“Chalkalis type” wheel

[Matos de Matos]

Hi everybody:

After learning here, http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post106105 ,that mathematically we cannot have energy gain from an increase of a force due to an action, I come back to the “applied force” parametric pumping.
The force to change the center of mass, in a child is done along the rod, increasing the centripetal force, changing the amplitude.
The rotating wheel does pull the weights through the rod, and all the forces are on the same angular direction.

Will you guys prove mathematically that this setup will not accelerate?

Thank you
David





http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_nDqIuKRvky...XE/s1600/3.JPG

[Matos de Matos]

This picture was missed.

[Matos de Matos]

With direction of rotation and gear box multiplication

[Matos de Matos]

Hi everybody:

The pair of wheel that pulls the weights up didn’t seem right. They were opposite to the pumping mechanism, despite of taking advantage of inertia.
Changing rotation they will act as “pumping” and still take advantage of the rotational inertia.
Probably the angle has to be changed to use the most of inertia and help pulling the weights of the main pendulum up.
Thank you
David

[Harvey]

Hi Dave,

I certainly applaud your skills in evaluating the various possibilities and then giving us these great 3D representations of your ideas

Throughout history, mankind has had an intuition that the forces of gravity and magnetism somehow contain energy. These intuitions were proved true by science and have even been quantified. Unfortunately, it was discovered that all empirical tests revealed the same basic fact that these two fields were conservative.

A truly conservative field always 'nets' to zero. IOW, after all the calculations are done, the energy gains and losses end up balancing out. This arrangement also lead to another discovery that with conservative fields, the path taken becomes irrelevant to the ending net value.

Academics readily accept this because it is so widely supported by the hands on empirical testing and as of yet, has not been proven to their satisfaction. (See YouTube - ‪AdminOnDuty's Channel‬‎ and (See FizzX.org :: View topic - Magnetically Assisted Pendulum
) So even though some replicated proof does exist that is supported by mathematics as shown by user Jcmax, assumptions were made by there regarding how many degrees would be involved and a random number of 5 degrees was picked out of the air to cancel the gain. So the magnetic proof was discarded and a derogatory name (pendusmot) was arbitrarily attached to it to dissuade anyone from attempting to replicate or scale up the real gains demonstrated. So, when gains are brought to their attention, most academics assume they are in error by some way. But not all academics share such a view.

Professor Lewin at MIT came under serious scrutiny by his peers when he demonstrated a very critical factor with regards to these conservative fields. He proved two very important things in that test. The first thing he showed was that a changing field is not conservative. And the second thing he showed was that energy can be extracted in the middle of the change. When a field is non-conservative, it is no longer path independent. What that means, is that if you alter the path, you alter the energy when it is non-conservative.

When we add energy to a system in opposition to gravity like lifting a pendulum to the top of the travel, the extra energy applied to overcome gravity is stored as Gravitational Potential Energy. When that energy is put to use, it moves the pendulum back to the bottom for us . . . simple right? Not really. When the pendulum reaches the bottom it has extra energy in it stored as momentum. We know this is the case because barring any frictional losses it will swing all the way back to the top without us adding any energy to the system. If it were only giving us back what we put in, it would simply stop at the bottom. Where does this extra energy come from?

Let's take gravity out of the picture for a moment and replace it with something else. Let us lay our pendulum flat on a table. Now we move the bob 180° and measure the energy that takes to move it. We know that Work = Force times Distance and Energy and Work can be equated by which essentially states that Work equals the change in kinetic energy of a body. Now lets attach a rubber band to the pedulum. We move the pendulum the same distance as before, but we have to put more energy in to stretch the rubber band. What happens when we let go . . . does the bob stop when the rubber band is completely contracted? No, whatever inertia exists in the bob, the momentum carries it on. Assuming the bearings on our device are perfect and non friction, how much mass (inertia) can we add to our bob before the rubber band simply cannot move it? Does the MOI (Moment of Inertia) prevent any movement until the force exceeds its value?

With gravity, the MOI is meaningless. It will move any mass and accelerate it at the same rate regardless of its density. Of course, in space the only thing pinning a planet to space time is its own inertia so the acceleration could be seen as the smaller object moving toward the larger, but really, at the smallest level (if such could be accurately measured) both bodies move toward each other. So if a meteorite is attracted to Earth, then the planet is likewise moved toward the meteorite by some small fraction of distance.

