• 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
      I think what I should have tried instead of an inductive load is the charge controller, a capacitor bank, the inverter and a load.

      I also realise I opted for the highest friction drive mechanism possible.

      I did a bit of research it seems that this is the order of efficiency.

      1. Chain
      2. Timing Belt
      3. Poly V
      4. V / Wedge Belt

      Chain drive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      Chain or belt drive: which is faster? - BikeRadar

      Now I realise why Mikhail opted for chain drive.

      I've located a 95 tooth sprocket and a 13 tooth sprocket so 7.3 : 1

      Just need to find the taper lock bushes and chain now....

      At least I know I have tested the worst option and what the results were!

      I really wish I could find a motor I could briefly switch on for a second to see if the device can power itself rather than a constant current sucking inductive bulb load.

      That's all for now.....

      Thanks,

      Paul
       
    2.  
    3. Erich

      Erich Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Feb 2012
      Posts:
      277
      Likes Received:
      2
      Paul,

      Save your money on the chain and sprockets. If your device cannot overcome the friction of a V belt, it doesn't work.

      You don't even need to try to power a light bulb. Connect the generator to your device with V belt.

      "Start" your device. If it has any prayer of working it should be able to overcome the friction of the system and continue turning over.

      If it is capable of producing more power than the friction of the system, it should start to spin faster and faster.
       
    4. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      Hi Erich, I know where your coming from with your thoughts.

      Please bear in mind this isn't a full scale replication of the inventors prototype 11 as featured in the first page.


      What if everything you knew about mechanical design wasn't complete and there was a physical condition whereby a set of pendulums fitted with clutch bearing constantly levered a flywheel purely because a flywheel was constantly off balance and created a condition whereby the speed was continuously swinging the pendulums purely down to the fact of leverage amplification by levering levers and then levering those levers and then levering those levers that are being levered.

      Surely a simulation guy here knows how to do this???


      That is how this device I have built is supposed to work. Is that possible with one set of levers acting as a pair? This is a set of scales. You only have one set of leverage on the main shaft with two levers 180 degrees apart.

      It is not a full scale replication of the inventors device, but has merely been a tool to feel in my own hands what the inventor is trying to teach us with his disclosure.

      It is a mechanical set of scales that makes energy from gravity and centrifugal force acting on multiple pendulums fitted with clutch bearings around the edge of a flywheel acting in pairs.

      The discovery of my latest prototype is that the increased weight of the passive flywheels feels by hand to be slowing the torque input vs output amplification. This might explain why Bessler used wooden wheels.


      I noticed the passive flywheel weight problem severely when I fitted the 30mm shaft and heavy cast iron twin Dunlop SPA wedge belt pulley.

      The run time went from just over three minutes to under two minutes.


      The time it would rotate for when took to the highest position is is how I have bench marking improvements in overcoming frictional losses using leverage of pendulums.<br><br>This how been the focus of the study up until the PMG was fitted.

      Now it is fitted and I can feel the friction and how and when speed wise, two long pendulums assist. I can physically see how having an off balance situation assisted by an input because it is amplified 32, 64, 128, 256 times can make a COP >1.0 condition.

      All I can call it is, input energy amplified by multiple levers acting in pairs assisting each other. I guess it is like a domino effect but the effect is locked into a loop as the path 360 degrees.

      If you make a lever and then attach another lever to it. Does it increase leverage?

      This is the BIG secret!!!!!!!!!

      Mechanical amplification. I personally believe it has been a very guarded secret for a VERY long time. We have been taught via indoctrination a lot of truth, half truths lie and all sorts in between.

      The inventor claims it ran for 15 minutes after an initial push and did not stop even with the chain fitted.

      What I have, won't do that. It isn't going to self sustain with two pendulums and no intermittent or continuous input. Impossible! Why, because it is only two pendulums acting as a pair.

      This is because you need the leverage on the leverage on the leverage etc.... that is what I am not getting with the current prototype.

      I'm fairly certain with 4 pendulums instead it could power a window wiper motor for an impulse and charge more amps in one complete revolution into a capacitor bank ready for the next motor pulse.

      The mechanical part can be amplified easily.

      The key to these devices being usable is creating enough speed and using the highest pendulum frequency possible.

      Two is what we have now. Two doesn't even cut the mustard because imagine the device is a set of scales.

      The secret is; you have one revolution to make one side of the scales accelerate fast enough by being off balance to accelerate the lighter side to swing automatically.

      Once that condition is met the device can be amplified further by adding a motor input.

      I now believe that it is the best design to have the lightest, strongest passive flywheel and the strongest, most heavy pendulums which are the passive flywheel. Use the best quality, zero backlash sprag clutch bearings. The higher the frequency, the more leverage on leverage on leverage etc.. will be obtained and the device will constantly swing itself because of the speed the heavier side is falling.

