Working model overunity mechanical.

A Bessler, gravity, free-energy free-for-all. Registered users can upload files, conduct polls, and more...

Moderator: scott

Post Reply

You belive this is a hoax

You may select 1 option

 
 
View results

nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

Working model overunity mechanical.

Post by nicbordeaux »

Grimer is a genius http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3290

Here's a "poorman patent" dating a while back of a device: lever (seesaw if you want) working on weight displacement. There have been subsequent developpments which have entailled another 4 "poorman patents". This not perpetual motion, but a means of producing substantially more energy (mechanical) than is required to initiate the movement. Useful runtimes of between 20 minutes and 6 hours have been obtained on a systematic basis using variants of this device. Energy produced was/is sufficient to dive a heavy bike wheel via a 3/8 in chain and run two "bottle" type friction dynamos.

In the form shown here, the dificulty is in maintaining the wheel vertical. This can be accomplished by many means, most of which detract from the energy of the machine. The most effective is a pantograph system. A cam and rod invertor are also ok. The 360° rotation of the balance shifting wheel atop the device is not ideal, as CG will not be changed brutally from one end og the beam to the other, as maximum efficiency would require. A "botch" fix is 180° back and forth.

Sliding weights and/or pendulum (including magnetics for holding the beam or weights in a given location for a given duration, modifying the power delivery via having a steel pendulum jump from one magnetic field to another, magnet attract or repel or sliding weight (s) are other options I have used. They are much simpler to implement.

Just don't forget that if you are using a wheel with say a 10 kg weight at each end and a 2 kg movable weight, at best your gain will be 2 kgs through part of the arc. Plus any energy gained from G. Other systems will allow for a 8 through 12 kg +/- G (and - friction/cx) with a 10 kg weight on one end only.

The reason I'm not playing paranoid and keeping all this "secret" (even if most guys will spend the rest of their lives objecting that it doesn't or won't work) ?

We need "free" energy. Urgently. My design "works", other people with different mindsets will be able to come up with alternatives. Or use "info" from this system to improve or make feasible their own designs. Could I make a billion from this ? No way, the issue is much too large. However, for a low mileage LHD Lotus Seven with 5 years prepaid maintenance and insurance, I'll give up all my designs :))

Image

I am willing to submit a photo of the basic setup to the resident expert, whoever he may be.
Attachments
3976882366_c73a5f09aa_o.jpg
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Post by Grimer »

@ nicbordeaux

You should always shrink your figures so that they fit the normal width.

If you don't everything overflows the right hand margin and is a bloody pain to read.

Cheers

Frank
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

Re: Working model overunity mechanical.

Post by nicbordeaux »

Well, as nobody is answering this thread, I'll post myself something I dropped on antoher forum in response to (I guess) a juvenile debunker with a software fix. It explains things a bit better I hope:

The principle is rotating one offset mass located at the outer edge of a wheel mounted horizontally on a beam.

The beam is mounted centrally on a BB/axle.

The beam has a weight on the left end.

The wheel is mounted (free to spin on BB) on the right side of the beam.

When the wheel is placed so that the weight sat upon it is farthest away from fulcrum, the device is (to keep things very simple) in balance. It will stay "level".

When the wheel with weight is rotated (which takes one heck of a lot less energy than lifting equivalent weight vertically), the weight upon this wheel will approach the fulcrum, or axis of the beam. As it does so, weight is displaced so that it weighs less against the right hand side of the beam.

The weight or mass at left of beam will drop with G. The bigger the swing, the bigger the "hit".

As horizontal wheel continues to rotate, it will return to initial position, and lift right hand weight back to vertical.

Problems encountered are in maintaining the horizontal wheel supporting assembly without removing too much from the energy produced by G. Also making the transfer of weight quicker, more brutal. Within the scope of the rotary horizontal mass distribution, this can be accomplished by restraint of appropriate end of beam, restraint of constant force, eg it will let go when a given amount of force (or mass, whatever) is applied. Problems were also encountered in the area of applyying weight constantly (or where required) to beam from horizontal wheel, as maintaining the assembly vertical entails moving in several planes. To stay simple, it has to be able to slide lengthwise, and also vertically.