But back to the question, where does the 'extra' energy come from? As shown, the real energy put into the bob laying flat on the table is used up to move the bob from one end to the other - the definition of work. We apply a force with our fingers, the bob begins moving, we lessen the force and even apply a negative force to stop it. So there is a difference between the kinetic energy at the start, in the middle and at the end and those represent the work involved. Then when we add the rubber band, we must put more energy in. And it is a good amount for a tight rubber band. How is it converted to work? Let us say the energy we put into the rubber band is 1000 times the energy required to move the bob 180°. Recall we are using frictionless bearings. And now lets suppose we put the device in a vacuum to remove all drag. And now, let's suppose that we have a special rubber band that never wears out and is 100% elastic so no energy is lost to the rubber band. How many times will the bob accelerate and decelerate before the stored energy is dissipated as work? The answer is, it will oscillate indefinitely in that case. All the energy is converted to kinetic and back to potential over and over.

Cut a level (tangent to the earth as a chord) train track through the crust of the earth so that in the middle it is 1 mile deep in the crust. Put a train on it. The train will accelerate to the center and decelerate as it moves on to the destination. Barring any frictional or drag losses, the train can operate carrying any number of passengers and cargo indefinitely moving them from end to end for eternity. Levitate the train on permanent magnets, put it in a vacuum tube and what other losses are there?

That example illustrates that what we consider to be work is obfuscated by energy conversions. When a potential exists, it can be used forever unless the energy is converted to some other form and removed from the system such as heat losses.

IMHO, the only way to extract 'energy' from gravity is to take it out somewhere in a cycle where the conservative field is broken into non conservative sections. As I have demonstrated, this can be done by pitting two conservative fields against each other in an asymmetric way. Another way would be to cause the field to change - but that would require a change in mass or position where gravity is concerned.

There is another important thing that I have left out of this post and that is time. Acceleration is the derivative of velocity and velocity is the derivative of position. IOW, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity and velocity is the rate of change of position. We cannot have a change in position at a single point in time. There must be a differential in time between the two distances. Where an inertia is concerned, time is a factor because a mass must be accelerated to move. F=ma or another way F=m · dV/dt. We can also rewrite this as F = mdV/dt which leads us to see that dt = mdV/ F Therefore we can in essence convert time to energy by applying a smaller force to a mass for a longer period of time and storing that energy in the momentum of the moving mass.

Can we use Inertial Gravity against Mass Gravity to break the field into non conservative parts? If so, then can we extract energy from them?

[Armagdn03]

Hi Dave,

I certainly applaud your skills in evaluating the various possibilities and then giving us these great 3D representations of your ideas

Throughout history, mankind has had an intuition that the forces of gravity and magnetism somehow contain energy. These intuitions were proved true by science and have even been quantified. Unfortunately, it was discovered that all empirical tests revealed the same basic fact that these two fields were conservative.

A truly conservative field always 'nets' to zero. IOW, after all the calculations are done, the energy gains and losses end up balancing out. This arrangement also lead to another discovery that with conservative fields, the path taken becomes irrelevant to the ending net value.

Academics readily accept this because it is so widely supported by the hands on empirical testing and as of yet, has not been proven to their satisfaction. (See YouTube - ‪AdminOnDuty's Channel‬‎ and (See FizzX.org :: View topic - Magnetically Assisted Pendulum
) So even though some replicated proof does exist that is supported by mathematics as shown by user Jcmax, assumptions were made by there regarding how many degrees would be involved and a random number of 5 degrees was picked out of the air to cancel the gain. So the magnetic proof was discarded and a derogatory name (pendusmot) was arbitrarily attached to it to dissuade anyone from attempting to replicate or scale up the real gains demonstrated. So, when gains are brought to their attention, most academics assume they are in error by some way. But not all academics share such a view.

Professor Lewin at MIT came under serious scrutiny by his peers when he demonstrated a very critical factor with regards to these conservative fields. He proved two very important things in that test. The first thing he showed was that a changing field is not conservative. And the second thing he showed was that energy can be extracted in the middle of the change. When a field is non-conservative, it is no longer path independent. What that means, is that if you alter the path, you alter the energy when it is non-conservative.

When we add energy to a system in opposition to gravity like lifting a pendulum to the top of the travel, the extra energy applied to overcome gravity is stored as Gravitational Potential Energy. When that energy is put to use, it moves the pendulum back to the bottom for us . . . simple right? Not really. When the pendulum reaches the bottom it has extra energy in it stored as momentum. We know this is the case because barring any frictional losses it will swing all the way back to the top without us adding any energy to the system. If it were only giving us back what we put in, it would simply stop at the bottom. Where does this extra energy come from?

