Discussion in 'The Leisure Lounge' started by Paul T, Oct 21, 2012.
Next you will tell me that MK Ultra is a hoax!
My grandfather was a McCoy and always prohibited us to talk about Rothschilds ....... or would be Hatfields? These surnames always confused me.
By the way, in 1932 my grandfather invented a carburetor that worked with sugarcane liquor. Unfortunately, he always drank the fuel before he could test the carburetor. He became not rich, but died very happy.
Hmmm, before the internet I guess fear was the way the parasites protected themselves.
They are so wealthy they do not appear on any "rich list".
Interesting story about your grandfather. Others have been there too with alternative fuels.
"After Diesel's death (September 29, 1913), the diesel engine underwent much development and became a very important replacement for the steam piston engine in many applications."
Henry Ford & Rudolf Diesel Against Petroleum Part 1
History books are written by the winners. A lot of what we all learnt at school was BS. This isn't our fault we have been brainwashed.
It is our fault if we let the system continue and do the same to our children and grand children. Even great grand children.
A colossal power struggle between good and evil is deep in the midst.
The good news is that more than 99.9% are good people.
The bad news is the petty thieves are in prison, while the master criminals / psychopaths rule the world.
They control the money, the energy, the politicians, wars and they are striving to control the water, food and air.
It's sick and makes me feel sick. The only way to beat them is non compliance and move away from the systems that have been put in place to enslave us.
It has been proved in the UK that council tax and income tax is "gifted". It is all a scam. Money is made from thin air.
I'm not going to get into your conspiracy theories, this is the mechanical design forum, not a political discussion group, but I'm home recovering from an illness and I'm bored so I was wondering, Paul: What is your engineering background? Have you ever taken any engineering classes? College level physics? Statics and dynamics? Thermodynamics? Calculus? Do you know how to make and solve a free body diagram? The reason I ask is because if you had, you would know that you don't just get equations to use, you learn to derive them, from easily demonstrated first principles... like F=ma, you don't dispute that one, do you? When you have properly studied the subject, you wouldn't make silly statements about Newton being wrong, because you would have followed his work, and know for yourself that it checks.
Paul: "Hi, I've got this perpetual motion machine that's almost working, I just need better bearings."
Us: "The laws of physics say it won't ever work, what makes yours different?"
Paul: "This other inventor has a prototype on youtube and it's almost working. He says Newton is wrong."
Us: "Show us a free body diagram, showing how your machine works."
Paul: "Where can I get better gears?"
Sorry I do go off on tangents. It is one of my flaws.
I went to a school called "City Technology College". I had access to CNC and manual lathes, millers, grinders, vaccuum formers, benders, drill presses and band saws from the age of 11. I studied GNVQ Level 2 in Manufacturing from the age of 14-16. I then studied GNVQ Advanced Engineering until my friend started coming home in road going rally cars. Then I quit the engineering course and got an apprenticeship as a light vehicle mechanic with Peugeot.
I could go on about my motor trade experience but it has been posted before in the thread.
I'm someone who messed up at school, still got alright grades but excelled after school in an adult environment.
I am interested in the free body diagram. I don't know how to draw one for the device or believe it will help.
If free body diagrams were able to find the missing parts of Newtons laws, you advanced guys would have been doing design work with this stuff in your basic training.
This is the 1st Karanev replication attempt I have seen yet and since it uses centrifugal force at high RPM with small weights instead of the way Mikhail Dmitriyev and myself are using low RPM, with heavy weight centrifugal force.
Maybe Newton nailed it back then and the Publishing companies wrote it out because it was against their major shareholders business interests.
Or maybe Newton hadn't discovered if there were any exceptions and Mikhail Dmitriyev and Prof. Karanev discovered them.
There is a lot worth investigating here.
I wouldn't waste your time or mine if there wasn't.
I never stuck at anything for as long as this in my life.
Seriously I get bored and move on, but I can't drop this because there is too much at stake globally.
This technology is much cheaper than solar and can be made locally in most countries using available materials.
This technology is not what the people in control of the energy companies want.
They don't want it because it means we don't have to be debt slaves anymore.
"remember, if it is going to work at all, it will work when it is not perfect. Stirling engines made from balloons and coke cans still run, although you get no useful work out of them. Same thing with tea kettle/ pinwheel turbines, or even the drinking bird toys. Demonstrate the principle"
If I were trying to prove an internal combustion engine would work, I would NOT mess around with electronic variable timing, variable displacement, turbocharging, multi-fuel capability, or titanium connecting rods. I WOULD build a simplified engine and set the valve and spark timing all to 0 degrees BDC and then play around with air fuel mixtures, maybe something easy to mix like propane, and prove it could run. Even with bad bearings, even with leaky valves, even with crappy sparks and non-stoichiometric mixtures - it would still run.