For those who are still with me, cam and rod push or pull, and/or wire restraint can be configured so that the vertical assembly will move from vertical to one side then the other by a few degrees, inducing a self rotate of the wheel. Timing of course is of the essence, but auto-timing (mechanical) has been achieved (luckily, because with weights in the order of 8 - 10 kg individually, serious damage would occur if things got out of synch).

Whatever, you can modelize this with computer programs 'till the end of time and be nowhere near reality, the parameters are too numerous and not all immediately obvious. You might, if you could with this explanation, make a working device (I hope not ), be able to identify the parameters, measure all energy loss/gain, and obtain enough data to simulate this device.

For those who aren't still with me, you can have some serious fun and validate the very basic principle by building the following device : one piece of steel bar say 1.5 meters long with at central point a pivot (say a bicycle hub ?). At one end of this beam, fix a weight of 1 kg, 2 if you want to. To other end (right) of beam affix a weight of approx 1/2 of the weight attached to left end of beam. Now take a length of solid string (say 30 cm)? with a weight fixed on one end and fix it to beam on righthand side of pivot so that at rest the device is more or less horizontal. Now swing pendulum and watch lever swing up and down. Erratically because length of pendulum needs to tuned, and even if in perfect tune, decay of pendulum movement occurs, and you get funny behavior. You could improve no end by using a rigid pendumum rotating freely on a BB (how about a bicycle pedal ?) This can be improved upon, I mean by that that the pendular form of device can made to have a quite long runtime and produce energy. More than was required to intiate the swing of the pendulum. If you are having too much trouble maintaining the beam swing up and down within a given radius of an arc, you might want to suspend the "dropping" end by a spring, or strong elastic. It'll upset the behavior pattern of course. If you are using a string, your beam assembly must be quite far forward from table, eiffel tower or whatever you are using as a support, because firstly there is this guy Foucault who is quite right about pendulum swing plane rotating, and secondly, but more important, strings on pendulums tend not to travel peacefully back and forth in a perfectly constant linear plane when they are being bounced all over the place by a silly swinging beam they are attached to.

The leverage means that the weight of the pendulum can be varied a lot, you just need to compensate by moving fixation point of pendul to beam longitudinally to attain balance. This will also greatly influence the behavior, and power delivery. At best, your available power in this config will be left weight + G minus right hand weight and restraining forces associated. Occasionally, there will be a moment when the pendulum weight will add to this. However, this is totally unpredictable. Power should be taken only on downstroke to left IMO.

This simple device however could be computer modelized, just don't forget to factor in moment of intertia, and weight of beam plus rod if rod is used for pendulum.

Oh, by the way, if I haven't stated this already on this forum in particular, if I am "outing" this info on this particular version of device it is because I think that many minds working together will improve it. Unfortunately, a lot of minds spend their time taking other peoples designs apart rather than inventing anything themselves, luckily not all.

Furthermore, I am now into devices of a different sort which show more potential in that they are much less costly to make, require less maintenance having fewer moving parts, and are easy for everyone (myself included) to explain and understand.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
User avatar
Grimer
Addict
Addict
Posts: 5280
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 9:46 am
Location: Harrow, England
Contact:

Post by Grimer »

And the best of British luck to you Sir.
broli
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 687
Joined: Fri May 23, 2008 10:09 am

Post by broli »

You need some better illustrations to explain what's happening my friend.
User avatar
DrWhat
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:41 pm

Post by DrWhat »

nicbordeaux, I agree with broli, new ideas are always exciting and a high quality image/drawing would make it much easier to understand. I'm sure we would all be willing to help once we understood better.
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

The Great Auto Seesaw.

