Well some of the maths seems to add up ... still I wonder what some of you guys with a better mechanical acumen than me make of this writing http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/ (http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/) I did read through it and then emailed Mr Frost .. a very friendly guy, he spent a deal of Skype time with me. having had several recent heart issues he is eager to pass on his experiences whilst he still may. The owner of a fabrication factory in Wisconsin he is alas no longer able to run it at capacity. He does however have many machines to show some of which he was kind enough to show me over Skype and some he was reluctant to point a camera at.
Quote from the link-:1. A Man in good health is capable of developing less than 100 watts or Joules of sustained "energy" per second without a machine.
2. The same Man can easily develop 300 watts per second with a simple machine known as the flywheel. (In reality it can be much more)
3. The 300 watts of energy in the flywheel per second can be transferred to another wheel which would then also have 300 watts for one second.
4. If the flywheel rotates once per second - the same man could place a circular array of 5 identical flywheels in motion in one revolution, each additional flywheel having 300 watts for one second.
5. 5 times 300 is 1500 no matter whether done by an imbecile, or a brain surgeon.
6. 1500 divided by 100 is 15. The same logic applies. Except that this shows the machine amplified the Man's 100 watts of input "energy 15 times. = COP 15 no problem.
Lets look at this statement-: The 300 watts of energy in the flywheel per second can be transferred to another wheel which would then also have 300 watts for one second.
NO-each flywheel would have 150 watts of stored energy,minus losses through the transfer(belts,gears),and also losses through the bearings.This is asumeing that the flywheels are of the same size,and are now spinning at the same speed.
Now this one-: If the flywheel rotates once per second - the same man could place a circular array of 5 identical flywheels in motion in one revolution, each additional flywheel having 300 watts for one second.
First up,time has no meaning-the flywheels have 300 watts of stored energy wether it's removed from them in one second,or one hour.The time it takes to depleete this 300 watt's is dependant on load.
The man would have to put 1500 watts of energy(+ losses)into the 5 flywheels (of same size)for each of those flywheels to have 300 watts(or joules) of stored energy.
Im afraid the mans thinking in this book is all wrong.
oh dear poor guy! I hope there's a flaw in that some where timman from what I saw Michael has spent thousands and thousands of dollars already. and what he has built certainly isn't small scale . I have often thought there may be an unknown x factor in a flywheel action but of course it wouldn't be seen in standard dogma. The point where he seems to deviate from the simple explanation he offers and you quote,is in practice the input is a series of rapid and variable pulses (duty cycles) . from an experiment point of view I see lots of troubles here ... not least accurately measuring the input power. still the claim is that with the correct mass , frequency and duty cycle this arrangement is COP >1 of course the 'self runner' is what we want to see as proof positive , I wasn't shown that
Dear Duncan.
Having spent the last two months or so with my mechanical "hat" on, which is a much closer tolerance fit than my electronic one !! :) I am writing to let you know that I have a little faith in the proposed Flywheel experiment.
I have attached a picture of the "ingredients" that will be assembled in the next week or so. This is while I wait for some parts to come for another project I am currently working on.
The only second hand parts are the flywheels. The smaller one from a 1/2 HP 1910 Town Gas engine and the larger one is from my 3/4 HP 1890's Robinson "X" Town Gas engine. Both have a substantial weight to them and should prove one way or the other the feasibility.
The drive motor is a 3/4 HP Chinese lathe motor and the Alternator is a 6 KVA Italian made brushless excitation 3000 RPM for 50 HZ. Both are Brand new !!
Let the gravity field commence !!
Cheers Grum.
Duncan
Also I will throw My hat in the ring for a visit to your friend in Wisconsin if need be. [would be a big trip for me]
if it will help in the replication?
@ Grum
very nice... very nice indeed....
thx
Chet
Wow Guy's, just when >I thought it safe to come back to the forum :D
After spending a few days playing tenis with one on EF over flywheels and the like, I came here :-\
I will be watching with gusto graham O0
regards
Mike 8)
Hi All.
I might be able to add this to my summer projects, is there any videos on this flywheel?
Tom
Dear Mike.
A little story...
My engineering skills were mostly taught me by an old hand. His name was Alex, he had a small precision engineering unit near where you were based in Wrexham. Sadly, Alex has passed on but his son still runs the business.
Some months back I called in to "Cadge" some 1" Dia bar for this very project. Tim asked what I was up to, I of course told him and to my surprise he said that a chap not to far away from me was running successfully something on the same lines !! :D And had been doing so for the last 17 years !! Tim had made him the solid steel flywheels. I asked Tim if he could put me in touch but nothing has surfaced as yet.
I am hoping to "put this one to bed" either proving or disproving this perennial myth !! ;)
Cheers Graham.
Quote from: Tommey Reed on 2014.06.29, 18:26:10
Hi All.
I might be able to add this to my summer projects, is there any videos on this flywheel?
Tom
Dear Tom.
You must have seen this ??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgk0HfXhU9M
Let's see what we can achieve !!
Cheers Graham.
Hi All,
Now I remember seeing this video, I do believe he is on to something.
Inertia is a stored mechanical energy like a capacitor, would be a interesting project.
Those flywheel looks big and heavy, lots of metal to build that project.
Maybe concrete flywheel in a drum might work?
It's cheaper and you could make any size you need.
Thanks Graham for the video O0
Tom.
Small flywheels as used in toy gyros have the mass concentrated in the rim, the stuff closer to the axle can be a waste of material.
Some of these small units are filled almost all the way with fine sand and can be self balancing.
I was thinking the same thing can be done with a tire filled partway with sand if you don't go too fast.
It may need a steel reinforcing band welded from the rim to the outside to contain the force, but you could get lots of rotational self balancing mass on the outside and on the cheap.
Disclaimer: Don't try this it is dangerous. C.C
Hi Chet .. I have emailed you contact details for Michael with his permisso , email and skype, (his preference is skype) its a long haul for you to take in person, I suggest you skype Michael have a look and listen and then decide for yourself best wishes Duncan
Quote from: Grumage on 2014.06.29, 18:49:03
Dear Tom.
You must have seen this ??
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgk0HfXhU9M
Let's see what we can achieve !!
Cheers Graham.
Ah yes,Mr Chas-a man that dosnt know the difference between start up currents,and run currents. A 2000 watt grinder dosnt use 2000 watts unless under full load.
The flywheel is an energy storage device,not an energy making device.
Duncan
I am working out of town ,when I get back home I will contact him [tonight]
@Brad
If there is one thing we do know how to do here,...
its measure input and output,
thx
Chet
Never tried this and I don't know if it is real, but consider the Aspden Effect in a flywheel.
http://www.haroldaspden.com/lectures/30.htm
@all
There is a complete thread at OU on Chas going back some time. Suggest anyone interested in such a device look it up before doing any major works.
Just remember that any generator will have a minimum RPM requirement before it can start to dish out some juice. But then you have your prime mover and its gear/pulley ratios to reach that generator RPM. Then you have the fact that when you increase RPM at a given motive force, you decrease torque, so higher RPM is not always the best answer. Then you have conventional generator drag and prime mover losses which may then push one to custom build a smart motor and generator set. The story can go on and on for years and years like pulling on an elastic band increases the pressure exertion but thins out the rubber, this dance of give and take is not an easy tune to follow.
Just make sure the drive motor and generator shafts and all gears, pulleys and wheels are supported by two bearings otherwise your motors will bear the brunt of any misalignments.
Also, please know that should you accept this project, then in the event that you or anyone associated with this project should die or are missing in action, this department will deny any involvement. This post will self-destruct in 5 seconds ....., ....., ....., ....., ....., hehehe.
wattsup
Quote from: TinMan on 2014.06.30, 10:02:51
Ah yes,Mr Chas-a man that dosnt know the difference between start up currents,and run currents. A 2000 watt grinder dosnt use 2000 watts unless under full load.
You have missed the point of this.
http://www.free-energy-info.com/Chapter4.pdf
See page 4. (N.B. page numbers change as material is added or taken away).
That's great Chet I know from conversations with Michael that working on the switching and pulse circuitry with him is nvisser who I have also met (he's also no stranger to MJN) . He certainly doesn't need ohms law explaining to him and I know he has all the instruments over in Pretoria and knows how to drive them. It's of course possible that even Vissie can miss something obvious but for me it adds a lot of weight to the possibility that something out of the ordinary is happening here.
Grum --- what a great collection of parts that are not easily found ! Its not easy to work on something that you don't fully believe in, and its hard to believe when the engineering isn't fully understood and pulsed flywheels are certainly slap bang in the middle of that! just consider this Grumage there are plenty of examples of these flywheel systems working or being claimed to work and very few of the folks have tried to profit or scam. as you say .. we'll see! PS this is how not to do it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmXBebQzMyQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmXBebQzMyQ) but if you do sell the farm in order to build and end living in a horse box .. Its nice if you can still sing about it ! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ79DqWYGI0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQ79DqWYGI0)
Quote from: Duncan on 2014.06.30, 19:06:43
Grum --- what a great collection of parts that are not easily found ! Its not easy to work on something that you don't fully believe in, and its hard to believe when the engineering isn't fully understood and pulsed flywheels are certainly slap bang in the middle of that! just consider this Grumage there are plenty of examples of these flywheel systems working or being claimed to work and very few of the folks have tried to profit or scam. as you say .. we'll see!
Dear Duncan.
I am a firm believer in my own skills, after all I have known me all my life !! :) That assemblage has cost £450 ++ The alternator was the most expensive @ £325.00, Taperlock pulleys and Plummer blocks £135.00 then a little more cash for the various other bit's and bob's.
It was you and some others who spurred me on and I am also grateful to ION who has posted Harold Aspden. My workshop that is built into the side of a hill get's very wet in the winter months so I only venture into it during the summer months these days.
AGE !! :)
This is why I have only now got onto this project that has been simmering in my head for a very long time.
As I said previously, it's time to put this one to bed, one way or the other. I will give it my best shot. All that is left to do is Mill the keyways and weld up the 40 mm box section steel frame. I had presented this idea for belt pulsing, see attached sketch. What do our readers think ??
