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

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

    1. maniacal_engineer

      maniacal_engineer Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2009
      Posts:
      137
      Likes Received:
      0
      Exactly. It seems like if you are tapping into some overunity source that the danger would be in the machine overspeeding itself to destruction.

      Is this the Erich of the late PDG?
       
    2.  
    3. Erich

      Erich Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Feb 2012
      Posts:
      274
      Likes Received:
      2
      It is indeed the same Erich

      How goes the Inkjet world?
       
    4. maniacal_engineer

      maniacal_engineer Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2009
      Posts:
      137
      Likes Received:
      0
      I am now on the dark side (well, from HP's perspective anyway) and work for a refiller. Life/ work is going well. I thought that your posts sounded a lot like you - very much in the "in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is" vein
      How are you doing?
       
    5. maniacal_engineer

      maniacal_engineer Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2009
      Posts:
      137
      Likes Received:
      0
      Increase motor efficiency? not necessarily. the motor is being assisted by something external (to the motor) and so it will shift to a different operating point. That point may have higher or lower efficiency.

      With no bearing drag or windage a permanent magnet DC motor behaves as follows: for a given voltage- maximum current and torque occur at zero speed, maximum power occurs at 50% of no load speed. Maximum efficiency is at 70.7% of no load speed (1/sqrt(2)). At no load speed, the maximum RPM, there is zero current. Iif you force the motor to go faster than no load speed, current will flow the opposite direction. There are slight adjustments to this in the real world, because drag and friction do exist and so the no load speed has some very small current.

      A motor converts current into torque, and converts RPM into back EMF. Both of these conversions are proportional to the same constant (the torque constant) although in the back EMF case the units conversion gets messy. Voltage times current is power, so is torque times angular velocity. Because the same constant is applicable in both directions it means that power is conserved, power is rate of energy, so if power is conserved energy must also be conserved.

      The exact same thing applies to any gearbox or other sort of mechanism that serves to trade off intensive (pressure, torque, force, voltage) and extensive properties (volume, angular displacement, distance, current) - the product of which is power. If you get in and analyze the guts of any gearbox/ pulley/ hydraulic intensifier/ electrical transformer - they all trade an extensive and an intensive property, but the product of those properties is at best constant (perfect bearings, no resistance etc) and in reality there is always a reduction of available power/ energy.

      The game is rigged, you can't beat the second law.
       
      Last edited: Apr 21, 2014
    6. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0

      Thanks for the link.

      Assuming the inventor is correct the device needs to be able to run itself to be useful to mankind.


      At one point I believed that the invention would over speed to destruction. Apart from not being able to afford a full scale replication, this was one of the reasons I built a 1:3 scale version. This has allowed me to play with the variables without it costing a fortune.

      My discovery is that it cannot over speed to destruction.

      When the speed increases past a certain RPM, in my case 60 something... centripetal force stops the pendulums swinging.

      After a short while the device slows down and the pendulums start swinging again.

      In my case the inertia has not been enough to maintain this condition, but I do believe I am very close mass wise.


      This means the mechanical / centrifugal / gravity advantage needs to be tapped in an RPM band.

      The inventor told me he knows the machine isn't optimum and that he wanted help to optimise it.

      He knows he cannot do it alone with his resources and wants the world to benefit from his discovery.

      I believe initially he wanted to profit from it. This was also my goal at one point.

      After researching and realising why these things don't exist already, it became clear that in order to profit from it, the people of the world needed to be given it on a plate to open source and improve it, so every man and woman can profit from its existence.




      All of your notions lead me to believe that all I need to do is show this turning on its own, no input motors, no alternators.

      Just perpetual motion trying to find its own equilibrium.

      This is now my target.

      Should save me a lot of money too.

      I'll publish the CAD files and video and let 100's of you run with it in different directions. The powers that be cannot stop us all.

      Open source has only worked for software so far as far as I'm aware.

      Well here is a chance to change history.

      I'm also going to share Karanev's work with you in more detail.


      I've got my head around how it works and it's much smaller than this device, with efficiencies of over 1000%.

      Hopefully some of you have a good idea on how to implement electronic clutches, like the sort used in a vehicle HVAC compressor.


      All will become clear soon.
       
    7. brads

      brads Active Member

      Joined:
      Sep 2012
      Posts:
      38
      Likes Received:
      0
      Quote of the day!
       
    8. miltonbr

      miltonbr Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Feb 2014
      Posts:
      54
      Likes Received:
      1
      Theoretically then the practical facts are that the theory is in practice good for predicting what happens in theory, but impractical as a theory with direct implications for practice, except where theory states that the practice is sufficiently close to the theory to make any difference for all practical purposes theoreticaly zero.
      Obviously.
       
    9. JDavid

      JDavid Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Aug 2013
      Posts:
      45
      Likes Received:
      0
      You wouldn't have to produce any really. If you were to gentle start the machine with a spin, and it were to increase it's speed to the equilibrium speed that you spoke of where the centrifugal force causes the pendulums to no longer provide torque that would work for me.
       
    10. maniacal_engineer

      maniacal_engineer Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2009
      Posts:
      137
      Likes Received:
      0
      "in theory there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is"

      This is Erich's quote, I was quoting it back to him. Just to make sure that no one thinks I am claiming credit for something.
       
    11. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      Here is a little something of Kanarev's work.

      [​IMG]

      Here is a little better breakdown.

      [​IMG]


      I a told by one of my fellow R&D guys that Kanarev is using custom electronic clutches from 135 degrees to 180 degrees to overcome any negative torque and reach these crazy efficiencies.


      Here is the link for Laurence aka Woopy's replication step 1:

      kSG1nroy_WM
       
      Last edited: Apr 24, 2014

    Share This Page

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