• 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
      Based on the inventors and my experiments a company in Germany has offered to build two wheels. One for UK and one for Germany.

      There idea is to carry out tests in situ...

      They have many staff to put full time on this project.


      They claim there is an inventor in Germany who is achieving off balance of a wheel using water and injected air between 6 o'clock where the air enters the water and 12 o'clock where the air exits the water.

      The different densities are apparently achieving a 2.5kw input of compressor and a 10kw output.

      That led their research into a mechanical device that can achieve the same off balance and they found the inventor Mikhail Dmitriyev and me.....

      Very exicited after a Skype conference call.

      This is the kind of support the device needs. Someone with more money than me moving the discoveries along until the truth is revealed as plain as the nose on our faces.

      Best regards to all,

      Paul
       
      Last edited: Jun 19, 2015
    2.  
    3. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      Bit of research here:

      "What About the First Law of Thermodynamics?

      [​IMG][​IMG]
      The impossibility of energy for free is enshrined in one of the most fundamental and important laws of physics: the First Law of Thermodynamics or the Law of Conservation of Energy, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can only change its form.
      In 1847, a 26-year-old German medical doctor, Hermann Helmholtz, gave a presentation to the Physical Society of Berlin that would change the course of history. He presented the original formulation of what is now known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, beginning with the axiomatic statement that a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible.
      Axiom - A statement or proposition that is accepted as true without proof.
      No one had ever succeeded, he wrote, in building a Perpetual Motion Machine that worked. Therefore, such machines must be impossible. If they are impossible it must be because of some natural law preventing their construction. This law, he said, could only be the Conservation of Energy. But a profound reversal of reasoning has occurred in the last century. Helmholtz originally said "Because a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible, therefore the First Law of Thermodynamics;" while in any physics text book today one will find the statement that "Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics, a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible."

      Skeptics are quick to cite the Laws of Thermodynamics to disprove Bessler's claims. In fact, the argument is circular. The Laws of Thermodynamics do not prove that Bessler's machine is impossible. On the contrary, they are deduced from the "leap of faith" of first presuming it is impossible. "


      Willem Jacob 'sGravesande (1688 - 1742)
      Attorney, Mathematician, and Professor
      Viewed the bi-directional wheel in 1721


      In a letter to Sir Isaac Newton: "You will not be displeased, I presume, with a circumstantial account of my examination. I send you therefore the details of the most particular circumstances observable on an exterior view of the machine, concerning which the sentiments of most people are greatly divided, whilst almost all the mathematicians are against it. The majority maintain the impossibility of a perpetual motion, and hence it is, that so little attention has been paid to Orffyreus and his invention.
      For my part, however, though I must confess my abilities inferior to those of many who have given demonstration of this impossibility - yet I will communicate to you the real sentiments with which I entered on examination of this machine... It seemed to me that Leibniz was wrong in laying down the impossibility of perpetual motion as an axiom. Notwithstanding this persuasion, however, I was far from believing Orffyreus capable of making such a discovery, looking upon it as an invention not to be made (if ever) till after many other previous discoveries. But since I have examined the machine, it is impossible for me to sufficiently express my astonishment.
      The inventor has a turn for mechanics, but is far from being a profound mathematician, and yet his machine has something in it prodigiously astounding, even though it should be an imposition. The following is a description of the external parts of the machine, the inside of which the inventor will not allowed to be seen, lest anyone should rob him of his secret.
      It is a hollow wheel or kind of drum, about fourteen inches thick and twelve feet in diameter; being very light as it consists of several cross pieces of wood framed together; the whole of which is covered over with canvas, to prevent the inside from being seen. Through the center of this wheel or drum runs an axle of about six inches in diameter, terminated at both ends by iron bearings of about three-quarters of an inch in diameter upon which the whole thing turns. I have examined these bearings and am firmly persuaded that nothing from without the wheel in the least contributes to its motion. When I turned it but gently, it always stood still as soon as I took my hand away. But when I gave it any tolerable degree of velocity, I was always obliged to stop it again by force; for when I let it go it acquired in two or three turns its greatest velocity, after which it revolved at twenty-five or twenty-six times a minute.
      This motion it preserved some time ago for two months, in an apartment of the castle; the doors and windows of which were locked and sealed, so that there was no possibility of fraud."

      [​IMG]
       
    4. Dave Archer

      Dave Archer Active Member

      Joined:
      Jun 2014
      Posts:
      26
      Likes Received:
      0
    5. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      One of the most interesting devices that is currently being reverse engineered was invented by William Skinner.

      The powers that be didn't have the internet and global collaboration to contend with then.

      It is more complicated than Mikhail Dmitriyev's but seems to have a larger amount of replicators due to a more documented history.



      [​IMG]

      [​IMG]

      [​IMG]
       
      Last edited: May 27, 2016
    6. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      Hi, I inherited some money from my granddad and I've been setting up a business to earn enough to live and continue with the project.

      Bought a 1/3 hp motor 240v with 14mm shaft and I've have figured out off the shelf chain and sprockets.
      Just need to get a bracket fabricated and purchase the bits.

      Guess I need a chain splitter?

      I also need to get a control circuit designed so I can pulse the motor. I have someone in mind who previously designed me a box so I could play with 20,000 volt car ignition coils and lights with noble gases in.

      I might show you some of those experiments one day and the patent for the ever lasting light bulb by Nikola Tesla.