Cheers Graham.
As you recall Grumage I was at variance with your (or rather your buddy) regarding the source of the gain, I know one or two guys who have built these flywheel systems on accepted engineering principles just as your doing .. (one is Jetijs from energetics forum and to be honest I have rarely seen engineering to match his work.) Still built like that they simply don't seem to work ... The ones that actually do work have awful engineering (at least load matching wise)with the main drive being terribly overloaded .. I think intentionally .. in fact they are unable to start at all unaided. So that every one that works must have either assisted start or the load applied gradually (until overloaded.) I suspect this is because the drive has to be run in state where it is forced out of a comfortable synchronous condition so large reactive current can circulate. This is the view I explained before that most neither see or agree with, I also suggested that two Squirrel cage motors be used (and not an alternator) I also if you recall suggested a dirt cheap source for alternators (if you were determined to use one).I suggested that grum because I don't think an alternator is the right tool here but again that's just my opinion, and I hope you prove me wrong, Of course I encourage research Grumage something is happening here under certain conditions that can't easily be explained. Still regarding the reason its happening we obviously have different views I don't believe this is a purely mechanical action. Although it may look that way. I doubt that pulse could be duplicated mechanically as its phase is not accounted for in current mechanics, Regardless of my views you and your friend will buy manufacture and engineer exactly what you have envisioned, I too have little faith in what you picture and described working. As it is. Still I do have faith in what may follow after the obvious is eliminated we can only build what we imagine. Tesla was puzzled that folks failed ever to see the whole circuit and that seems especially the case here, one part of the equation is the pulse broadcast forward onto the flywheel what seems totally ignored is the inevitable equal and opposite effect reflected back at the supply. still you have most of the bits there to make a good fist of the project .... very nice
Quote from: Grumage on 2014.06.29, 18:45:56
Dear Mike.
A little story...
My engineering skills were mostly taught me by an old hand. His name was Alex, he had a small precision engineering unit near where you were based in Wrexham. Sadly, Alex has passed on but his son still runs the business.
Some months back I called in to "Cadge" some 1" Dia bar for this very project. Tim asked what I was up to, I of course told him and to my surprise he said that a chap not to far away from me was running successfully something on the same lines !! :D And had been doing so for the last 17 years !! Tim had made him the solid steel flywheels. I asked Tim if he could put me in touch but nothing has surfaced as yet.
I am hoping to "put this one to bed" either proving or disproving this perennial myth !! ;)
Cheers Graham.
Hi Graham
I am thinking of putting all I have found on the William Skinner machine here.
It has really opened my eyes once I realised how it works, it is quite brilliant and well thought out from start to finish, and imagine it was made in 1939 just before the war broke out, and with no internet, basicly I think it was not seen again and forgotten about.
All there is left is a short newsreel film and a still press photo.
Skinner was also the inventor of the plate heat exchanger, I did not know that and came as quite a surprise when I read his patent.
The more I delved into each part of the machine, I realised just what he had done, untilised gravity in conjunction with centripetal and centrifugal forces, I call it 3D because it is exactly that.
I will upload what I have onto a separate thread for people to judge for themselves :)
regards
Mike 8)
Hi guys,
Just spotted this topic going hot and I would like to add - when you have high rpm low power motor and very low rpm high power generator, it is possible to turn it with leverage effect. A bit of history - the Archimedes lever:
(http://www.avsport.org/drseti/photos/ppt/archimed.jpg)
Cheers!
Quote from: Paul-R on 2014.06.30, 17:23:21
You have missed the point of this.
http://www.free-energy-info.com/Chapter4.pdf
See page 4. (N.B. page numbers change as material is added or taken away).
I have missed no point at all. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction,and that is yet to be proven wrong. Chas Campbell never once applied a continual load to the output that equaled the input-little lone a larger load than the input.
No one to date has ever shown beyound doubt (through propper and third party testing),that these Qmogens work-another Stirling Allen fairy tale.
Lets take a little look at the PDF you posted Paul-R,and see what junk they talk about.
Quote Lawrence Tseung: This fact has recently been stressed by Lawrence Tseung who refers to the extra energy obtained in this way as being "Lead-out" energy. This gravitational feature has been part of university Engineering courses for decades, where it has been taught that the loading stress on a bridge caused by a load rolling across the bridge is far less than the stress caused if that same load were suddenly dropped on to the bridge.
Ok,so if the load were lifted say 5 meters,and it weighed say 5 ton,and then droped onto the bridge,it may hit the bridge with the force of say 50 ton-cool. Now take away the energy or force that it took to lift the load 5 meters into the air,and you are left with the same amount of loading stress(as they call it)as if the load was just rolling across the bridge.Nothing at all was gained-except a broken bridge,wich will now need more energy to repair.Adding a flywheel(wether pulsed or not),between a motor and generator,will do nothing but use more power,via losses through the belt's and bearings.
Some fact's
Motors of all kinds run less than 100% efficient = loss
Generator's are less than 100% efficient = loss
Belt's consume power = loss
Bearings consume power = loss
These are fact's,so no-i havnt missed the point.
Ok,well some may think im being negative in regards to what i have said so far,but im just stating known facts.
But there IS some special effects that take place with the flywheel/gyroscopic forces that can be of great advantage. I will be as bold to say that although every action has an equal action,it dosnt necessarily have to be opposite.If we remove the !opposite! from the reaction through force diversion provided by gyroscopic effect's,we then have the ability to create uni directional force. Not a free energy machine,but a reactionless drive,as they call it.
I tend to steer away from,and are vary weary of the reality calls of youtube video's now day's,as i dont believe that youtube is a place you will see an actual working device.But please dont get me wrong,i still believe that the day will come when one of us has a breakthrough, and i wont stop trying to find it-that is the free energy machine of course. O0
Dear All.
Today we are a step closer to the initial testing. My Son fully welded the support frame at his employers works earlier today. The results, attached below.
I had a very interesting chat yesterday with Michael Frost, who's findings were posted by Duncan at the beginning of this thread. He gave me a virtual tour of some of his devices. He also made me proud by saying that English Cast Iron was the best he has found !!
He uses Lister LT Diesel flywheels for his experiments.
He also said that Flywheels with a thick rim are better than just a simple disc. I am glad of that because I am using rimmed Flywheels.
Just a few more days, we shall see. ;) O0
Cheers Graham.
Very nice fabrication Grumage I differ a little on the conjecture of why/how these things work from Michael F I guess fundamentally because I have an electric view of things rather than mechanical, However after chewing the cud with Mike for quite some time I concluded that the practical steps we would each take building one of these machines would be much the same, A huge difference is .. Mikes actually done it.--- In spades it seems, I instinctively consider the input and its wave shape Michael, and of course yourself Grumage work from a mechanical stance ... nothing wrong with that ! Its just we are seeing the same picture from a different angle another difference is Michael has invested and spent more than I could even consider, In fact the truth is probably more than I have ever had to spend period. Its clear he's built and tested lots of these machines the cost of just one of them would probably beggar me ... he's then built some more, as you probably noticed Grumage, He also has the active help of Vissie who I assure you is an extremely competent and respected electronics design/build guy. Chet asked the question that is key to my viewing angle of this system and it was this .... "with a pulsed variable input how can I accurately measure input /output" ... Well for what its worth I long ago transposed that in my minds eye into ... how might I actively transform the input into something very different ... something effectively from a different dimension, something you actually can't measure with standard instruments. In this series of lectures given for school children in 1974 by Prof Laithwaite before he was effectively defrocked by the establishment he notes the quirk in ohms law, It is made clear that .. to wit .. under certain conditions you may have amps and volts yet consume no power ! 'Reactive power' here's our Will 'O' the wisp surly? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnNUTOxHoto (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnNUTOxHoto) we view this as a constant .. It isn't its AC after all ! Then to take the pulse of energy at the crossing of volts and amps ... like flicking a big wheel now and again with the right timing is our ambition at least that's rather how I view things and what I was at pains to describe before but as I say I think Its the same picture ... For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face. :
Duncan
On Michael's web site he referred to his math calculator ,it is in the section "evidence"
LINK HERE
http://www.backgauges.com/Gen-E-Sys%20II/evidence.html
** Gift - FREE Kinetic energy/ Fuelwheel Horsepower Calculator
** Video - Mathematical proof.
I can't open these links ,Michael says "its all there in evidence"?
He is actively seeking discussion/investigation on these links so as to qualify his claims.
thx
Chet
not working for me either Chet ... Proof is a huge word though often miss used, Proof has a very definite meaning to mathematicians (for instance) as an example Pythagoras theorem is just that a theory .. despite humanities best efforts and millions of hours of computer time its never been proved or given a dimension. If it ever is ... well many doors will open. It is acceptable to use one proof to support another , that's the base of a proof, there in lies a problem for me, we are so accustomed to Pythagoras theorem (for instance) that it has been used to support other so called ... proofs. And what folks now call proof would be better described as .. ' an indication' It doesn't connect to anything solid and absolute. Call me picky if you wish but a concept of switching which has infinity , time. And the infinitesimal involved is going to challenge the very concept of proof at every level, that a thing may occur 1000 x out of a thousand is not proof .. its still just examples. That Mike offers an example that may well work is a very different thing from 'a proof' even if you build the thing yourself and it works as specified its still is a long way from being 'a proof' in the accepted sense. When a machine shatters the accepted norms that's amazing in itself, if a proof were written it would be understood by every discipline and that truly would be game set and match. It would be unnecessary to build the machine everyone could clearly see how and why it worked. That's the ultimate ambition I hope, not just to make a thing that goes COP>1 but also to prove it. and put that proof in the public domain, Its a big ask.
Dear All.
Duncan, we are a few steps closer, one way or t'other !! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhMqM21zFSM
Cheers Graham.
Looks very good for a first 'suck it and see' Graham .. nice clear video
Nice work Grum
A couple of questions e.g. what is your protocol for input / output energy testing.
Maybe an idler pulley or two with a long throw might help to use your existing belt lengths. Also it can act like a slip clutch so you don't keep tripping your breaker trying to bring those massive loads up to speed.
