weight should always be distributed as close to the arc perimeter as is possible, and so you must shift from one side of the cage to the other at both the top and the bottom of the rotation.

In the video linked here (same as in post #75) the two men are standing on opposite sides of the cage, while the woman and child are standing on just one side. Later, the men work together on one side. In all cases, there is no weight shifting from side to side at the required timings, and this is why they fail to reach, or go over, the top.
YouTube - Dennis Barber Swinging Gyms Hanbury Steam Rally Stoke Prior Fair 19th September 2009

Hi Rickoff.

You are right that we have to be close to the perimeter on your way down, but I think that we shall get closer to the fulcrum on your way up to reduce the trajectory when against gravity.
The knees’ bending is to increase the amplitude when gravity is at work downwards changing the center of mass.

I posted a drawing in the thread started by SkyWatcher, Pendulum Assisted Manual Generator, where I simulate the pumping with permanent magnets.
I think that way we may have extra energy to tap on it.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post103687
David

[Ted Ewert]

I see a possible problem Ted.
If you are falling 1000m/s, subject to gravity 9.8m/ss, 10m down, you will have been subjected to gravity for 1/100th of a second. In that time frame, you will accelerate 1/100th of 9.8m/s. So you speed is rather ~1000.1m/s 10m down.

A falling object, each second, increases its AVERAGE speed from release by 5m/s. Each consecutive second, 10m MORE is added.

With G=10m/s:
Time Avg Dist Dist Chang
1s - 5m/s - 5m - 5m added
2s - 10/s - 20m - 15m added
3s - 15m/s - 45m - 25m added
4s - 20m/s - 80m - 35m added

Sorry if I misinterpreted your calculations or explanation. I will go over the rest of it later when I have sufficient time.

I thought about this issue too. That's why when I found the formula it was a small Eureka moment.
When a mass falls 9.8 meters it is not traveling at 9.8 m/sec as it passes that mark. It is traveling around 14 m/sec. This is because it was stopped at the beginning of the distance and had to accelerate through that distance. 9.8 m/sec would be the speed for a mass with a constant velocity that traversed 9.8 meters in one second.
This is not a function of time, but rather a function of distance and force. That's the key. It doesn't matter what the velocity is, or even which direction the mass is traveling. If the mass passes between two vertical points, gravity will exert the same amount of force and either accelerate that mass or decelerate it at the same rate.
The formula for acceleration of gravity, 9.8 meters per second squared, describes a constant rate of acceleration. Two objects of different mass will fall at the same rate of acceleration due to this principal. The rate of acceleration is not dependent on time, mass, direction or initial velocity. It only applies to vertical distance freely traveled.
If the rate of acceleration ever changed, the number 9.8 would also have to change.

Cheers,
Ted

[sebosfato]

Guys

I watched closely and i think that its not over unity.

It simply accumulate energy like a resonant tank... He continuously input 500watts and according with his losses per cycle he can accumulate 6000 watts... However it will not generate energy, even if the generator is placed on the going down period...


However i'm believing that interaction between resonances could lead us to generate energy. Like having a mechanical resonance in combination with electrical resonance. I started a discussion on ionizationx.com about a vibrational transformer that i designed witch works like a speaker but the inductor is fixed and there is a moving magnet inside with it's movement restricted by other two magnets in repelling form.

I believe that the mechanical resonance will somehow change the power factor of the electrical resonance thus allowing you to use many kwatts of power accumulated in the tank circuit with a greater power factor than they already have. check it out!

[Ted Ewert]

Hi Ted,
I enjoy reading your posts. Your explanation makes sense.
Let me put it this way:
GRAVITY IS THE FREE INERTIAL PROPULSION OF THE UNIVERSE.
It just exerts PURE force.
The secret that this device is using is the fact that a pendulum loses and gains VELOCITY as it rotates, so what does this mean?
It means that we need to apply F_a to the device when the speed is the least, and let gravity add its energy on the down fall. So consider this:
the pendulum is currently rotating and it is oscillating between V1 and V2 (V1 < V2)

GOAL:
We want to increase the velocity of the pendulum V units so that the speed oscillates between (V1+V) and (V2+V).

We need to apply a Force to do this, but depending on the speed of the pendulum, the energy required is different.


1- The energy required to do this is minimum when the speed of the pendulum is at its minimum (V1):

E_min = 0.5m((V1+V)^2 - V1^2) = 0.5m(2V1*V + V^2) = m*V1*V + 0.5m*V^2.

2- When we apply our energy to increase the speed when the speed of the pendulum is at its maximum:

E_max = 0.5m((V2+V)^2 - V2^2) = 0.5m(2V2*V + V^2) = m*V2*V + 0.5m*V^2.


Now clearly the result is a pendulum rotating with a velocity oscillating between V1+V and V2 + V and is the same but the applied energy is different.

Example:
Our 1kg pendulum velocity is oscillating between 1m/s and 2m/s
We want to make it oscillate between 2m/s and 3m/s (increasing the speed by 1m/s)
E_min = 1 * 1 * 1 + 0.5 * 1 * 1 = 1.5J
E_max = 1 * 2 * 1 + 0.5 * 1 * 4 = 4J
The difference is HUGE! (more than 2.5 times less energy is required if we kick where the pendulum has the least energy)

So as the pendulum moves into the 1 o' clock position we give it a kick, thus increasing the speed and gravity adds to it until it reaches the bottom.