Post by nicbordeaux »

OK, well I'll try some better drawing. But all that is happening is that this is a seesaw with a fixed weight at one end. At the other end is a vertical stick upon which sits a wheel with a weight stuck to it. As the wheel revolves the weight it carries acts closer and closer to the fulcrum, until once on fulcrum or just past it is acting on the opposite side of the lever, and more importantly, letting the fixed weight drop. My initial understanding was that the wheel weight would still mainly act on the point of fixation of the stick holding it, experiment showed that it acted mainly upon the point directly below the weight. The only tricky part is to get that vertical stick to stay vertical, because very little impetus is needed to get that spinning as long as it's vertical.

What is hapening is changing the position of the weight longitudinally, even though in this instance it's being accomplished by rotary, because that enables for a nice easy return of the seesaw to it's initial position. As long as the wheel spins, you can take drive from the central pivot of the seesaw. The amount of energy you remove from the seesaw has no effect on the spinning wheel unless it is brutal and induces vibration into the system, and even then the detrimental effect is limited.

As long as the wheel spins, the seesaw will move up and down under the effect of G.

It's really as simple as that.

I guess the device should have been called "The Great Automatic Seesaw". Because that is all it is.

Anyway, beddytime here in rural France.
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6543
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Working model overunity mechanical.

Post by ovyyus »

If wheel 'A' shaft remains vertical then force applied at fulcrum will remain constant irrespective of wheel 'A' weight position.

Another 'working device' drawing. Why do you ask people to believe when they can know? I voted 'yes' :D
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

re: Working model overunity mechanical.

Post by greendoor »

Hi nicb - I won't vote that this is a hoax, because I think it's just a flawed idea. When I first got the Bessler bug I came up with a idea fairly similar. I actually took it a further step - using two counter-rotating out-of-balance wheels on horizontal axles and geared together. The idea being that as one mass fell, the other mass would be rising. That means we could achieve a horizontal transfer of mass from A to B for practically no energy input. The horizontal displacement would be used to move the mass over the fulcrum point of the balancing beam, to an out-of-balance point.

Ultimately - any clever scheme like this comes down to a very simple lever effect. And there is no free-energy gain from a simple lever. The Egyptian Shadoof is a good simple example of what you are proposing. Take a see-saw and apply one end to lifting a large mass (e.g. moving a tonne of water). If the opposite end of the see-saw is made long enough, we can walk backwards and forwards on the see-saw, with very little effort, and move tonnes of water/mass all day long.

But is this free-energy? No - just good efficient use of our 1/4 horse power. Like the advantage that a racing cyclist has over a jogger.

Whenever considering any lever-based system (e.g Milkovic 2 stage oscillator) you need to consider the two arcs that the small and the larger masses travel through. By moving out horizontally, we have to move the smaller mass higher and lower - trading distance for height.

You say: "The amount of energy you remove from the seesaw has no effect on the spinning wheel unless it is brutal and induces vibration into the system..."

That is not correct. The small rotating mass that overbalances the beam is moving fairly slowly (otherwise the beam can't keep up). You are thinking that you are only rotating the small mass horizontally, but due to the vertical arc movement of the beam, the small mass is also moving vertically - by a greater amount than you are imagining. This is where you lose energy.

But on the bright side - I think there is still an opportunity to possibly extract free energy if you employ another principle. I keep harping on about this, but I believe the Bessler secret involves applying the free Force of gravity for a longer period of Time than the Time used to return the mass. This requires thinking in terms of Momentum: Force x Time.

A simple lever being used out-of balance is similar to an Atwood machine. If we allow it to fall very slowly, it accumulates Momentum for a longer period of Time. Doing the maths calculations is very revealing, compared to the Momentum required to return mass against gravity more quickly.

So maybe we can use a similar system, perhaps with an electric motor, to rotate the flywheel quickly, after a slow descent ...
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
nicbordeaux
Addict
Addict
Posts: 2140
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:54 pm
Location: France

Re: re: Working model overunity mechanical.