Have you ever looked at some of the interesting musings of this man:
http://www.unifiedtheory.org.uk/
especially diagram #14
Just my 5 cents :)
With RPM reductors the kinetic energy is amplified at the cost of RPMs. But, if we have lets say, 3000 RPM low power motor and 300 RPM high power wind turbine generator(which will still produce 50/60Hz AC), the kinetic energy can be multiplied up to 10 times over RPM reductor which will allow to run up to ~10x more powerful generator on 300 RPM than motor used to turn RPM reductor input on 3000 RPM...
Cheers!
Quote from: Grumage on 2014.07.03, 19:53:31
Dear All.
Duncan, we are a few steps closer, one way or t'other !! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RhMqM21zFSM
Cheers Graham.
Nice work. Now I know why you have not been answering your skype O0
Graham
That IS a big alternator !!
nice layout ,everything looks very strong and fresh .
it will be interesting to see how you slap, tap and pulse your way thru these experiments.
also how to measure will be a challenge..
Thanks for sharing.
Chet
Interesting build Graham,
I might want to join the fun, do you have to have the flywheels in order?
Tom...
Yes Grum, I hope you see something using those flywheels. What I have so far without them looks to be a dead end. Tried lots of electrical variations that I was curious about--no joy.
Seems to me the best method of process (MOP) is to use a multi-pole generator that can run properly at a lower RPM and a motor capable of much higher RPM and gear-down to obtain higher torque. Then maybe the flywheel can provide the torque during the peek generator cycle load without RPM loss. Instead of using a flywheel, I've been using a DC motor with large capacitors in hopes of electrically engineering the same thing. As Professor Laithwaite mentions, this is likely a bad analogy, but I learned something, so it's not a complete loss of experimentation time. Still think there is some more there to learn, so keep at it Grum. O0
Nice work Graham O0
Very tidy
Regards
Mike 8)
Matt
Is your experiment inputting some form of "disrupter" or Pulsing, similar to Graham's theory and Michael Frost's
recommendation ?
Michael F has suggested that acceleration is ultimately the source of energy in these systems [pulsed or mechanically oscillated in some unique way]
Or are those rotoverter setups you are playing with?
thx
Chet
Hi all,
I just want to question some very important facts about flywheels.
A flywheel is a mechanical capacitor that stores inertia, the rotational energy is not free.
As ones draws power form the inertia spinning wheel, you will also have to add power to spin it back up.
Like a capacitor that gets discharge, it takes energy to regain the max charge again.
In the olden days power plants used flywheel to allow the generators to work more efficient so a greater load won't stall out the system.
Tom.
Quote from: Chet K on 2014.07.04, 12:59:19
Matt
Is your experiment inputting some form of "disrupter" or Pulsing, similar to Graham's theory and Michael Frost's
recommendation ?
Michael F has suggested that acceleration is ultimately the source of energy in these systems [pulsed or mechanically oscillated in some unique way]
Or are those rotoverter setups you are playing with?
thx
Chet
My basic setup doesn't have any sort of mechanical advantage or interrupters, so the next step is to try something a bit more sophisticated:
http://open-source-energy.org/?topic=1957.0
Quote from: Tommey Reed on 2014.07.04, 01:54:25
Interesting build Graham,
I might want to join the fun, do you have to have the flywheels in order?
Tom...
Dear Tom.
I have used almost the same pulley ratios as described below. Picture screen shot taken from PJ Kelly's E book.
Cheers Graham.
Hi Graham,
Thanks for the data, I have many questions:
1:
Mechanical load on motor will start out very high 2.2 times the starting capacitors load. This could be a big problem.
2:
The Flywheel mass will have 2x the inertia load, due to generator back EMF, but also All generators have BEMF when stator is energized, unless its a special type?
3:
The switch is also something to watch out for problems, BEMF will or could fry the contacts, might have to go with SCR?
Just something I wanted to add to this build.
Tom ???
Looking at that image, I'm a little confused why you would gear-down and then gear back up again. Is it simply to use fixed pulley sizes? If you use an adjustable sheave as I have, you can go straight to the ratio you want.
Grum, you will likely want to use a variac to build motor speed slowly to overcome the massive loading as Tom mentioned above. For a looper, I would highly recommend a transfer switch so you can get everything up to speed and stable off of mains power before you feed generator power back to the motor. You may or may not want to transfer through the variac--really doubt it will make much of a difference either way, but keeping the variac directly connected to the motor will give you a little more adjustment to play with.
I can't see this working without a rapid switch / phase shift action involved, but many seem to see a way it might be done so I hope I'm wrong and Graham sees an immediate COP>1 effect,.As for Measuring energy in and out ? ... well we've all seen endless pages of drivel on that subject but ultimately to see the system looped would answer most peoples questions. .. I don't think what you have there will work just as you have it Grum and as you say your doubtful yourself ... Still what you and your friend have envisioned has to be tried or you'll both forever wonder ... if, if, if. Classic mechanics tells us a flywheel can do nothing except store and deliver energy, hence logical standard engineering says this won't work ... what's the point of gearing up , only to gear down being typical so is tinmans comments ... but the same classic mechanics tell us a bee would never fly! It surly isn't the mundane fact that this probably won't work exactly as its drawn is it ? It is clear there must also be other factors at play here, Its also obvious that grumage suspects that too! but the weight size and configuration as P J Kelly has drawn is I guess as good a starting point as any for an investigation .... I suspect Laithwaite has it right with his view of different angular dimensions only thinking like that can I see a picture of not just how Chas Cambells machine might work but many others. IMHO The reason why these machines wont work as drawn is no account is taken of the state and phase angle of the supply, Bone headed power in / power out die hard nay Sayer's can't grasp the possibility that a flywheel may, (if absolutely nothing else is available). convert reactive power. Chas Campbell then has fashioned the size weight and balance of his machine ' on the hoof' to the supply, he was probably totally unaware of what he was actually matching to. The odds of the same resonant configuration working on another supply would be astronomical. The missing link in P.J Kelly's drawing then is any one of the following a/ an overloaded drive motor (load adjustable) b/ a switched / pulsed power supply c/ a tuned capacitor bank d/variable hydraulic loading all of these have been used on various systems I have shown else where , they all have the same effect they create a phase shift or distortion w.r.t the supply. So what's probably in the box here ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTLLnUOPOQk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTLLnUOPOQk)capacitors to create that required phase shift is my opinion .. what's yours?
The only thing that makes sense to me is that somehow you create the conditions of time compression within the energy storage device, whether it be a flywheel or capacitor. What I mean by time compression is that you are able to put energy into the storage device faster than you withdraw it out. Frankly, I have no idea how that might be possible unless you have an asymmetrical, non-linear system. And if you do happen to have such a system, how that energy gets in there and where it comes from may be a mystery for quite some time.
I came across a description termed: tempic field. I believe Wilbert Smith was the author. His concept (that he stated came from extra terrestrial life) was not time/space based as we typically use, but instead on fields where time as we know it is not constant. If his words have any basis in reality, then it would seem likely time compression is not only possible, it may well be the only means to harness energy as we would like to do.
http://www.rexresearch.com/smith/newsci~1.htm#ch4field
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_h5WFqg6px4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irrhscIn7qo
time is flexable any way Matt that's been long known since the study of microbes and their variable aging process in space. however in what I might call 'This reality we are not encouraged to think in these terms. As Laithwaite points out its a 'man made concept' . whatever is being used as a prime mover of this machine will be fed with a series of pulses be it 50Hz 60hz or DC switching or mechanical disruption , as Grumage is using a 50Hz motor I'll dwell on that .. The rotor is of course a flywheel in its own right and converts those pulses to a nice seemingly steady rotation , It is not possible for the motor to run at the applied frequency and the difference is called slip. The motors themselves also project a back emf onto the grid or in this case Grumages alternator (if he loops it) just like any other electromagnetic device. The power of these motors is then usually given in KVA and a phase angle quoted this originally allowed folks to correct the phase angle with an external capacitor .. if they needed to. This force is of course like all back emf in opposition to whatever created it .. That being so its ambition is to distort and destroy the symmetrical sine wave that created it. It does this with musical progression .... 3rd overtone 9th and so on. however what if .... you caught that back emf .... altered the angle even more until it was anti phase using either capacitors or timing and then also fed that pulse to the flywheel .. putting it in crude terms there are now 2x 50hz pulses being injected into the flywheel one we commonly call real power Watts and the other we know as reactive power var ... It seems as Prof Laithwaite suggests that this Kvar (which is also known as ' the wattless component)' and drawn in a different dimension and mathematically expressed with a J operator can be tempted into this reality and coaxed to transform back to real power through the magic of a flywheel. just to try and join a few more pieces together for you, Laithwaites second segment was on transformer action, he says quite clearly he has no idea how or why it works ... no one else has been able to offer an explanation either . here is another well respected researcher Chris Carson RIP .. enlarging on that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsrbaCJo3Qw&feature=kp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsrbaCJo3Qw&feature=kp)and just to add a little to that here is a short clip by Tom B https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73rghTkRMU0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73rghTkRMU0) add those ingredients together and let it cook for a little while and you might see some light .. So to re- cap – as Tom Bearden and Albert say energy cannot be created or destroyed ergo.. Its all around us in one form or another. The power station (for instance) is nothing at all to do with energy its a tool of profit and control. as Tesla discovered 120 odd years ago. It seems that with the right timing and phase angle a flywheel can perform that conversion .. I hope we see it done again soon ..
Hi Duncan,
I would not give to much credit on this build, my reason as stated:
1:
Why would anyone start out with motor speed and reduce first output shaft to 1.8:1 ratio. Reason is to get torque that will produce less rpm's
Any motor that runs without any load is a lost, I bet this ac motor draws 200 +watts just to spin it. Already you have a loss that can't be recover :'(.
Friction is a small lost due to belts or chain, but it's still is a loss of energy :'(.
2:
The second shaft is just off the wall in mechanical work that has to turn the flywheel, a heavy flywheel in fact.
This is just crazy to think this will spin no problem with the drive motor, you have great drag and load to over come.
3:
This one is the big drain the generator and will draw lots of mechanical load.