This means that we must draw energy from the rotating pendulum when the pendulum is at its maximum speed, otherwise we will lose everything we applied to the system. So we need to apply our force at the top and extract energy at the bottom! Thus harvesting the FREE GRAVITY.

In order to be able to get more energy from gravity in each rotation, we need to increase the pendulum length and mass.

I really hope that it works as depicted!

Thanks for your attention.

Elias

Exactly! You hit the nail on the head. That's just what Chalkalis is doing with his device. Gravity acts as a multiplier of kinetic energy added at the top.
I see no reason why this device wouldn't work.
Like you say though, as the velocity of the pendulum increases, adding more velocity takes more energy. This is why Chalkalis has those heavy drive wheels, which act as flywheels, to impart a maximum amount of energy in a short period of time. That's one of the engineering hurdles that needs to be addressed in any replication.
Nice work Elias.

Ted

[Ted Ewert]

I fail to get the point of this device..
Ben

Hi Ben, That drawing was meant to illustrate a concept. I would suggest reading posts #83, #87 and #93 for some theory behind that design.

Cheers,

Ted

[Cloxxki]

I thought about this issue too. That's why when I found the formula it was a small Eureka moment.
When a mass falls 9.8 meters it is not traveling at 9.8 m/sec as it passes that mark. It is traveling around 14 m/sec. This is because it was stopped at the beginning of the distance and had to accelerate through that distance. 9.8 m/sec would be the speed for a mass with a constant velocity that traversed 9.8 meters in one second.
Ted

Elias retracted his example. Velocity oscillation between top and bottom is an inverse function of rpm, not a fixed difference like 1m/s.

Really, I'm afraid the 1.4 formula you came up with is not valid. It offers the correct answer only for one specific vertical distance and starting velocity.
Sorry if re-stating the obvious.

[Ted Ewert]

Elias retracted his example. Velocity oscillation between top and bottom is an inverse function of rpm, not a fixed difference like 1m/s.

Really, I'm afraid the 1.4 formula you came up with is not valid. It offers the correct answer only for one specific vertical distance and starting velocity.
Sorry if re-stating the obvious.

You are correct, thank you for making me reexamine my math. The velocity increase per unit of distance traveled decreases as the total velocity increases.
It doesn't matter though because it still works. One part doesn't change: whatever the increase is in velocity, caused by gravity, between the top and the bottom of the stroke, it will still multiply whatever kinetic energy was added at the top. Even if it's only 1 m/s, it will still multiply kinetic energy.
Also, as the RPMs increase, the number of events per unit of time will increase. There may be a smaller gain per revolution, but there will be more gains per second.
Again, as long as gravity accelerates the pendulum there will be a multiplication of added KE. The rest is academic.

Ted

[nvisser]

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

Ashtweth
Will Mr. Chalkalis join the forum to answer our questions or will you relay them for us?
The biggest question is probably how he measured the output power and did he connect a load to that pulley?
I am sure that once that question is answered a lot of guys will attempt to build this monster and start to shake the earth !

[sebosfato]

Yes of couse it clearly works...

[woopy]

Hi all

just 2 cents of pratical investigation

what do you think

good night at all

Laurent

[Matthew Jones]

Hi all

just 2 cents of pratical investigation

what do you think

good night at all

Laurent
YouTube - gravity power by chalkalis

Love it!!

I'll try the same test tommorrow.

Matt

[ashtweth]

Ashtweth
Will Mr. Chalkalis join the forum to answer our questions or will you relay them for us?
The biggest question is probably how he measured the output power and did he connect a load to that pulley?
I am sure that once that question is answered a lot of guys will attempt to build this monster and start to shake the earth !

Hi Vissie/ALL!

Sure thing my friend have been drooping him emails, will drop him another one and see how its all going

[Dingus]

The first instance I saw the diagram for Chalkalis' device I mistook it for Thornson's Internal Engine. Than I realized that it might actually benefit from this design change.

I tried to make a diagram of what the idea looks like, but it's pretty bad. (posting it anyway)

Take the left-hand side of this, rotate it 180 & 135 degrees clockwise (to achieve largest falling radius & smallest rising radius, but I have no idea what angle would be best) and that's pretty much what my drawing was supposed to be.

[Peter Lindemann]

Other Possibilities

Hi all

just 2 cents of pratical investigation

what do you think

good night at all

Laurent
YouTube - gravity power by chalkalis

Dear Woopy and everyone else,

Thanks for posting the video of your experiment. While it seems to support the idea that a gravity assist can be created easily, as you suggest, it is also possible that the increased speed of the rotor, when operated in the horizontal plane, is due to lower friction in the bearings. Ordinary ball bearings do not work very well as "thrust" type bearings when the shaft is vertical and would definitely spin more freely when the shaft is horizontal. Science is about seeing "what is" and not what we want to see. The rotor does run faster when the shaft is horizontal. I believe it is too soon to say we understand why.

The premise of a gravity assist may be true, and is well worth further exploration, but this one experiment is insufficient to prove the hypothesis.

Peter