      It featured one spherical terminal and ran from 20,000v @ 20,000hz.

      That one got shoved under the carpet quick.

      As did the fact that the patent for coaxial cable was Tesla's and really it was the design for one wire lighting and electrical transmission cable for 20,000hz to prevent corona.

      I have these patents and have a basic grasp of what they convey.

      I do not have the money to develop these purposely forgotten technologies.

      I see the energy source as the primary challenge.

      Tesla didn't design 3 phase system. It was bastardised for profit. No conspiracy. Just greed.

      Tesla's alternating system design was 2 phase.


      Anyway back to what I'm doing.....

      I figure I need a capacitor bank to get the most from gravitational potential. Batteries cannot absorb large amounts of current quickly.

      The high farad super capacitor bank would connect to a battery bank in parallel.

      Got some serious tools to make some money fixing cars with. Hopefully I can make a living and prove this technology but more efficiently and higher COP than Mikhail.


      [​IMG]

      [​IMG]

      I have two pendulum support discs which have been water jet cut 1000mm x 6mm aluminum.

      I'm planning 8 x 10kg pendulums with off the shelf chain, sprockets and 1/3hp motor.

      I think this will be enough to prove whether the mechanism is amplifying the input.

      If successful I will double the amount of pendulums by adding another aluminum disc and having them at 22.5 degrees difference to the other 8.

      I believe going from 2 pendulums to 4 to 8 with an input and a load will show progressive results if true amplification is happening.

      With the amperage and voltage measured on a 4 channel Picoscope over a 1 minute time period for input and output will either prove or disprove the technology for good.

      It will also allow me to tune the input timing to optimum, minimum current draw with maximum output by altering dwell angle and duty cycle.

      It will be a complete closed loop electro/mechanical system drawing in gravitational potential as the environmental input.


      Best regards,

      Paul
       
    7. Dana

      Dana Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Sep 2010
      Posts:
      399
      Likes Received:
      3
      Better to invest the money in some engineering classes, basic physics through statics and dynamics and the related math...
       
    8. maniacal_engineer

      maniacal_engineer Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2009
      Posts:
      137
      Likes Received:
      0
      crappy engines still run. You can build a running Stirling engine from soda cans, balloons, coat hangers, and JB weld. You would never actually build a serious engine from those materials, but you CAN make a runing engine from them. That is because the Stirling cycle is a legitimate thing that actually works. Kokums makes a super quiet submarine that uses one.

      If perpetual motion, over unity, whatever, works - if it can actually produce useful power - it will be able to work with sub-optimal implementations. you don't need super low friction bearings, perfectly balanced flywheels, harmonic convergence relative prime gear ratios or whatever.

      Decide what the theory of your device is. Break it down into sub parts if possible. Determine a test for each part/ sequence. The test needs to be quantitative, and needs to be of quantities that matter: torque X Rotational velocity = power, force X velocity = power, pressure X volume flow = power. Decide what test will definitively determine if your theory is valid or not. Do the test. Live by the results.

      If you build a machine consistent with your theory, and you use reasonable materials and workmanship, and it doesn't work - then the theory is false. Don't keep modifying the theory because you know that there must be a way to get overunity - there is no such requirement for the universe to provide us with any such thing.

      I am very worried that you are borrowing money to finance this.
       
    9. JDavid

      JDavid Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Aug 2013
      Posts:
      45
      Likes Received:
      0
      So it's been a year and I finally return... and I was not disappointed. You are still cracking at it, determination will eventually get through the wall... so you can see the bigger wall behind it.

      I as well am worried that you took out a loan to get parts made... I see this ending very badly, and not in a mechanical way. In more of a financial crisis, bankruptcy, suicide way.

      As has been stated several times, by myself and others, prove your concept with minimal cost to yourself. Prototype, Prototype, Prototype. If you can't build a working prototype with toothpicks, gum balls, and glue then there is a problem in the math. The fact that you have machined parts, actual bearings, and decent size weights and it's not working is a clear sign that something is wrong, and it's not the mechanical parts.

      You keep sighting completely off the wall truths and then put them with a statement and believe that proves your statement. The sad thing is if you don't accept science then there is no way to prove you wrong... You seem to love any science that you feel proves your right no matter how taken out of context.

      If your machine requires 1 way bearings it's not working right.
      Do 1 full turn of your machine so that all the weights are where they would be after a turn, stop it and let it go... That is your test... does it move? Does it make a full rotation. If it even moves that's a good start, if it doesn't move you need to finally realize that you have spent 3 years (that I can tell from this forum) for not and move on. You have probably gained enough knowledge now to build electrical playgrounds, which would help the world a lot more.
       
    10. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      I appreciate your input guys. We are all welcome to our own opinions.

      If the oscilloscope graphs of input and output do not prove that gravitational potential can be used as an energy source I will kindly bow down to conventional physics and maths.

      However, if I do prove that this system does prove an untapped energy source then lets collectively refine the design and push it, as far as it can go. The world needs this!!!
       
    11. JDavid

      JDavid Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Aug 2013
      Posts:
      45
      Likes Received:
      0
      Ok but at what point is it disproven? Last year you thought you were on the verge of discovery... You just needed one more part, and when that came in your learned so much and knew a "new" way to fix it. The only thing that is perpetual about this is the approach.
       

    Share This Page

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