1 hp = 745.699872 watts or most people say 746.
What does this mean?
Lets look at the generator speed to produce energy, the generator is a two pole field, this means at 50hz if needs 3000 rpms (50hz*60seconds), or 3600 rpm's for 60hz.
Most generators need 135% hp of mechanical work to create 1 electrical hp, this is due to friction, and rpm's without any load.
This generator will spin 3,146 in the graph, this can be calculated to need (5252/3146)=1.67 foot pounds of torque, but this is 100% efficient.
The real input of torque will be above 130% or 1.67*1.30=2.17 ft/lb of constant load.
4:
If you look at the basic math you can see that 1.3hp motor or 969.8 watts of electrical energy needs 2.17ft/lb to create 746W, but this is just part on the lost of energy.
The motor input verse the output of generator is 3146/1430=2.2 times the torque is needed if a pulley from motor to generator was connected, but it's not. Now added load due to friction is another problem that need to be over come.
The motor would need 2.17*2.2=4.77ft/lb now, you take 4.77*1430/5252=1.30 hp or 969.8 watts to produce 746 watts of output not adding friction lost to belts and pulley bearings.
The math says it won't work, even if you take the friction and bearings lost out :'(.
Tom :D
Hi All,
I would explain how this system works, the mechanical switching is a basic PWM, but in a mechanical sense of a way.
Lets set the relay to 50% Duty Cycle.
On/Off: 50%
If motor is turn on for a few millisecond, and generator load is off the only drain would be friction&motor lost.
Off/ON 50%
If the motor is off and the generator is on, you now have inertia lost due to spinning flywheel.
The question will be just how much energy is needed to recover the inertia lost?
I believe it's very big due to the fact the generator will pull 2.2 time the input load of spinning the flywheel.
Dear All.
Steady forward progress made this afternoon, the results..... :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32a2SHkvsyc
I do, however, have serious doubts about the material integrity of my large flywheel. The engine it came from was rated at a continuous 500 RPM, pulsing admittedly, but not 1500 RPM !! It got pretty damn scary at 1300 RPM, I would not risk taking the thing any further !!
So, that's all for now folks.
Cheers Grum.
Hi Graham,
Looking very good, did you say your motor draws 300watts without a load?
By the way, I finished the ratchet engine.
Take a look at this efficient baby :o.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcKkmUv8ZQE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcKkmUv8ZQE)
I love those flywheels, I have good use of them ;D
Tom.
Grumage some work done on a thesis by Mark Percy in Liverpool in the 1960s involved running various flywheels made of a variety of substances up to the speed of catastrophic destruction. The genesis for his research was the finding that exploding flywheels release far more energy than is applied running them up to speed, Mr Percy had the use of a ballistics testing chamber, whilst it might indicate something useful regarding your project a brief chat with Marks brother David informs me those flywheels can go off like a bomb. I'm sure no one on the thread wants to see any shredded Grummage (except of course the nay - Sayers who don't want anyone doing anything) so take care .... Grum ... I was also wondering about filling in the holes with lead ? ... I am not at all sure that it isn't the exact reverse of what is required, I really know the square root of F all about making flywheels but I was considering balancing tyres on cars (where they add weights around the rim) would those holes not have been put in that flywheel as rather a reverse of that operation ? that is subtracting weight from one side rather than adding it to the other, If that's the case adding lead would severely aggravate .. in fact reverse and amplify the original out of balance (if you get my gist) ... just a thought my friend! here for your interest is a cap that seems to fit http://www.resonantfractals.org/Magnetism/Flywheel.htm (http://www.resonantfractals.org/Magnetism/Flywheel.htm) Its expensive, time consuming and frustrating doing R&D Graham not to say dangerous if your working on something of real merit .. as I'm sure your well aware knowing some of the folks you have spoken to. so broadcasting your work is appreciated I hope you keep doing it as long as you may kind regards Duncan O0 PS here's another variation on the theme you might find of interest http://www.evert.de/eft722e.htm (http://www.evert.de/eft722e.htm)
Dear Tommy .. quite right as a straight build and viewed like that of course it cant work .. however there are endless things that can't work from the bee I cited earlier to the humming bird, but work they do! viewed in that light any one of these COP>1 devices can't and wont work the thing is some obviously do, its as simple as that ! The question then has to be asked what is missing ? well on this thread I have put some suggestions, Many people have tried to duplicate Chas Campbells machine there are few reported successes there can be many reasons for that a/ intimidation b/ It simply isn't tuned and so doesn't work c/the composition of the wheel , in fact as I think about it the permutations are almost endless in the first place I think Tom its safe to assume most reading here know what a flywheel normally does, are familiar with belt gearing and ratio's and all the usual simple tosh ... I'm sure Grum is .. what's obviously being probed here is the extraordinary .. isn't it? Grumage has already said he has little faith in being able to turn this set up on and see COP>1 straight away ... I would bet the farm and all the horses on that ! still its as good a starting point as any.
Graham will probably be sick as as a pig if after turning this on it doesn't work as expected first time ... but of course it won't .. there's still a bit missing looking at a lot of similar machines they all have reactive tuning or switching of one sort or another , It is that x factor we seek ... or at least the engineering or science behind it.IMHO simplistic power in power out dogma is as much use as tits on a kipper here. however to loop the system ...now there's an ambition which others seem to have achieved by accident But to map the engineering and broadcast the results .. that would start to alter one or two things around a world that seems to be on the wrong path and becoming evermore hellish. O0 PS love the machine your building and trying thanks for the vid !
Addendum for your consideration – Grum, digging about amongst the references at the end of the last article I linked to regarding David Lowrance . It would seem David is energy sympathetic in some way .. anyway he writes this ..
A few years back a man named Chas Campbel, I believe, achieved overunity in a flywheel system. The overunity power was eventually tracked down to the loose vibrating belt drive on the main large flywheel. It set up a vibration on the heavy weigh of the rotating flywheel. This was then traced back to a large machine in China designed by old engineer, who had created a power amplifier for a large factory. The mains powered the motors, and the generators put out far more power to the whole factory. The unit was designed to set up a vibration in a similiar method, and the vibration was modulated onto the lage flywheel.
-----------------------
The only credible instances of OU power, that can be solidly tracked, and repeatedly built, that actually work all lead to using vibration.
Confusion is where we try to make OU devices on the Em side. EM can be used to establish vibration and to even tune it using very fine voltage adjustments. But EM is found to work inversely, as an "entropy force" in out current technology, and also in nature. Lightening strikes and then fissles out, where atoms continue to vibrate forever.
Dave L
Which is of course in agreement with much you are hearing and learning else where .. It also would conform to my view of things as it stands .. again regards Duncan
Hi Duncan,
Something can't be explain like why a bee fly. But a little research to find this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYJXE4FCm7Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYJXE4FCm7Q)
This is what I know about anti gravity on bees. Bee don't fly but change gravity due to wings flapping. I watch bees change direction that is not due to thrust from the wings. It's something else.
I bet it has to do with electrostatic charge, it's a different type of energy not like ac or dc energy source.
Back to the flywheel, I seen the waste of power when you but power into a motor on free spin, total waste from the start.
Tom
I suspect it is the type of power that is the other side of the see-saw here Tom , That also I suspect is what Prof Laithwaite hints at regarding a different dimension, In short Tom I think that like the rotoverter at the heart of this COP >1 effect is the use of reactive power , This being induced by any one of several methods such as loading the prime mover to create a phase shift, (slip) or using electronic switching, capacitors, or a pulsed load all of which would have the same effect. usual teaching dogma tells us reactive power is "a watt less component" so it might be however it certainly generates heat ... so perhaps its best thought of as ' an energy type as yet unknown' If you then take the giant step of assuming reactive power , KVAR, can be transformed by a flywheel then all the other pieces and examples start to fit together like a jig saw. That your first stage might lose power becomes irrelevant because its from a different dimension ,It doesn't come from the grid at all, you wont be able to measure it anyway. The motor is seeing volts and amps of course and large circulating currents as classic theory tells us but in effect zero peak envelope power w.r.t time. To put this in simple terms a pendulum is as parallel electrical resonance, however its very important to keep in mind there are two resonances- series and parallel, just as there are transverse and linear waves. (its nature things come two by two) The mechanics then are arranged such that the prime mover is running series resonant with the supply (which could be the grid or the driven alternator if its looped) The windings of the prime mover being anti phase with the alternator making it parallel resonant ... when these two vibrations are set correctly ???
Like me or hate me, i will be true to myself regardless. Sorry Chet,but i have to point out some untrue facts here.
Quote Duncan: A few years back a man named Chas Campbel, I believe, achieved overunity in a flywheel system. The overunity power was eventually tracked down to the loose vibrating belt drive on the main large flywheel.
Incorrect-Chas Campbell never had an OU machine at all.Nothing more than his misunderstanding's of start up currents?power,and stored energy within the systems flywheel's. There never was any testing what so ever done on Chas's machine that prooved it to be OU.
Quote Tom: Something can't be explain like why a bee fly.This is what I know about anti gravity on bees.
Incorrect. Scientists worked out some time ago,how bee's fly.
http://www.livescience.com/528-scientists-finally-figure-bees-fly.html There are many more pages on the web that show this as fact.
Quote Duncan: The only credible instances of OU power, that can be solidly tracked, and repeatedly built, that actually work all lead to using vibration.
Could you please post just one of these OU machine's that we can replicate Duncan-just one ?
Quote Duncan: In short Tom I think that like the rotoverter at the heart of this COP >1 effect is the use of reactive power
Reactive power can only be produce from active or real power,and the return is less than what it took to create it in the first place.Luc thought he was onto something,until i showed him where and what the hidden power was.I went as far as spending a good deal of hard earned cash on an actual setup as close to his as i could,and showed in that setup that it was the exciter windings that were creating the elusion of a no load reflection of reactive power.
If we are truely to get any where,we need to start looking at fact's,and not fairy tale's.Im not going to remain silent on my beliefs just because some may not like to hear the truth.I showed not so long ago how easy it is to build a fake device,and have many think it was something fantastic.Nothing more than incorrect value's marked on a cap,and the FE comunity went wild.But those that stood back ,and took a close look,new something was amiss.
