F.M.Chalkalis gravity system a donation!

[ashtweth]

What happens when it goes East west as opposed to north south..try different polarities..bet it will reveal some thing..got this idea from Hector

[woopy]

Hi Peter and all

Yes Peter you are right, i made a big mistake

And this morning, i did a more accurate test and all my discovery from yesterday got in the trash. But i have learned something anyway.

So the results. I glued the rotor on a heavy square stone to avoid the vibration.

1 the system is flat with no counterweight the RPM are 272,
2 the system is vertical with no counterweight, the RPM are 371.

3 the system is flat with 2 battery as counterweight the RPM are 244
4 the system is vertical with 2 battery as counterweight the RPM are 350.

4 the system is flat with 3 battery as counterweight the RPM are 243
5 the system is vertical with 3 battery as counterweight the RPM are 345

conclusion, the acceleration between flat and vertical is about 100 RPM with or without the counterweight.

I have been in the beginner error and i am sorry.

Thanks Peter, i will retry my video, because it can mislead people

But all is fun guys, and if we do not try nothing happens

good luck at all

Laurent

[Matos de Matos]

Hi all

just 2 cents of pratical investigation

what do you think

good night at all

Laurent
YouTube - gravity power by chalkalis

Hi Laurent:

I think that horizontally you have more friction surface at ball bearing than in the vertical.
The uneven batteries weight will rock the plate left to right, slightly unbalancing it and increasing friction in the horizontal, that won’t exist in the vertical.
I believe that are some, and probably not all the reasons why the RPM are higher at vertical.
If you put a load in the vertical, to reduce the RPM to the same as horizontal, the Amps will increase proportional. There will be no gains, only a load equal to the drive.
To see any gain the wheel had to accelerate and increase the rpm after each rotation.
I don’t think really matters where the load and drive are applied, is a question of torque versus velocity.
David

[Cloxxki]

Hi Peter and all

Yes Peter you are right, i made a big mistake

And this morning, i did a more accurate test and all my discovery from yesterday got in the trash. But i have learned something anyway.

So the results. I glued the rotor on a heavy square stone to avoid the vibration.

1 the system is flat with no counterweight the RPM are 272,
2 the system is vertical with no counterweight, the RPM are 371.

3 the system is flat with 2 battery as counterweight the RPM are 244
4 the system is vertical with 2 battery as counterweight the RPM are 350.

4 the system is flat with 3 battery as counterweight the RPM are 243
5 the system is vertical with 3 battery as counterweight the RPM are 345

conclusion, the acceleration between flat and vertical is about 100 RPM with or without the counterweight.

I have been in the beginner error and i am sorry.

Thanks Peter, i will retry my video, because it can mislead people

But all is fun guys, and if we do not try nothing happens

good luck at all

Laurent

Great experiments anyway Laurent, thanks for the follow-up!

Another effect I can see, is that when vertical, the air had more freedom to circulate, also behind the wooden base. Perhaps far-fetched, but to be taken into account when not enclosing the whole system.

Your results make one woder though, your device spins nicely, but the difference in bearing loads are huge. Perhaps cup/cone bearings are worth considering over cartridge ones, for performance consistency purposes.

[elias]

Hi everyone,

I just popped in to say that I tried every possible combination of calculations using classical Newtonian mechanics, I regret to say that if something seriously new is happening in this device, we must throw away the Newtonian mechanics, because all of these formulas are designed in a way that closes the loop so to speak.

My former post about the calculations is flawed, because I did not take into account the fact that when the rotor speed increases, gravity has less time to accelerate the pendulum, so that compensates for the seeming increased energy we think we get.

Sorry ... if this thing works we must design some experiments and design other sets of mechanical "laws" that allow gravity to input energy into our system.

Keep up experimenting everyone ...

Elias

[Ted Ewert]

Hi everyone,

I just popped in to say that I tried every possible combination of calculations using classical Newtonian mechanics, I regret to say that if something seriously new is happening in this device, we must throw away the Newtonian mechanics, because all of these formulas are designed in a way that closes the loop so to speak.

My former post about the calculations is flawed, because I did not take into account the fact that when the rotor speed increases, gravity has less time to accelerate the pendulum, so that compensates for the seeming increased energy we think we get.

Sorry ... if this thing works we must design some experiments and design other sets of mechanical "laws" that allow gravity to input energy into our system.

Keep up experimenting everyone ...

Elias

Regretfully, I think you may be right. In my excitement I overlooked the most basic test: if this thing did gain energy in the form of velocity, it would never stop spinning. That it does stop spinning means that there is no net gain in velocity or kinetic energy over time.
Like in the Milkovic oscillator, any gain would have to be realized indirectly. There is still a tremendous amount of centrifugal force that could possibly be tapped into.
It was an enjoyable mental exercise anyway.

[Cloxxki]

From Asia, there are multiple "wheel" inventions claiming to in fact be achieving OU. I never seem to understand one of them.

If an inventor wants to convince the world of OU, please just explain HOW this is supposed to work, and WHY.

CF, I want to believe it can be tapped. But realistically I don't see it from happening in my life time. So many other ways to generate more energy than we have a use for, without doubt as to it working or not...