Let's take gravity out of the picture for a moment and replace it with something else. Let us lay our pendulum flat on a table. Now we move the bob 180° and measure the energy that takes to move it. We know that Work = Force times Distance and Energy and Work can be equated by which essentially states that Work equals the change in kinetic energy of a body. Now lets attach a rubber band to the pedulum. We move the pendulum the same distance as before, but we have to put more energy in to stretch the rubber band. What happens when we let go . . . does the bob stop when the rubber band is completely contracted? No, whatever inertia exists in the bob, the momentum carries it on. Assuming the bearings on our device are perfect and non friction, how much mass (inertia) can we add to our bob before the rubber band simply cannot move it? Does the MOI (Moment of Inertia) prevent any movement until the force exceeds its value?

With gravity, the MOI is meaningless. It will move any mass and accelerate it at the same rate regardless of its density. Of course, in space the only thing pinning a planet to space time is its own inertia so the acceleration could be seen as the smaller object moving toward the larger, but really, at the smallest level (if such could be accurately measured) both bodies move toward each other. So if a meteorite is attracted to Earth, then the planet is likewise moved toward the meteorite by some small fraction of distance.

But back to the question, where does the 'extra' energy come from? As shown, the real energy put into the bob laying flat on the table is used up to move the bob from one end to the other - the definition of work. We apply a force with our fingers, the bob begins moving, we lessen the force and even apply a negative force to stop it. So there is a difference between the kinetic energy at the start, in the middle and at the end and those represent the work involved. Then when we add the rubber band, we must put more energy in. And it is a good amount for a tight rubber band. How is it converted to work? Let us say the energy we put into the rubber band is 1000 times the energy required to move the bob 180°. Recall we are using frictionless bearings. And now lets suppose we put the device in a vacuum to remove all drag. And now, let's suppose that we have a special rubber band that never wears out and is 100% elastic so no energy is lost to the rubber band. How many times will the bob accelerate and decelerate before the stored energy is dissipated as work? The answer is, it will oscillate indefinitely in that case. All the energy is converted to kinetic and back to potential over and over.

Cut a level (tangent to the earth as a chord) train track through the crust of the earth so that in the middle it is 1 mile deep in the crust. Put a train on it. The train will accelerate to the center and decelerate as it moves on to the destination. Barring any frictional or drag losses, the train can operate carrying any number of passengers and cargo indefinitely moving them from end to end for eternity. Levitate the train on permanent magnets, put it in a vacuum tube and what other losses are there?

That example illustrates that what we consider to be work is obfuscated by energy conversions. When a potential exists, it can be used forever unless the energy is converted to some other form and removed from the system such as heat losses.

IMHO, the only way to extract 'energy' from gravity is to take it out somewhere in a cycle where the conservative field is broken into non conservative sections. As I have demonstrated, this can be done by pitting two conservative fields against each other in an asymmetric way. Another way would be to cause the field to change - but that would require a change in mass or position where gravity is concerned.

There is another important thing that I have left out of this post and that is time. Acceleration is the derivative of velocity and velocity is the derivative of position. IOW, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity and velocity is the rate of change of position. We cannot have a change in position at a single point in time. There must be a differential in time between the two distances. Where an inertia is concerned, time is a factor because a mass must be accelerated to move. F=ma or another way F=m · dV/dt. We can also rewrite this as F = mdV/dt which leads us to see that dt = mdV/ F Therefore we can in essence convert time to energy by applying a smaller force to a mass for a longer period of time and storing that energy in the momentum of the moving mass.

Can we use Inertial Gravity against Mass Gravity to break the field into non conservative parts? If so, then can we extract energy from them?

Very nice post harvy, gave me a bit of reading material!

[Matos de Matos]

Can we use Inertial Gravity against Mass Gravity to break the field into non conservative parts? If so, then can we extract energy from them?

