• Welcome to engineeringclicks.com
  • Holy Grail of Mechanical Design?

    Discussion in 'The Leisure Lounge' started by Paul T, Oct 21, 2012.

    1. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0

      Exactly Erich! This is a simple principle and I suppose a simple explanation has taken a long time to surface, but we are getting there.

      Input motor turns a shaft at 60RPM with or without gearbox.

      Swinging pendulums fitted with clutch bearings lever the same shaft.

      What have we got?

      Reduced input current.

      What does that do?

      Increase motors efficiency.

      Correct?


      Now there is the part where the next gearbox changes the 60RPM to 3000RPM.

      This is where the alternator attaches.


      Here is the simplest bit.

      Does increasing the leverage by adding more weight, longer arms or increasing the diameter decrease the input motor current?

      Does it also increase the torque available after the final drive gearbox?


      Again I already know the answer. I'm testing you guys.


      It seems the whole mechanical design gang have been brainwashed with maths and theory instead of doing real experiments.

      I'm waiting to see who is the first one to click and then amaze me as I get left in the dust.
       
      Last edited: Apr 16, 2014
    2.  
    3. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      They say in this country that "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit"
       
    4. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      If the order of the day to decrease the input motors current is to provide 360 degree mechanical leverage assisted by centrifugal force, then, this brings me back to the water jet engineering companies design.

      Maximum RPM unknown at this stage.

       
    5. JDavid

      JDavid Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Aug 2013
      Posts:
      45
      Likes Received:
      0
      This is all correct yes. The problem lies in the first line. You assume the swinging pendulums will create a leverage but where is it gaining energy from? Unless the sole purpose of your machine is to store energy so that when you want to discharge it (Are you talking about a mechanical inductor?) If that's the case that's great and a fun idea though it doesn't give any free energy and is not the holy grail of anything, it's called an impact driver and they have it small enough to fit in your hand.

      The pendulum though will not create energy, more weights longer arms will increase the momentum, but will also increase the amount of energy to get it spinning. Same principle of "get a bigger hammer." Prove the concept on a small scale, no motors attached, no hidden strings, if you can do that I'm all in. Good place to start is not with an idea, draw out some free body diagrams where are your forces acting? If the pendulum will increase the rotation velocity you don't need a motor attached to show that and that's where you will lose most people, (besides using the phrase free energy unless you are talking about cold fusion).
       
    6. miltonbr

      miltonbr Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Feb 2014
      Posts:
      54
      Likes Received:
      1
      In my country they say ..... well, they say a lot of clichés.
      The most important is to define the issue.

      Science attempts to apply some of the following criteria:
      1) Skepticism of unsupported claims
      2) Combination of an open mind with critical thinking
      3) Attempts to repeat experimental results.
      4) Requires testability
      5) Uses descriptive language
      6) Performs controlled experiments
      7) Relies on evidence and reason
      8) Produces useful knowledge

      Pseudoscience and belief relies on:
      1) Has a negative attitude to skepticism
      2) Does not require critical thinking
      3) Does not require experimental repeatability
      4) Does not require tests
      5) Uses vague language
      6) Relies on anecdotal evidence
      7) Relies on belief and faith
      8) Produces no useful knowledge
       
    7. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      Ok, JDavid sounds like a plan.

      No input motor.


      What about human power?

      How much wattage would I have to produce and for how long for you to take me seriously?

      This will be cheaper for me too.
       
    8. miltonbr

      miltonbr Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Feb 2014
      Posts:
      54
      Likes Received:
      1
      I'm sorry. I just could not resist.

      [​IMG]
       
    9. maniacal_engineer

      maniacal_engineer Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2009
      Posts:
      137
      Likes Received:
      0
      If it is over-unity, but needs an input motor, why not make another identical over-unity machine and they can be the input motors to each other?

      Really, you need to do a test that is an actual test. A test that, before you do it you say to yourself: "this test is fully thought out. If it works it proves the theory, if it doesn't work it disproves the theory".

      And then you need to force yourself to live by the results, whatever they are.
       
    10. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      miltonbr, that's a good one :D

      It would be pretty amazing if all someone had to do was pedal a bike to power a household.

      I think we can do much better than that though.


      maniacal_engineer, if the inventor is genuine, which I do believe he is.

      The number of pendulums or mass of pendulums can be increased to make the COP > 2.0 therefore providing enough energy to power itself.

      What I meant was.

      If I could use the machine I am building to power a 1000w vacuum by hand for a certain period of time, would that suffice as evidence to prove torque amplification from my physical input?
       
    11. Erich

      Erich Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Feb 2012
      Posts:
      274
      Likes Received:
      2
      To prove your device works you need to measure the input power going into your device and simultaneously measure the power going into your vacuum or other load.
      To measure power you need to measure forces or torques and rpms.

      If you measure voltage and current of your driving motor and build a simple dynamometer you can compare output power to input power.
      http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=117800 This thread discusses ways to make a cheap dyno.

      Using the input power to the motor is simple but it takes the inefficiencies of the motor and assigns them to your device.
      If your machine were over unity by 20% it would more than make up for that loss and your results would show it worked.

      Just one question: If your device can tap into some source of energy through the power of pendulums and gravity or whatever.
      Assume it can, Why can you not give the device a gentle spin and observe that it begins to accelerate and speed up until you have to put a brake on it to prevent it from overspeeding to destruction?
       

    Share This Page

    1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
      Dismiss Notice