I do believe in trying things for your self to get an accurate answer to question's. But first stand back and look at the system before spending hard earned cash.Here we take a less than 100% efficient motor,coupled up to a less than 100% efficient generator/altinator,throw in some more power losses like belt's and bearings,and expect to have excess power out the other end.Surley common sence tells you it just aint going to happen.
Brad
Michael Frost says its Acceleration caused by a pulse or disruption...I believe Grum is trying several ideas here,First Harold Aspens Claims
and also the "pulse" or "Disturbed " input claim..
His math is on his website {posted in first post of this thread] under the heading "evidence"
I have not been able to access it [won't load for me].
I will be calling him in the next few days...
thx
Chet
Dear All.
We have now ground to a halt, due to the fact that the vibration we saw on the second video was being caused by the brand new alternator having a shaft run out of 0.1 mm !! I have today returned this item to the supplier and will have to wait until their repair dep't can assess it.
And I was worried about my 100 year old flywheel !! :) It seems our European buddies can't make things like they used to !!
Cheers Grum.
I have just spent a lot of time writing a post ... I may post it yet .. in time , meanwhile from a different era, and these actually are quotes grumage please .. "keep on buggering on" and Tinman .. "nuts" .. (well 'nuts' wasn't really a verbal quote .. it was written)
Quote from: Duncan on 2014.07.07, 21:45:00
I have just spent a lot of time writing a post ... I may post it yet .. in time , meanwhile from a different era, and these actually are quotes grumage please .. "keep on buggering on" and Tinman .. "nuts" .. (well 'nuts' wasn't really a verbal quote .. it was written)
Quote Dunan: The only credible instances of OU power, that can be solidly tracked, and repeatedly built, that actually work all lead to using vibration.
And you call me nut's???
If I were to consider working with a spinning mass, I would use a more direct approach e.g mounting a disc to a motor which would also be a generator (from it's back emf) Ratio transformation in the form of gearing or belts would not be used as these are lossy items and really don't buy you anything, the power in and power out minus losses is always the same. Gear ratio, pulley diameters etc = turns ratio of a transformer.
I would feed the spinnup DC motor / gen from a current source, in which case if I carefully regulate the current, the disc will reach a terminal speed due to air friction, bearing friction etc.
I could then try doing various experiments on the disc to see if there is any way to increase the final "leveled off" speed e.g electrostaticaly charging the disc and /or or pulsing the disc electromagnetically.
I might also put the apparatus in a vacuum chamber to eliminate air friction.
One could also try directing or redirecting ether flows either within the disc or impinging on it, such as an ether Pelton wheel might afford.
Since the current and therefore power input is held constant, any increase or decrease in the disc speed might show that we can affect it in some way.
Of course eddy current or other magnetic drag or induction effects would have to be properly accounted / discounted.
If one were to look for vibration effects altering speed, one should firstly study the work of John Keely and Alan Cresswell
Also a mention to McFreey who proposed a particle emission / reaction effect in a band within disc itself , which would be a very futuristic motor or prime mover.
Just some thinking beyond the mundane flywheel energy storage device.
Hi All,
I was thinking of building this flywheel experiment, but I did a change to fit my build.
Inertia is the key to this system, like a toy car with a flywheel. You push the car forward and the flywheel acts as a store energy.
The reason it works is the flywheel is going much faster then the output of the wheels, this is how you must use the flywheel if anyone plans to go OU.
I would also add a one way clutch to the motor, this will allow the motor to stop while the generator is under load.
I Could build a smaller version with bicycle chain and gears to test this build...
Input please?
My design...
Tom O0
Tommey :
QuoteInertia is the key to this system, like a toy car with a flywheel. You push the car forward and the flywheel acts as a store energy.
The reason it works is the flywheel is going much faster then the output of the wheels, this is how you must use the flywheel if anyone plans to go OU.
Input please?
But a toy car with a geared up flywheel only stores and then dissipates the energy put into it when it is extracted. You can get a higher peak power output, but it does not "create" steady state energy, nor can gearing up or down from a flywheel.
The flywheel will act as an simple energy storage device when operated within it's mechanical capabilities, but only meticulous experiment could prove this wrong and find an anomaly.
Not the direction I would go but best of luck.
Tom, you make nice drawings, what do you use?
Hi Ion,
I have cad and other software, but this was simple paint on windows...
I disagree, it's like the other picture is even close to inertia I don't think so.
Also my unit use a one way clutch on the motor and also my generator load is 1/2 that of the flywheel store energy.
Tom.
I like Flywheels.. :)
Kinetic Energy Recovery System.. KERS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KERS
A kinetic energy recovery system (often known simply as KERS, or kers) is an automotive system for recovering a moving vehicle's kinetic energy under braking. The recovered energy is stored in a reservoir (for example a flywheel or high voltage batteries) for later use under acceleration. Examples include complex high end systems such as the Zytek, Flybrid, Torotrak and Xtrac used in Formula One racing and simple, easily manufactured and integrated differential based systems such as the Cambridge Passenger/Commercial Vehicle Kinetic Energy Recovery System (CPC-KERS).
Xtrac and Flybrid are both licensees of Torotrak's technologies, which employ a small and sophisticated ancillary gearbox incorporating a continuously variable transmission (CVT). The CPC-KERS is similar as it also forms part of the driveline assembly. However, the whole mechanism including the flywheel sits entirely in the vehicle's hub (looking like a drum brake). In the CPC-KERS, a differential replaces the CVT and transfers torque between the flywheel, drive wheel and road wheel.
Gyroscopic exercise tool: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powerball_%28toy%29
A gyroscopic exercise tool is a device used to exercise the wrist as part of physical therapy or in order to build palm, forearm and finger strength. It can also be used as a unique demonstration of some aspects of rotational dynamics. The device consists of a tennis ball-sized plastic or metal shell around a free-spinning mass, which is started with a short rip string. Once the gyroscope inside is going fast enough, a person holding the device can accelerate the spinning mass to high revolution rates by moving the wrist in a circular motion.
Someday I might combine those two..
well if your not keen on vibration swap the verbage for frequency .. which is what it causes electrically . And I dare say many could concur with that from Bed.ini to Tesla .. Do we know the engineering yet to reproduce the effect each and every time? no of course not or Grumage would not be experimenting with it . He and his friend quite rightly have many idea's of their own to try before anyone Else's and a bent rotor shaft to put to rights. I also certainly didn't call you nuts ... I was quoting from an era
"Keep on buggering on" was Winston Churchills response to a succession of reverses at the beginning of WW2 ...
Nuts was the reply of General Anthony McAuliffe regarding the surrender 101st Airborne Division who were told to hold the town of Bastogne, at all costs despite being surrounded and heavily out numbered and gunned. So you think I'm wrong (and I may be) however I won't surrender my opininons or thoughts and my right to voice them to any nay sayer stuck in the purile power in power out dogma ... including you period
Flywheel Propulsion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZlT26lF5Fw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRo5xvEkdM
from here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19563-propulsion-rotary-devices.html#post260901
thx
Chet
H1i All,
I made a mistake on the design, it's corrected now.
Tom
Quote from: Duncan on 2014.07.08, 17:36:58
well if your not keen on vibration swap the verbage for frequency .. which is what it causes electrically . And I dare say many could concur with that from Bed.ini to Tesla .. Do we know the engineering yet to reproduce the effect each and every time? no of course not or Grumage would not be experimenting with it . He and his friend quite rightly have many idea's of their own to try before anyone Else's and a bent rotor shaft to put to rights. I also certainly didn't call you nuts ... I was quoting from an era
"Keep on buggering on" was Winston Churchills response to a succession of reverses at the beginning of WW2 ...
Nuts was the reply of General Anthony McAuliffe regarding the surrender 101st Airborne Division who were told to hold the town of Bastogne, at all costs despite being surrounded and heavily out numbered and gunned. So you think I'm wrong (and I may be) however I won't surrender my opininons or thoughts and my right to voice them to any nay sayer stuck in the purile power in power out dogma ... including you period
Quote: I also didnt call you nut's...i was quoting from an era.
Sorry Duncan,my ESP must have been failing me at that moment when you said-tinman...nuts.
OK,well im a little lost here. Quote from above: I wont surrender my opinions or thought's
Quote from previous post:The only credible instances of OU power, that can be solidly tracked, and repeatedly built, that actually work all lead to using vibration.
-So are these your thought's and opinions,or are they credible instances of OU that actually work,and can be repeatedly built?
I was being sincere when i asked you if you could please post just one of the credible devices,so as some of us here may replicate it,and see OU for our self's. In your very own word's Duncan,you have claimed that OU devices exist, can be solidly tracked,and repeatedly built. So im ready to build Duncan O0
Hi All,
One thing is clear, people just repeat builds that won't work no matter how you change the design.
Again, when you use a ac or any motor you have a waste as soon as you turn it on.
This would mean that you would needs 130% output just to get it to operate in a Over Unity state of self running, due to rpm's and drag.
This does not mean you get free energy, because you would need more then 130% efficiency to collect power from it.
Spin a top in space, and it will sin forever, put a load from the top and watch it stop.
The key to the flywheel is to not allow the generator load collide with the input power. In other words like a inverting input verse output of energy. 0n/0ff to off/on.
Tom
This fellow writes some interesting comments
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XV26QRDDp1s
Chet
My fascination with all things gyroscopic including flywheels started at an early age.
My experiments with gyro's fifty years ago (when I was 18) included two air driven gyro's salvaged from an autopilot box. These were mounted at the ends of a rotating aluminum channel. The gyro's were allowed to swivel in and out of their plane of rotation in a controlled manner.
The hope was to build a rotary to linear converter to replace all of the drive train in an automobile or an anti gravity craft, believing I could control the gyro's plane of rotation to corkscrew through space when operated in pairs. Despite a meticulous experiment, my logic was flawed and it didn't work.
Much later I acquired a large 25 pound gyro that ran in a vacuum via a built in 3 phase motor. It had a precisely balanced tungsten rotor, and could rev up to dangerous speeds.