Hi Harvey
Thank you for the compliments, I am trying to do my part.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge and experiences.
The discovery of the gain with a sliding magnet is a magnificent.
With an efficient way of turning the magnet and bigger magnets may be possibility to close the loop.
I have a bad net connection, couldn’t see much of the information that you posted, very educational, thank you.
I believe the same, that “in line” forces or energy exchanging, will produce work, we only have to find the right way to tap on it.
The reduction in velocity of the main pendulum carrying the wheel, will throw the ball out, by inertia. Inertia working against gravity, doesn´t breaks the conservative field?
It is my sensation that we can take advantage of the moment of inertia with gravity.
I am stuck with the ideal weight for the driven pendulum (red), and I do not have the math skills to model it. I will try but probably will be inaccurate. I think that we need velocity and a smaller weight, 5 kg, may be ideal.
Thank you
David

[Matos de Matos]

In an open system, which is what I believe Bessler and the sawtooth gravity wheels were, it is much easier to accomplish. The only way to achieve overunity in a gravity machine is to transfer or shift the weight from one section of the machine to another, but it will have to be done almost instanteously or it will equalize. All things in the universe operate in harmony, so the only way to extract power from a harmonious system is to cause chaos. By doing so the system will attempt to rebalance itself, and this is where we can extract the power from. I could be proven wrong on this, as I have not yet achieved overunity on a gravity system, but I have come very close on several occasions.Good Luck. stealth

Hi Stealth:

Thank you for your words.
I am trying to do my part. Ideas generate other ideas and that is how we improve. If we share them, hen somebody will find the right answer.

I could´t find any info on the sawtooth gravity wheels.
Can you recomend any?
Thank you
David

[Matos de Matos]

Sorry, check the search for Buzzsaw gravity motor. Interesting gravity device, but not complete. Need more parts for a working replication. Good Luck. Stealth

Hi Stealth

Thank you for introducing me to the Buzzsaw.
Did you see this?
YouTube - ‪Preston Stroud - BuzzSaw Gravity Wheel Replication - 13-Feb-10‬‎
Great craftsmen but he is run it back words. He has to increase the radius of the center of mass, on the way down and reduce it on the way up.
The pictures below show that the weights only fit if two wheels are used; I believe that one wheel is missing.
I show the direction on the pictures and the red wheel rotates twice the velocity of the exterior and they are connected, so one pushes the other and Vice versa.
It may work, because we are simulating a parametric pumping in which the gravity works more time on the weights going down, and then on the way up and on the red wheel the weights travel twice the velocity and with a smaller radius up.

Thank you
David

[Matos de Matos]

the drawing did not show up

[Mark]

I haven't played around at all with the Buzz Saw Gravity Wheel, but when looking at it I would think that the inside wheel would turn clockwise and the outside wheel would turn counter clockwise.

Mark

[Matos de Matos]

Yes, I've seen that video, and several other attempts at replication, but so far no one has come forward and claimed to have replicated thsi device to selfrun. I think maybe the problem is that some of the pieces are missing, and it is not complete. When I get time I want to replicate this and try to figure out why it doesn't run. As far as I know, this and the Bessler wheels are the only documented free running gravity wheels or devices ever built. Others have claimed to have built free running gravity wheels, but they were never confirmed. Both of these are documented by other people having witnessed their operation. I have one I am now working on that is close to self running, but not quite. Here is a picture of it for you to see and study. Good Luck.. Stealth

Hi Stealth:
What a great though. Good thinking.
Do you think that if you put a spring on the interior where the ball hits when rolls inside, that spring could push the ball on the top when starts roll down.

Regarding the BuzzSaw, I did open a new thread, where I have the number of weights and the flow. I think that is off topic here, and deserves a wider participation because I am very confident that may be a torque over unity.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post107029

Mark, thank you for participating.
I thought about that possibility, but simulating the crossing of the slots seemed difficult to have a smooth transfer of the weights and have a high possibility of “get stuck” (my poor English).
I cannot find a detail that indicates contrary to work. It is always 6 weights coming down in the longer outer ring and two going up in the shorter inside.

Thank you
David

[Harvey]

Just saw the Buzz Saw vid - I have to agree with Dave here that the the video is backwards - in many ways.

First, for his configuration, the outer wheel needs to have more slots than the inner wheel.

Secondly, the outer wheel needs to move slower than the inner wheel.

Third; The wheels need to move counter clockwise for the current arrangement of slots.

I think what we have here, in reality, what everyone saw working, is a two speed transmission. In the working unit, springs keep the weights pulled into the center and the drive mech has a two to one ratio. But when the RPM reaches a certain point, the weights are thrown outward and cause an interlock between the two wheels so they move at the same speed. I can see how these types of transmissions could be used to get the large mass of the Band Saw blades and their rollers up to speed when being driven by water wheels.