If an overbalance machine can be made to work, it can be made to work with the design i sent you. Weighted pendulua, overrunning one way clutches, and roller cam followers. You can adjust the cam follower angle, and the cam profile to give you any arbitrary overhang/ reset profile you want. you could leave out the clutches if you want. You could even put a cam follower on each end if you found you needed a different set/ reset profile at different points around the circumference and couldn't find a single arm angle that worked for both. - yep = I just went back and looked at the CAD - the follower arm can just mount on the other end, and you can put a cam on the other side if that were necessary. The design I sent can be made with water jet cut and machined parts - nothing fancy. you don't need fancy, you need to prove the concept.
If you really want to prove it out, take the design you have and build it and test it and try to find an operating point. I don't believe it will work, but if it could work the design I gave you would do it. My skepticism doesn't matter. A bridge designer could have given a valid opinion of the wright brothers plane's structure, even if he didn't think it would fly.
I believe the design you proposed has the potential to be far more efficient than the version I am pursuing.
Definitely a better candidate for a self runner using no motor as an input.
I do not fully understand all the components you proposed or where they exist in the vast array of parts on the web link you posted.
Were those roll pins you used?
It goes beyond what the inventor created and also beyond where I am at.
I certainly hadn't forgotten your idea. I think the cam would be best keeping the weights horizontal until 3 o'clock, then centrifugal force can take over and the one way clutch provides the leverage mechanical advantage.
I think what would be optimum next, depends on the arm length / speed of rotation.
I posted it before and here it is again.
This video is not on youtube on the inventors channel.
I had enough trust to believe the inventor that this is running from inertia and not from the motor.
I wish he had the guts to send one with the motor chain disconnected.
If the inventor is true to his word, then your idea will increase the efficiency, but it isn't necessary.
Why would an inventor make 13+ expensive prototypes, patent the technology, create a website explaining how it works, make a youtube channel showing 4 years of their work and post their own photograph on the internet to make themselves look stupid?
I see some elaborate hoaxes, but from my own and others experience replicating this device, this one is genuine.
I know some hardcore skeptics / replicators who agree with me that this one is genuine. In fact in other forums they are taking the mickey out of some of you guys and suggesting to me to give up here.
You have been more helpful than anyone else here. You have taken the design in new directions which is most appreciated.
What you are saying about a battered old engine is correct, it will run.
But how long will it run without an alternator feeding energy back for the sensors / ignition circuit.
Old diesels are an exception. But try and start it without a battery / alternator feedback loop for the starter motor to draw from.
Typical petrol and diesel engines are not efficient. I posted a petrol engine using a single toroidal cylinder, 8 pistons and some clever timing mechanism. It is around 60% efficient. No one took any notice.
What I have built so far is only a partial replication. It won't drive the alternator without pulleys, sprockets or gears though. Therefore how can I run a motor and have a feedback loop to validate the above video link.
The inventors low RPM, high torque engine needs the motor to turn the main shaft to enable the swinging pendulums to feedback more energy than what was introduced.
The motor inputs a little energy, the swinging pendulums swing and lever adding far more torque than what the input motor put in.
The gearing to extract the energy from the alternator uses a bit and leaves an excess for input and powering a load.
At some point in this replication you guys will take me seriously
I will prove it was yet another very elaborate hoax and will eat humble pie.
I'm very patient......
A little maths help from a fellow researcher:
At 400 watts output you would need 0.92 ft lbs of torque at 3044 rpm, the input at 60 rpm would require 46 ft lbs. Quite do-able as long as you can maintain the 46 lb force on the input. Actual input would be slightly higher with frictional losses through the gear train.
It still boils down to the efficiency of input/output in order to come out ahead.
The torque required to produce a given power output by an alternator/generator is...
.7376 * ( Watts / ( 6.26 * rpm / 60 )) = ft lbs
You can then use your gear "ratio" to find ft lbs on the input side. Your gear ratio was 50:1 so you simply multiply the torque required by the alternator by the gear ratio to find input ft lbs. ( .92 ft lbs * 50 = 46 ft lbs ).
Ok, so in order to make 400 watts from alternator I need slightly more than 46 ft lbs to overcome the frictional losses of the gear train.
Increasing the diameter of the wheel is the simplest way to increase torque assistance.
Perhaps some of the devices shown in this link could be useful for the prototype:
But ... very important .... before doing anything, read the Disclaimer first.
power is energy/time. energy in a rotational system is torque times angular displacement. angular displacement per time is angular velocity. therefore power is torque times angular velocity. All the other numbers are just to make the units consistent.
In this case you nee 46 foot pounds AT THE QUOTED RPM to give the quoted power. Torque is not equivalent to power. tourque at RPM is power.
But here is the thing: If you gear something to get more torque, you will as a consequence get lower RPM, unless you increase power. Why? because energy is conserved. This is also the reason that overunity machines won't work. It is not something derived from first principles, just from observation. Matter is also conserved. So your quest to make a machine that sits there and produces energy could just as well be a quest for a machine that sits there and produces matter. You might say that is impossible, but it is just as possible as what you are seeking. Actually a machine that could just sit there and produce water, or O2, or Hydrogen, would be a pretty cool machine. I want one. But I am not going to pursue it because I believe it is a fools errand.
Separate names with a comma.