We could rev this beast up, sit in a swivel chair with it on our lap, and by manipulating it, we could cause ourselves to rotate right or left on the chair.
The gyro was navy surplus, part of an assembly of four gyros that were synchronized to a master gyro on the ship, and I was told used to detect amount of bending or twisting of the vessel.
If anyone (Dumped?) has more info on these devices I would be grateful.
P.S. anyone wishing to experiment with gyros could use scrapped 10, 000 RPM hard drives. Most of the older types will spin up with only power applied. I remove all of the pickup heads and magnets, and stack extra discs in the spaces between discs for extra mass.
Bicycle tires filled with fine sand for extra mass are good and also self balancing. The sand is injected into the inner tube, then assembled and inflated normally. Just don't go too fast with these. In any gyro design, concentrate the mass at the outermost rim, that's where the velocity is highest and pound for pound gives the best gyro action.
Regards, ION
Dear All.
I present a short video of our drive motor being connected to a run capacitor of twice the normal value.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cev0Z9rKvag
Any suggestions as to what might be happening ??
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2014.07.12, 18:05:29
Any suggestions as to what might be happening ??
It's behaving almost like the motor wants to run in reverse for just a split second on each cycle. That being the case I can see why the motor would draw almost three times the power.
One thing is for sure, you have found a way to make the motor drive with an impulse. Now you should probably watch the RPM difference with and without the flywheel attached.
You may have found something necessary to make this whole setup work. Thanks much for keeping us in the know.
Well Tommy is of the opinion it simply doesn't work .. and it certainly doesn't by any standard physics or dogma , but surly we all know that!! it doesn't need any repetition, Tommy says it doesn't work so that's it is it? many others say it does, who is liable to be right the guys who have built tested and run the things and demonstrated for no profit .. or a sceptic.? As you add or remove capacitance Graham I surmise you are shifting the motor phase angle. Which is how it should be. IMHO its probably the key to this machine running as advertised . I believe when this machine is running .. and looped that phase angle is approaching 90deg since power = VI cos θ no real power is consumed, however radio transmission or Aetheric reception is available in this dimension. Which of course is where the COP >1 must come from , You will recall Grumage I cited a case where the COP >1 was traced to a vibrating belt? In this case you have the reverse effect . Please consider Grumage building a variable capacitance switch box, I suggest a little research on the rotorverter would produce the right thing pretty much like this machine it also had to be run for zero real power and phase shifted in order to make use of Aetheric power available only in this dimension. Here is a page at random with that capacitor bank shown Grumage ... http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Rotoverter (http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Rotoverter) although of course you need to perhaps read into the size a little more. As you probably recall Grum from your work at the power company when approaching resonance the voltage across the capacitance can be extremely high which is I believe why high voltage capacitors are being used in at least one example I posted . Unlike your work on power lines Grumage the last thing you want is the motor running at anything like unity power factor, (although you must to get up to speed obviously) you then require the motor to be running at resonance , and specifically series resonance you can get that either with variable capacitance , like the rotoverter, or by forcing a phase shift like Chas Campbell or some of the other systems have done by overloading the drive motor until its forced out of synchronous slip speed, In fact Graham if you still have PF measuring kit from your time on the Grid you could use it in reverse to tune for highest triplins and harmonics ... That's where you want to be IMHO . big circulating current ,with no (real) power being used, please don't be discouraged by sceptics and nay sayers Grumage they have their job to do ! And a lot of them are paid hansom to do it ! The people who don't believe in free energy COP>1 machines seen unable to leave the guys alone who actually build them ! The more of these outspoken unpleasant numpties you see on thread Grumage offering discouragement the closer you are to the truth of the matter ... that's my opinion anyway. What use is a nay sayer on an over unity forum anyway Grumage ? Its like having tits on a kipper or a chocolate tea pot I'm sure it works , So are you Grumage please carry on and please try to keep sharing best wishes Duncan '
In a nut shell Graham I believe you are trying to generate nothing but these http://www.transcat.com/PDF/PowerHarmonics.pdf (http://www.transcat.com/PDF/PowerHarmonics.pdf)That is pure reactive power , It is not harmonics in fact .. Its overtones. But don't bother getting tied up in the difference , this sequence of overtones goes on for ever and is what you wish to fashion from the Aether into real power rather like this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w&feature=kp (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w&feature=kp) but at a molecular level and a transform that takes place in the flywheel obviously although it seems a very mechanical device I think the heart is electrical , and frequency , and precise series resonance ... viewed like that all the other machines fit and you can see how they can work , the many fails are also explained because the resonance has to be precise ( like tuning to radio Luxembourg years ago Graham).. still I know you and your friend have your own ideas of how and why this may work and you have spent a deal of money for the right to try the case I simply for the moment offer an alternative view, I really just want to see a success story for you Graham I'm not really that far away from you anyway, if it looks like plan B is the way it has to go perhaps I could visit for a two or three man attack? .. everything you do mechanically has an electrical effect .. Its reflected, As Tesla said " you have to see the whole circuit " and not just the bit that's convenient for comprehension again thanks again for posting and best wishes Duncan
Hi Duncan,
I have a few question:
Where are you going to make up the watts lost from the motor it's self? While this motor spins free with no load you have a lost from the start.
Where are you going to make up friction loss from pulley and belts? Clearly this is another add lost to input of power.
To get a self running system with out any extra output, you would need about 133% efficiency that turn out to be perpetual motion machine.
You would be best to spin a disk in space to get perpetual motion, but when you pull extra energy out of that disk it will slow down and stop unless you add more energy to it O0.
Just saying ;).
Tom
Tom
The question is expected, puerile and typical .. where do you expect to get the extra energy from Tom Tom ? Primary school kids learn "energy cannot be made or destroyed only transformed from one form to another" very good , So where is it Tommy ?what's it been transformed into? That's obviously where we must get it from. The answer has been given many times " Its all around us" we live in a sea of energy , your question then is meaningless, as all energy ultimately comes from the same source, power stations and the like have nothing at all to do with energy only transformation, The alternative conversion of the huge amount of energy freely available is the question you should be considering, but you either don't, or can't , that's also typical, energy is not a substance Tom , you can't drop a handful of it on the floor with a thud, Its a concept made up of other things we don't fully understand (allegedly) like electricity and time for instance. Your very simple childish power in / power out/ efficiency is well understood but lacking dimension ... and quite irrelevant and meaningless on forums dedicated to the research of COP>1 machines.
Duncan,
I was driving home from work this evening and started thinking about Tesla and his fascination with impulses. That led me to think about a simple hammer and nail. If one had to press a nail into a piece of lumber, it would be nearly impossible without hydraulics or a large mechanical advantage. With a simple weight accelerated and then brought to an abrupt halt via impact, a lot of force is imposed on a nail. This got me thinking about my hammer drill that I used last season to bore some holes in old railroad ties. Trying to drill without the hammer activated was nearly impossible, but when I flipped the switch, it bored through the lumber like a knife through butter. And interestingly enough, the drill doesn't appear to consume any more power when activating the hammer. So I thought about this some more in light of our discussion here. Suppose you had a flywheel and instead of hardened spokes between the center axle and the outer weight, you had instead large spring steel laminates angled in such a way where it would be difficult to twist the shaft in one direction while holding the flywheel portion solid and easier in the other direction. Now suppose you began rotation of this device set in common bearings from the axle with a hammer drill type device. My thinking here is that the torsion imposed on the spring steel laminates would only be noticeable with high impacts from the axle. These impacts would be absorbed by the spring steel and slowly released into the flywheel, accelerating it. The big-picture I'm trying to convey here without actually working the numbers mathematically is that you only apply impulses to the axle, but the flywheel responds as though you are providing steady high torque to it. Now obviously you can't utilize the power stored in the flywheel by attaching anything to the axle, but you could by wrapping a belt around the outside of it.
It's late and my brain is fading, but I wanted to get this thought out there before it vanishes.
Quote from: Duncan on 2014.07.13, 22:05:06
Your very simple childish power in / power out/ efficiency is well understood but lacking dimension ... and quite irrelevant and meaningless on forums dedicated to the research of COP>1 machines.
What a lot of bollock's.
P/in and P/out is everything to do with reserch regarding OU devices. How else do you intend on proving an OU device without P/in P/out measurements C.C
Still waiting Duncan,time to put your money where your mouth is.
Quote: The only credible instances of OU power, that can be solidly tracked, and repeatedly built, that actually work all lead to using vibration.
There have been no such instances,but feel free to prove me wrong.
Please back up your claims before shooting others down for asking legitimate question's.
Dear Matt.
I found your musings interesting !!
However there might be a little flaw ? Most impact drills that I have played with create a too and fro movement of the chuck not a rotary one so perhaps the jerky drive would not work that way. But food for thought non the less. ;)
The picture I have attached, kindly provided by Duncan from an earlier post might just work with your hypothesis ?? The tyre on the wheel might just be deflecting and creating strange lumps ?? Particularly if it is being bumped by a solid pick up wheel as shown.
There are so many variables I think my Son and I will be kept pretty busy for quite some time !! Perhaps it was fortuitous he has been laid off work !! Mysterious ways ?? ;)
Cheers Graham.