Another possibility is that the device was used as a type of over run clutch allowing the wheels to move freely in one direction but lock together in the other direction.

But let's say my intuition is wrong and the device did work as it was claimed. Then we have an outer wheel that moves twice as fast as the inner wheel and thus has a receptor waiting for input in synchronicity with the inner slots due to the 2:1 ratio of slots. This then allows twice as many weights to be in place on the inner wheel making the mass twice as much. Now we have the force of gravity pulling down on those 8 weights on the inner wheel and pulling down on those 4 weights on the outer wheel causing a differential of 4 weights. Now the torque on the wheels is relative to the mass, the radius and the applied force angles of both momentum and gravity (see Moment of Inertia) So first, what is the radius differential? Well, just to get a close approximation, I did get a pixel count and came up with a radius of 84.5 pixels radius on the inner path and 103.8 pixels on the outer path so there is a differential of about 22.5% which isn't a whole lot but it is something. Without exact measurements of weight and radius we cannot do any real world calculations here - the best that could be done are some comparisons based on various radii with a 22.5% differential and various weights to plug in the moment of inertia. Then we could see if having that momentum in the outer wheel offers more torque than that of the inner wheel so we can raise those extra four weights which would have a lower angular momentum. Also, since the outer wheel is moving faster, the weights will transfer their momentum to the inner wheel when they change velocity. This also means that gravity must accelerate the outer wheel to compensate for the introduction of a lower momentum weight at the point of entrance. These momentum exchanges will be there even if we swap the roles of the wheels and try and use the heavier 8 weights to drive the outer wheel - the outer wheel must still accelerate the weight and double it's velocity and the inner wheel must decelerate the weight and halve the velocity. It would seem that the momentum exchange would be balanced either way, what is taken at the one end is put back at the other.

From a strictly gravitational leverage point of view, the torque will be rFsinθ for each weight where F represents the Force of Gravity which is essentially the value of that weight converted to newtons. So a 10kg weight will exert a ~980 N force. So let's say our inner wheel is 1m and each weight is 10kg. There are 16 slots so each is 22.5° from the next. So taking a snapshot with the slots even on both sides, we get 8 degree values starting with 11.25° and ending with 168.75° (there are 7 spaces between the 8 weights of 22.5°). So here is our force list:191.19, 544.46, 814.84, 961.17, 961.17, 814.84, 544.46, 191.19 for a total gravitational torque on the inner wheel at that instant in time is 5,023 N

Applying the same thing to the outer wheel we have a radius of 1.225M and a spacing of 45° so our starting degree would be 22.5° in our balanced snapshot. Here our list is 459.41, 1109.12, 1109.12, 459.41 for a total negative gravitational torque of 3137.06 N on the outer wheel at that instant in time

So it would seem that even though the inner wheel has less leverage, the doubled weights provide an advantage to lift the outer wheel.

But . . . can it lift it at twice the velocity? For that we need to know if the device is able to run smoothly or if it is surging (see impulse force) with the introduction of a new weight. The weight must be accelerated over some distance as small as that may be, in a given qty of time. And those are all unknowns and difficult to calculate. Even my above calculations differ as the weights move into a top and bottom position placing two out of nine weights at a sin(0) or sin(180) position either of which results in zero force and only gives us 7 weights in play. So it does take some complex math to sort it all out correctly.

It would seem that the inertia and momentum involved would net to zero but there will always be some losses in the transitions. Perhaps someone else would like to tackle the math on that. It is a bit difficult to visualize a smooth transition between wheels without something getting wedged or slammed. There must be some mechanism to ensure the timing and prevent locking.

[Matos de Matos]

There must be some mechanism to ensure the timing and prevent locking.

Hi Harvey:

I just found this, Directory:BuzzSaw Gravity Wheel - PESWiki
and according to same people the original wheel had a clutch that would connect the red and the yellow wheel.
They say that he had a kind of hammer to help the weights sliding.
As you know I can’t be of any help on the math, but seems that to impair the double velocity on the yellow wheel, the torque needed doubles ???? (3137.06 N).
My proposal http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...tml#post107029 has always 4 weights coming down on the left half of the yellow wheel, and the right half that goes up is empty.
The red wheel has 2 weights going up on the right half, none on the other half and with double the velocity of the yellow wheel.
Very slow, to give time for the weights to roll, may work.

When you have the time I would like to ear your opinion on the:
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewa...how-i-see.html

Thank you
David