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, so far it looks like, apply load only on down swing and it becomes efficient that way. Apply load through full rotation and any efficiency gains are neutralized.
peace love light
Tyson

[Cloxxki]

Hi folks, so far it looks like, apply load only on down swing and it becomes efficient that way. Apply load through full rotation and any efficiency gains are neutralized.
peace love light
Tyson

Could you perhaps offer a reason for this not falsified by above arguments, or falsify the arguments themselves? I'd love to understand how this technology is supposed to work.
I can imagine much more complex variations to this theme. The main weight could be spring-spaced, or even sitting amids springs on the "dial" rods. I could speculate why that might offer gain, but this system is very elementary, it seems. Fixed weight, drie only at the start of downswing. Odd.

[Cherryman]

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.

Hi, i played with something similar in theorie a few months back, it's not that spectacular but It might be useful for you.

YouTube - The Owl.flv

[SkyWatcher]

Hi folks, Hi Cloxxki, I can't offer any argument to refute what you folks are saying, yet. What I can see, is that if this type of device is to work, it appears to me that a certain load can only be extracted on the down swing. I still have yet to setup my machine to do that automatically to test it out, otherwise it doesn't seem obvious how a gain can manifest, I'll keep an open mind yet. Nothing to lose anyway, all good fun and learning.
peace love light
Tyson

[Mad Scientist]

I would like to see this work but I’m sorry if this makes some unhappy but I don’t believe it will. Yes you can make it spin but I seriously doubt that you could but a substantial load on it and expect it do real work. Forget all the fancy math and just look at it as the simple device that it is.

Assume that the weights are just past the 12:00 o’clock position, with the drive motor turned off, gravity will pull the weights down and accelerate them. When the weights reach the 6:00 o’clock position the energy that they acquired from their fall will allow them to continue to swing upward but now gravity will be retarding their movement. Thus they might only reach the 11:00 o’clock position before gravity overcomes their momentum and starts dragging them back down. But at that point if we were to start the drive motor it would only take a relatively small amount of additional power to get them from the 11:00 to 12:00 o’clock position and have the whole process start over. That can be done and obviously works.

But what happens if we put a load on it and try to make it do some real work? Let’s assume that a load is such that after the weights swing down that they can only get to the 8:00 o’clock position before they run out of momentum and stop. So if we want it to keep it running we now need to start the drive motor at the 8:00 o’clock position thus a lot more power will be needed from the motor. Plus we still want to be driving the load so the motor must also supply the power for that as well. This unfortunately is not a formula for success.

There was a link earlier it was mention that NASA in the beginning had a problem figuring out were their rockets were going and this turned out to be related to their spinning apparently changing their mass. Thus it would seem that investigating a rotating spinning mass might prove interesting.

[elias]

my centrifugal generator (untested)

Regretfully, I think you may be right. In my excitement I overlooked the most basic test: if this thing did gain energy in the form of velocity, it would never stop spinning. That it does stop spinning means that there is no net gain in velocity or kinetic energy over time.
Like in the Milkovic oscillator, any gain would have to be realized indirectly. There is still a tremendous amount of centrifugal force that could possibly be tapped into.
It was an enjoyable mental exercise anyway.

Hi Ted, and everyone interested ...

Mr Chalkalis claims that centrifugal force adds to it, but I don't see it anywhere in his design.

One design I had in my mind that could make the centrifugal force add to the rotation is the one below, I am going to start a thread about this so that discussion about this design can continue over there:



I had this idea about 9 months ago, but for some strange reason I thought that it might not work, maybe because it was so simple. But now as I think through it twice, maybe it works, only experimentation can tell.

Elias

[Cloxxki]

Hi Ted, and everyone interested ...

Mr Chalkalis claims that centrifugal force adds to it, but I don't see it anywhere in his design.

One design I had in my mind that could make the centrifugal force add to the rotation is the one below, I am going to start a thread about this so that discussion about this design can continue over there:



I had this idea about 9 months ago, but for some strange reason I thought that it might not work, maybe because it was so simple. But now as I think through it twice, maybe it works, only experimentation can tell.

Elias

Hi Elias,

Glad to read I"m not the only one that fails to see CF happening in Chalkalis' device. I mentioned this earlier I think. His design does lend itself to got crazy with CF effects if so desired.

Your proposed schematic at first glance seems to work, however, increased radius (from CF), immediately reduces rpm, and vice versa. Newton won't be tricked that easily... Hopefully I'm not seeing your schematic correctly.

[elias]

Hi Elias,

Glad to read I"m not the only one that fails to see CF happening in Chalkalis' device. I mentioned this earlier I think. His design does lend itself to got crazy with CF effects if so desired.

Your proposed schematic at first glance seems to work, however, increased radius (from CF), immediately reduces rpm, and vice versa. Newton won't be tricked that easily... Hopefully I'm not seeing your schematic correctly.

Hi Cloxxki!

It might not work for so many reasons, but I don't know how you see the radius increased? maybe my diagram is not clear enough. It is only a bar or a disc, with free arms which are able to rotate around the contact points to the bar. As the bar gains speed, the arms are straight out because of CF. and that is the total radius the system operates on (radius of the bar or disc+arm length). I have named it the centrifugal assister, because if it works, it only shows up under load.

Even if the radius of the system increases, we may lose some speed, but if we decrease the radius again the system will speed up again. It is because of the conservation of angular momentum. I have verified this fact personally.
So there is no problem with increasing the radius or decreasing it, if it affects the RPM.

I have started a new thread for this and we can continue our discussion over there.
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...ead.php?t=6052

Elias