      My prototypes now prove that to me physically and it isn't guesswork.

      Think about it... you have friction near the centre of the main shaft if the weight is concentrated around it.

      If you don't concentrate the weight around the main shaft and concentrate on light, strong flywheel and heavy pendulums and put them out of balance, you will get much faster acceleration, less friction and more importantly more leverage of the main shaft.

      I can prove this by changing to four pendulums, changing to aluminium wheels with cut outs, ditching the very inefficient v belt in favour of sprockets and fitting a window wiper motor for a pulse.

      I'll prove my leverage on leverage mechanical amplification conclusion to you all through my experiments.

      It's been a really hard struggle to work out the energy source and magnification secret for me in plain common English.

      The inventor has been saying it in another way and I didn't understand how he described it or did I totally believe it until now.

      What I have now can be magnified either slightly or significantly. Another set of levers acting in a pair would be a simple way to show energy magnification. If it is amplifying to the power factor of how many pairs are used.

      2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256.... hmm where else do we come across these numbers in life? Seems kind of familiar....


      Thanks,

      Paul
       
      Last edited: May 21, 2015
    5. Erich

      Erich Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Feb 2012
      Posts:
      277
      Likes Received:
      2
      Paul,

      To create a simulation you need to have a mathematical model. You are the one that is postulating that something is missing from our understanding of the universe. You need to provide that model.

      I don't believe anything is missing. My understanding of world predicts the behavior of your machine the way it really works. Not the way you wish it worked.
       
    6. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      Maybe what you are saying is right and I'm overthinking it.

      One thing we know as fact is if one side of a pair of tipping scales is heavier the heavier side will fall. The heavier the difference the faster it will fall.

      The part that has yet to be proven is the inventor claims to have invented a device that uses the acceleration from this fall to swing pendulums fitted with one way clutch bearings into a continuous loop.

      I used to believe having the heavy flywheels were helping but I now realise it has the opposite effect.

      How can I make a wheel to hold my existing pendulums as light and strong as possible?

      1mm sheet steel with spokes? 2mm sheet aluminium perhaps?

      Thanks,

      Paul
       
      Last edited: May 22, 2015
    7. dennis muthomi

      dennis muthomi New Member

      Joined:
      May 2015
      Posts:
      2
      Likes Received:
      0
      what does it do , as in the output?
       
    8. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      The inventor claims an input less than 1500 watts and an output of 3000 watts.
       
    9. K.I.S.S.

      K.I.S.S. Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      May 2014
      Posts:
      181
      Likes Received:
      0
      Paul,
      One of the things that Isaac Newton discovered was this - if you take a gun with a bullet in it and point it straight ahead of you, then pull the trigger, but at the same time have your other hand at the same height holding a bullet that you drop at the same instant you pull the trigger, then both the bullet fired out of the gun and the bullet you dropped will hit the ground at exactly the same time. This has been proven - it's not trickery.
      The Earth is round (this has also been proven, unless you're a member of the Flat Earth Society, in which case you belong in a rubber room). So Newton though this - what if you have a really, really powerful gun that can shoot a bullet as fast as the Earth can spin? He didn't realise it fully at the time, but he'd just invented the concept of 'orbit'.
      Think of the International Space Station - it orbits the Earth, but stays at approximately the same height above the surface of the planet - how? This concept may be a little hard to grasp initially, but what happens is that it doesn't actually stay there - it's constantly falling to Earth, but the bit of the Earth that it's trying to hit is constantly moving away from it, at a similar speed, so it's always chasing its own tail (so to speak) remember, the surface is curved, and moving away, so it's like a perpetual tangential plot.
      The trouble is, it's also prone to Gravity - this also has been proven to exist... so it doesn't actually stay at the same height - it loses about two miles a week in height and has to be constantly boosted back up to it's optimal orbit height. It's a long way from the Earth, so the gravitational pull is weak, but the principle is solid.
      Without going into too much detail, your device is prone to the same effects - but it's on the surface of the Earth, where the pull of gravity is much stronger, and so your 'theoretical' bullet is still going to hit the ground at the same time... and that's without going into detail regarding thermodynamics, friction etc...
      I am genuinely curious as to why the 'so called' inventor hasn't made it himself?
      None of the above is written in bad faith - I just think that there are better ways of wasting your time and money.
      K.I.S.S.
       
    10. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      He did make it with CAD drawings, parts list, videos and website with the maths. Written in English and Russian. Two things that I observe to be perpetual. Gravity, light and time. Although I have read that time was a concept made up by man. Whatever made gravity, the electromagnetic spectrum and light was far smarter and powerful than we will ever dream of!!!!!

      I have posted evidence throughout the thread.

      Thanks,

      Paul
       
    11. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0

    Share This Page

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