Others are pointing out the relevance of vibration I really don't need to! Almost without exception people with far more experience than me conclude that COP >1 systems are open and not a closed circuit . It is not Over unity but simply using a force which is not taught and which we are not familiar with . That being the case its not measurable with usual instruments, (or engineer-able at the moment for that matter) because we do not have the units or dimension. Sceptics, nay Sayer's, and power in / power out merchants and folks trying to get onto a personnel level have only one ambition to disrupt and distract, If the machine self runs as the many examples shown do, then the quest is over as far as Grumage is concerned . If that happens its another matter as to if Graham shows it publicly, history has shown it takes a brave person to bring free energy of any sort into the open ! The role call of dead maimed threatened and silenced is long. I try to put forward the little I know and suspect, I also take it as read that other researchers do not object to what they have printed and left on the WWW may be repeated, with the ultimate idea of getting a viable system out. Others of course think there may be a profit to be made, or patents, intellectual property ... and all the rest, blah blah ... It doesn't work, still folks who specifically request I do not reveal ' their invention' I don't even though its against the grain. Still I wonder how many ' my inventions ' is there going to have to be ? As for the sceptic team .. I don't intend wasting another sentence on opposition. IMHO That we have 'Tits on a kipper' is bad enough to waste time milking them for more vinegar is pointless
Quote from: Duncan on 2014.07.15, 05:38:06
Others are pointing out the relevance of vibration I really don't need to! Almost without exception people with far more experience than me conclude that COP >1 systems are open and not a closed circuit . It is not Over unity but simply using a force which is not taught and which we are not familiar with . That being the case its not measurable with usual instruments, (or engineer-able at the moment for that matter) because we do not have the units or dimension. Sceptics, nay Sayer's, and power in / power out merchants and folks trying to get onto a personnel level have only one ambition to disrupt and distract, If the machine self runs as the many examples shown do, then the quest is over as far as Grumage is concerned . If that happens its another matter as to if Graham shows it publicly, history has shown it takes a brave person to bring free energy of any sort into the open ! The role call of dead maimed threatened and silenced is long. I try to put forward the little I know and suspect, I also take it as read that other researchers do not object to what they have printed and left on the WWW may be repeated, with the ultimate idea of getting a viable system out. Others of course think there may be a profit to be made, or patents, intellectual property ... and all the rest, blah blah ... It doesn't work, still folks who specifically request I do not reveal ' their invention' I don't even though its against the grain. Still I wonder how many ' my inventions ' is there going to have to be ? As for the sceptic team .. I don't intend wasting another sentence on opposition. IMHO That we have 'Tits on a kipper' is bad enough to waste time milking them for more vinegar is pointless
Im not here to distract,or disrupt,but i am skeptical of people that continue to make claims they dont and cant back up. Once again ,you have made that claim Duncan-quote: If the machine self runs as the many examples shown do
I ask for only one such machine Duncan-just one of the many you say exist. You give me that,and i will build it at any cost to my self. Those here that know me,will know this to be true. So give me the chance to proove you right Duncan-show me just one self running machine,and i will start the build this weekend-and i am being sincere.
Hi TinMan,
I Agree, and also have put my opinion on some of these lost cause build, yet some people make claim and can't back them up.
All you have to do is a little research, and you will find most of these project has something that stop it from becoming OU.
I'm also starting to see on this forum, crap poping up for people to duplicate something that won't work! Even with basic mechaical building skills we are not seeing through these lost cause.
The only reason I did the Chris Hunter Build is because of the Propane expansion rate, other then that the rest is just a waste of time and money!
Those who put up these stupid builds better back them up, and stop wasting our time. This is also called scammers >:-)!
How many times have OU forum push crap that did not work?
Makes me think the OU conspiracy is alive again!
Tom O0
With my interest in gyro's I suppose it was only a matter of time before I looked into this thread on flywheels. I have just looked at Mr Frost's web page that started this all off and I have to say that the guy seems besotted with what he claims to be "horsepower per second". Now maybe he really believes that is reality, but in my world (and that of any respectable physicist) horsepower is a rate of doing work and has dimensions of energy per second. To claim horsepower per second as a usable unit we would have dimensions of energy per second squared. I think that simple error on his part may account for his mistaken view that you can extract energy from a flywheel over a small time increment, pass that energy to another flywheel and end up with more stored energy than you originally put in. Of course you can't do that. What you can do over small time increments is transfer a quantity of energy, and that transfer rate (power), whether expressed in horsepower or watts, is very large simply because of the short time increment. But the product of power times time increment is just the quantity of energy transferred. And in the flywheel case that energy is lost from the first flywheel and gained by the second. When you get your units muddled up you can fool yourself into thinking that you have got more energy than is real.
Smudge
Quite right Smudge and thank you for pointing that out because it wasn't obvious at first glance when reading Mr. Frost's web page.
To me, the only possibility that leaks through is the concept of a tempic field--something where time is a localized measurement instead of absolute. If such a concept is viable (I don't presume it is, just theorizing), then we could manifest such attributes as time compression. Taking this a step further, we would then be able to collect energy at one rate and utilize it at another, provided these two stages were at different spots within the tempic field. Granted, this line of thinking is getting way out there into la la land, but it is able to account for phenomena that would otherwise remain a mystery. In the context of a rotating flywheel, the only way I can apply something like a tempic field is to physically detach the axle from the circumference of the wheel, which makes this extremely difficult to visualize as any sort of mechanical assembly. However at sub-atomic particle dimensions, this begins to appear more rational since the forces that hold such a particle in orbiting position aren't solid matter.
The problem with brainstorming is that I'm not really sure where I'm going with this other than to ask the question:
When we use equations having terms dv/dt, dx/dt or similar, are we absolutely certain dt in one equation is the same dt used in another? Is it even slightly possible, increments of time are not fixed to our concept of seconds? Could time actually have a gradient as would be represented by a field?
Dear Matt.
My goodness...... That was way over my head !! :) I like the way you think !!
To this Welsh country bumpkin with very simple mind....... Any object that is moving at a faster speed relative to the onlooker must surely be in a slightly different time frame ??
My friend who has been bugging me to build this device for a very long time, also feels that there is some sort of difference in time related to the successful operation.
Pardon the pun, "Time will tell" !! :)
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2014.07.15, 20:57:08
Pardon the pun, "Time will tell" !! :)
;D
Yes, eventually it will.
Do you suppose we just aren't thinking big enough?
Matt
looks familiar.........
Quote from: Chet K on 2014.07.18, 00:12:35
Matt
looks familiar.........
Not sure. What I see is a motor running at very high RPM, geared down quite a bit through several stages, turning a large multi-pole generator. I would have to imagine the torque on the motor is minimal, but the torque on the generator is quite a bit using the mechanical advantage. With the heavy rotor in the generator and all the large pulleys, I'm guessing that is why you don't see any sort of surging. The flywheels in this case are acting like huge capacitors damping the oscillation.
When Russ sent me the link to this video, it somewhat confirmed the suspicion I had talking to him about Sterling Allan's QMoGen links. I had thought for quite a while that it isn't so much the small motor turning a larger generator, but instead a fast motor turning a slow generator.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.07.15, 20:31:40
When we use equations having terms dv/dt, dx/dt or similar, are we absolutely certain dt in one equation is the same dt used in another? Is it even slightly possible, increments of time are not fixed to our concept of seconds? Could time actually have a gradient as would be represented by a field?
Well relativity tells us that time passes at a different rate for observers travelling at different speeds, and this has been demonstrated using atomic clocks. One kept on the ground compared with one that had travelled at high speed for some time in an aircraft showed a time difference. But you could claim that what we measure as time is what changes, i.e. our physical laws governing pendulums or atomic oscillators have features like mass, inertia, gravitation electric charge etc which change depending upon the space within which the measurements are made. Then the Hubble constant is not about an expanding universe starting from the big bang but about distant space being different to our local space. Personally I hold that view and real time is absolute, it doesn't change,
Smudge
Grumage, If I confused you, Smudge really got me. ???
Quote from: Smudge on 2014.07.18, 16:17:48
Well relativity tells us that time passes at a different rate for observers travelling at different speeds, and this has been demonstrated using atomic clocks. One kept on the ground compared with one that had travelled at high speed for some time in an aircraft showed a time difference. But you could claim that what we measure as time is what changes, i.e. our physical laws governing pendulums or atomic oscillators have features like mass, inertia, gravitation electric charge etc which change depending upon the space within which the measurements are made. Then the Hubble constant is not about an expanding universe starting from the big bang but about distant space being different to our local space. Personally I hold that view and real time is absolute, it doesn't change,
Smudge
I'm not sure what to make of that. I have real time is absolute on one hand and relativity on the other.
And looking at the Hubble Constant:
(https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~dfabricant/huchra/hubble/ho.2004.jpg)
To me looks to be anything but constant.
This is the crux of my previous question.
When we integrate, are we not summing over infinitesimally small increments of time? And isn't it assumed these increments are all exactly the same magnitude? If they are not, what does that say about the accuracy of our equations and their application?
I bring this up because what I've been hunting for in all this energy research is a form of asymmetry that isn't apparently obvious, because the equations always compute the same absolute number going left to right, right to left, in to out, out to in, top to bottom, bottom to top. What I'm proposing is that if time and the way we use it in our equations isn't absolute and authorative, it could change along a path of integration. And, it could change differently depending upon which direction we integrate. How? Suppose time is actually dependent upon magnetic spin. I do not know this to be true, I'm only curious to as it being a possibility.
If we had some unit that is universally recognized to be absolute and did our integration with that, I wonder if the asymmetry I'm looking for would show itself. The only unit I can think of is angle and I have no idea how we could transform equations using time into equations using angle. One cycle being 360 degrees or 2pi... Maybe... A cycle based domain?
This really reminds me of the Control Systems Engineering classes I took and the Z-Transforms, which worked, but I always felt there should be a better way.
A very simple view I have hatched over the years but which never the less seems to fit many of the possible operating systems runs so ... Maths being the language of science it has been very well plumbed by minds vastly superior to my humble lump and I presume most of the readers here , and yet some have seen unexpected unexplained COP>1 results . My suspicion then became the answers must lie outside the norms of accepted Mathematics where the experimenter can reach by adjustment and stealth but the mathematician cannot penetrate. I think here of the terms all Mathematicians bulk at and run for the woods namely , The infinite , The infinitesimal and Chaos our portrayed understanding of electricity is trigonometric, as we have no idea of the dimension of pi (which is why it only remains a theorem) the whole concept is a shaky pack of cards anyway.