Post by nicbordeaux »

ovyyus wrote:If wheel 'A' shaft remains vertical then force applied at fulcrum will remain constant irrespective of wheel 'A' weight position.

Another 'working device' drawing. Why do you ask people to believe when they can know? I voted 'yes' :D
It doesn't really matter much, but if you try revolving a wheel with an offset weight which is mounted on a vertical shaft sat to one side of the fulcum, irrespective of what the text books say, or theory (or a person's comprehension of theory), you will notice that your statement is false.

But as I said, it is of no particular import. I share a device that works, albeit with some pretty "sophisticted" mechanics to achieve various things, people believe it's a hoax, that doesn't stop me turning the wheel and watching the device work.

In future, I'll just either keep shut up, or only show wheels which revolve within wheels, with at least 32 neodym magnets. If I ever perfect such a device, which is highly unlikely, as I have absolutely no interest in this concept :)

Conclusion: anybody believes this is a hoax, they have my official agreement. Matter rests there. Let sleeping dogs le.
If you think you have an overunity device, think again, there is no such thing. You might just possibly have an unexpectedly efficient device. In which case you will be abducted by MIB and threatened by aliens.
ruggerodk
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1071
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2008 7:02 am
Location: Scandinavia

Re: The Great Auto Seesaw.

Post by ruggerodk »

nicbordeaux wrote:The only tricky part is to get that vertical stick to stay vertical,
It's very simple to do that:

Mount two (horizontal) small pins for vertical sliding on the stick: one at the top and one at the buttom. Placed on opposite side of the stick (180 degrees) Let these pins slide on two vertical curved guides or slots (following the beams curved movement)

This way, you'll allways have the total G force intact and the stick allways standing vertical on the beam.

regards
ruggero ;-)
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
ovyyus
Addict
Addict
Posts: 6543
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 2:41 am

re: Working model overunity mechanical.

Post by ovyyus »

Ah, the old 'I have an idea but if you don't believe me then I'll never tell you' nugget. I obviously made the correct poll choice, thanks for clarifying.
User avatar
Wubbly
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 727
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 2:15 am
Location: A small corner of the Milky Way Galaxy
Contact:

re: Working model overunity mechanical.

Post by Wubbly »

This kinda looks like a variation of a Veljko Milkovic dual stage oscillator, but on one end of the lever instead of having a pendulum moving in a vertical plane this has an offset mass moving in a semi-horizontal plane. I would say the Veljko Milkovic device is an improvement over this design, and Veljko has yet to 'close the loop' and prove over unity.
greendoor
Devotee
Devotee
Posts: 1286
Joined: Sun May 04, 2008 6:18 am
Location: New Zealand

Post by greendoor »

This bears more thought ... i'm starting to think that nicb & rugger are onto something here ...

Yes - it's very similar to Milkovic, and we all know that something so simple still defies some of the top physics brains to yield a definative answer. I actually think that Milkovic is easier to disprove, but that's probably because i've thought a lot about it. This is a little different and needs some serious attention.

The need for maintaining the vertical shafts upright as the beam sweeps out an arc is something I had never considered before. With the Milkovic input pendulum it's much easier to see how the movement of the output beam robs the input pendulum of degrees of rotation (reducing the potential energy and forcing the operator to input more energy).

This is keeping the horizontal movement horizontal ... i'm wondering if some hanging weights could be used to force these vertical axles to stay upright ... as long as they are balanced, I can't see them robbing any energy ...

To avoid the "semi-horizontal" behaviour I think the rotation could be pulsed rather than continous - like a clock escapement perhaps ...

Hmmm - there has to be a catch, this seems too easy ...
mickegg
Aficionado
Aficionado
Posts: 383
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 3:06 pm
Location: Berkshire,England

Post by mickegg »

Can you turn the machine upside down and let the rod and wheel hang?

Regards

Mick
Post Reply