All of the machines seen to work involve open circuits in one form or another ... be it in the form of a capacitor , battery , or rapidly oscillating switch , (and yes even a vibrating vee belt) The reason isn't hard to imagine a square wave type instant switch is what's required but of course as you have just pointed out you enter a grey area ... how can a voltage (or in fact anything) change from one state to another in zero time ? Perhaps It can't however we are asked in standard physics to view current and voltage as the two components of electricity but with a phase displacement ... It now becomes possible with an open circuit involved to introduce the voltage of one cycle to the current of another , As far as the circuit is concerned .. the left hand can't see what the right hand is doing.... depending how you might view this concept time itself is being challenged with perfect series resonance. To try and stretch that elastic further
The wheel could be viewed as an over driven pendulum and a pendulum very much the equivalent of a resonant circuit , In fact the formula are identical but of course the units differ, To draw the parallel we are told at points in the swing of a pendulum all Kinetic energy is changed to potential energy and visa versa ... The same applies .. how can anything occur in zero time? And yet we have worked on the assumption that it is so for ever and ever our men, even though it must be wrong.
It is then my contention that the challenging state of forced tuned resonance is what Grumage seeks whilst I can see a way at it in electrical terms I have no doubt its got a mechanical equivalent just as parallel resonance has to the pendulum. If ..... you believe this
"Energy cannot be created or destroyed, it can only be changed from one form to another."
― Albert Einstein
Then all the energy that is or ever was surrounds us, as some say .. we live in a sea of energy, It is then for us to convert it back to a useful form. I hazard a guess that the energy is in the form of disconnected chaos as grains of sand on the beach and must be converted back to a usable form, As Tesla was kind enough to tell us frequency is the key ... particularly 3rd overtone 9th overtone cumulative on the 6th harmonic I presume .... 3,6,9
In those spinning wheels something very similar to this is probably occurring
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvJAgrUBF4w)
The hearing of course is again The impulse linear wave ( just consider how the ear works or a loud speaker ) The very wave we are told does not exist electrically and isn't taught , The resonances above are also of course linear impulse waves. Although they are shown as transverse waves.
some interesting Flywheel /gyro work from a post here
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/19563-propulsion-rotary-devices.html#post262080
Shared By Jason Verbelli
Gyroscopes:
Fran McCabe:
Wix.com Fran McCabe Home created by dolly1000 based on Global Ventures
McCabe Compilation (Read Vid Description)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xYhrFgcyWQ
A self contained 3 wheel vehicle. Its motion is caused by oscillating two 180 degree precessional segments gyroscopics that causes alternating arcuate vehicle motion. The 1.5 lb gyro wheel is spun by a 1/2 HP air motor. The gyro has its precession forced and timed by tuning the two 180 gyro segments into tuned arcuate motions--- being a wavy track vehicle motion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kyzd3BaDm0
A 4 spoke assembly that can rotate and traverse in its axial direction; in a cradle with air-driven, single gimbal 'gyro horizons' on the outer end of each spoke. Manual turning of the crank aligns the gyros to the gyro neutral equinox's. A resistance is induced during the alignments....possibly the mechanical demonstration of inertia? An additional physics feature is that the assembly sets up a self-induced frequency that results in selected sequencing of motorizations of the gyro horizons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vP4emXJ_GS0
A directionally guided pendulum whose period can be controlled to motorize the gyro assembly as each end reversal occurs. These are two pneumatic aircraft gyro horizons rigidly attached to an air motor-driven wheel to provide powered precession that is the power source for motorization.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fy7aCfC9P4s
A 1/2 HP air motor-driven wheel; and an air gear motor for the powered precession turning of a 4' verticle spiral pivoting arm. The gyro assembly is centrally mounted on the 4' arm. This confuses natural and powered precession, but an upward (anti gravity?) spiral can only be caused by powered precession. Disconnecting the chain-powered precession drive then permits only natural precession. When the sliding weight on the 4' arm is moved in towards the center (not shown on the video) the 4' arm slows. This seems to go against "conservation of energy" physics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtuNh4Aa_XU
1200 inch pounds of torque from 2.5 in lb. rated motor.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmqIg00xSFo
Two 6", 1.5 lb gyro wheels, air motor driven with air motor powered precession mounted on a crank arm. During 1/2 of the precessional rotation the major arm moves down, and up during the second 180 degrees (between two gyro neutral, parallel positions).
The output cranking torque is many multiples of the DC motor's rated torque.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjrVfsDNX2c
A 2.5 in lb 12/24 V rated DC motor spinning a1.5 lb, 6" D. Gyro wheel can systemically output 31.5 in lb thru gyroscopic natural and powered precession.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c74C2iTSIzI
Centripetal Force:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC5ZiJNZssk
Eric Laithwaite on Gyroscopes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OpCEJxO6V9g
Laithwaite on Gyroscopic Propulsion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt9wTAL5KoU
Sandy Kidd:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pt9wTAL5KoU
Gyro Says "No" to Newton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTEVC22qAZg
Gyro Experiments Galore:
http://relmachine.blogspot.com
Self Rotation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYK2-7kdtcY
The behavior of a single spinning wheel in gimbals is a well-documented subject; however, the interaction between multiple spinning wheels is less fully explored. Some researchers have hypothesized that spinning wheels could be mathematically modeled after electrical inductors, suggesting that the interaction between multiple spinning wheels might mirror that of multiple inductors in proximity with each other. The goal of the current set of experiments was to examine the interaction between two gimbaled spinning wheels with six degrees of freedom embedded in one scaffolding and observe their behavioral similarity to electrical inductors.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=camtPxBL-YM
Working Together:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0IPtlYipB4w
Levers:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdM2jWg2uEE
Pulleys:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMx7nIIH9ik
Inclined Planes:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_ErI0QjNos
Wheels and Axles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7xu9O0miEc
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
thx
Chet
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.07.18, 20:11:39
Grumage, If I confused you, Smudge really got me. ???
I'm not sure what to make of that. I have real time is absolute on one hand and relativity on the other.
Matt,
What I was trying to convey is that there is some absolute time frame governing the whole universe. But we mere mortals have to use instruments to measure time, and these cannot capture that absolute reference. What we measure as time differs according to our environment. Atomic oscillators at far flung regions of space do not oscillate at the same frequency as those here, hence we observe a frequency shift of the light coming from those distant stars. We have interpreted that frequency shift as a doppler shift due to movement away from us, leading to the big bang theory. Perhaps that is the wrong interpretation.
Smudge
Hi smudge you ponder the same thing Tommy does earlier ... where do the extra watts come from? Or Rather energy (energy of course being Watts x Time) I have seen and built one or two machines that have shown COP>1 results and so have no difficulty in the belief department like most of us I have also sucked a lot of Lemons. The response of most readers is then understandably ... give me the plans and schematic , I'll build it (regardless of cost blah blah) and verify the claim The honest truth is I can't replicate the systems myself with any guarantee of success It is engineering in an unknown domain. The three battery generating system is a very frustrating but typical example. As a stretching the elastic operation consider this there are Three areas where the language of science.. namely maths goes out of the window The infinite . Infinity and Chaos all three of those are involved to some degree in machines run at resonance. It also follows that at resonance the normal power in power out relationship could be expected to be out of kilter. A good time perhaps to remind folks that ( at least electrically) there are two distinct types of resonance Series and Parallel . Parallel resonance most are familiar with, It forms the tuning part of a humble crystal set and is a kissing cousin to a pendulum. Although quite obvious I should point out that the 'electromagnetic wave' is portrayed in a different dimension to volts and Amps by using a J operator for the same reason it is also always drawn in isometric. What then of Series Resonance ? What wave might it broadcast or receive? What is its mechanical kissing cousin ? Here we enter the bailiwick of Tesla the wave he said existed and demonstrated with his wireless system and which tptb (the powers that be) took violent exception to, expunging all traces from the public gaze. The longitudinal wave and Its wireless counterpart are denied the right to exist ! The longitudinal wireless wave is no feeble thing like a radio wave, nor is it confined to the realms of energy. In the humble Chrystal set a cats whisker or diode is used to 'demodulate' the signal in these flywheel machines I am quite prepared to take a punt that the flywheel at electrical 'longitudinal resonance' is performing the same duty and converting the earths 'magnetic current' to energy. What the mechanical kissing cousin might be I'm not at all sure but again simply because of the lack of information (ergo suppression ) I would hazard a guess its the whip lash . thank you for your input smudge more food for thought
Hi Duncan,
I spend my time looking into the corners of scientific theory trying to find something that has been overlooked. My paper on Electromagnetic Inertia looks at the scalar magnetic potential of the Earth's magnetic field and its potential to allow negative inertial forces to be produced. I wrote that thinking in terms of possible thrust motors, but now I think it could have wider implications in the field of OU machines. I am in the process of updating that paper to include the possibility that it could explain the SM TPU and the Sweet VTA both of which involve magnetism in one form or another. I haven't yet got the Hendershott generator into this but possibly the Hendershott free-running motor which I wasn't aware of until recently.
Smudge
Smudge:
Your research into this area should be interesting.
Dear All.
A rather "Heath Robinson" attempt at the Harold Aspden effect !! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m85GS5APXfk
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2014.08.09, 18:58:33
A rather "Heath Robinson" attempt at the Harold Aspden effect !! :)
Grum, is your motor a DC brushless type?
I ask because my Baldor motor does have brushes and I notice slight deviations with almost every run and especially if I change directions and go back--pretty sure it has to do with brush wear.
Quote from: Matt Watts on 2014.08.09, 19:52:14
Grum, is your motor a DC brushless type?
I ask because my Baldor motor does have brushes and I notice slight deviations with almost every run and especially if I change directions and go back--pretty sure it has to do with brush wear.
Dear Matt.
My motor is a 4 pole PM field with 4 brushes. Perhaps, you too, are seeing the effect !! ;)
It is strange. If you leave the motor and flywheel to rest for a few minutes it always takes longer to run up !! I wish I could afford a data logger that could see the watt's in real time, that, I think would be a real eye-opener !! O0
Cheers Grum.
Quote from: Grumage on 2014.08.09, 18:58:33
Dear All.
A rather "Heath Robinson" attempt at the Harold Aspden effect !! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m85GS5APXfk
Cheers Grum.
Nice job, Grum and Son, a smooth running assembly. Those sure are nice flywheels in your shop.
A nicely performed experiment. I think the first run up was 40.6 sec. Maybe time for us to read again the Aspden paper........did he spin magnets?
Thanks for the video update.
Have a nice weeks end and watch your fingers!.
Kind Regards, ION