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

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

    1. Strambo

      Strambo Member

      Joined:
      Mar 2011
      Posts:
      21
      Likes Received:
      0
      I think the one with the motors is cute, but there are a few things left out of the analysis.

      Have you revisited the idea of a simple cam that extends and retracts the weights as they go around? Little roller bearings as cam followers would be very low friction, and would rival that electric motor contraption in efficiency. Either way, you'll be dedicating some energy to weight redistribution...

      I re-read your long, heartfelt post from earlier, and I sympathize with your situation. I mean no harm or ill-will. I am a very practical person and I am interested only in the truth.

      If we agree to these two statements:

      1. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed,
      2. You have stated that your wheel does not create energy,

      Then we must ask:

      How does the wheel do anything useful?

      I am quite skilled and comfortable with the theory that says it won't work; what is the theory that says it will?



      Best Regards,

      -Strambo
      ________________________________________________________________
      "Many well-trodden paths, alluring and full of promise, simply lead nowhere."
       
    2.  
    3. chevyguy4321

      chevyguy4321 Member

      Joined:
      Jun 2013
      Posts:
      7
      Likes Received:
      0
      I understand this would be an extremely expensive option but what about using passive magnetic bearings for the roller bearings?
       
    4. chevyguy4321

      chevyguy4321 Member

      Joined:
      Jun 2013
      Posts:
      7
      Likes Received:
      0
      I understand this would be an extremely expensive option but what about using Passive magnetic bearings for the roller assemblies?
       
    5. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      351
      Likes Received:
      0
      Strambo - The way we have gone with our research and development is to mess around in a simulator then build something and see with our own eyes what happens. Putting almost all the maths to one side.

      I believe that asymmetry and the Fibonacci sequence have something to do with the positive gain.

      Gravity would normally cancel out any gain from the weights falling downwards, however it is our teams observation that the pivot becomes a lever at the bottom of its descent and the arm oscillates on the pivot point like a pendulum only the weight and inertia make this a positive push when the centrifugal force kicks in at around 4-5 o'clock. The backlash is destroying this effect with the longer arm. It isn't so noticeable with the short arm.

      The higher the frequency of weights / arms, the less dead spots. I believe this could be seen more clearly if the device was hooked up to an engine dyno.

      At a certain frequency, mass and speed the device cascades, hence my reasoning for the Fibonacci sequence. I have also witnessed this happen in electronics using resonance.

      An example that you have more than likely witnessed with your own eyes and ears would be a microphone and speaker giving feedback.

      The kid on a swing anology too perhaps. If you push at the right time the swing goes higher with the same push each time. It is all about timing and resonance.


      I think your idea of using a cam to extend and retract the weights is fantastic. The motor is fine at low RPM as is easily controllable.

      Once the motor starts going at a higher speed it requires very high torque to retract at around the 5 o'clock position which can easily create a negative oscillation when the timing of the motor is slightly off. Really to work properly using a motor would require a high torque motor and live mapping using inductive or hall effect sensors for example.

      I don't know how well the cam system would hold up at higher speeds, but it is an intriguing idea that should be explored in more detail.

      I can't picture exactly the setup in my head, I'm very visual, but I get the idea.


      Here is the version that led to me being more intrigued by the inventors claims.

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/f6vyjohw915uc6w/Dmitriyev Weight Rotation Test 1.avi

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/wfkfxjjv2kzz0si/Dmitriyev Weight Rotation Test 2.avi

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/jzt5i6xcn7oheay/Dmitriyev Weight Rotation Test #3.avi

      In the third video the weight is doubled and there is almost no current increase whatsoever.



      Between our small team we have batted this around quite a lot with different configurations.

      With our limited design and prototyping skills we have witnessed phenomena that doesn't fit the existing physics laws.

      Our conclusion is that the inventor's device does work as suggested. We just haven't got the money to chuck at an exact replication especially when the inventor and ourselves know it is not the optimum version by far!

      If the inventors claims hold true and I personally having worked with him on and off for the last two years have very little doubt that the device seen on the first page of the thread can produce enough excess torque to run a 10kW generator, then imagine what an optimized version could do. He is using 192kg in weights, but at low RPM.

      I worked out the cost to build his prototype at around $7000-$10,000.

      The down sides to the design are the low RPM and lossy drive train.

      The low RPM is the biggest problem as too fast an RPM causes over rotation of the weights which can lead to clashes and of course the lower the RPM the more expensive the generator gear to hook up to the main shaft because of the much larger coils and magnets needed to produce the electricity.

      The inventor is keeping his prototype 12 under wraps at this stage, but we are told it will fit in the trunk of a saloon car!


      Here is another variation of the inventors work that we are now heavily exploring. He never pursued this direction in his prototyping mainly because at that point he thought the frequency was the more critical factor.

      After the prototype on the first page was built he realized that the frequency of weights was still important for torque curve, but not as critical as the amount of inertia to produce usable torque.


      https://www.dropbox.com/s/9s33naz7mrqtxn8/newdesign 1.mp4 - The one shows around 3000 joules.

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/pfnvz856jfoh2ou/newdesign 2.mp4 - This one shows 13000 joules and still climbing

      The second one is almost built and ready to see if it does what the simulator shows.

      Bear in mind the simulator doesn't go much over 300 RPM!


      The motor is turning anti-clockwise causing the main arm to rotate clockwise.

      The joules is the bottom figure that starts negative. Sorry about the blurry videos. At this stage the device builder who filmed it hasn't got any screen recording software such as Camtasia. http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia.html

      Any suggestions welcome.


      chevyguy4321 - Yes it is a brilliant idea, passive or active magnetic bearings depending on how big the device was built. If it was ferris wheel size then I guess only active would cut it. I don't really know too much about either. I have come across them whilst researching. I was saving that idea for last. It would certainly remove most of the friction!


      The other idea I had was ceramic bearings.

      Its all got to make a difference from using the off the shelf cheap pillow bearings.


      I would like to see nothing more than folks running their homes with this system within the next year and the technology being open source with the inventor receiving a small royalty for every unit sold.

      Many thanks for listening and also for your input guys.

      Best regards,

      Paul
       
      Last edited: Jun 14, 2013
    6. chevyguy4321

      chevyguy4321 Member

      Joined:
      Jun 2013
      Posts:
      7
      Likes Received:
      0
      The only issue I could see with the passive magnetic bearings is some disturbance with magnet at the lower right portion of the wheel. If you could some how get it to not interfer I think that would be the best route.

      Than to take it a step further a vacuum chamber would eliminate any air resistance.

      I'm not sure if free energy is possible at this moment in time but it would be interesting to see how close we could get. Maybe one day we will have some new technology that could make this possible.
       
    7. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      351
      Likes Received:
      0
      chevyguy4321 - Luckily these three forces are easier and safer to harness than lightning or nuclear reactions.

      Gravity, centrifugal force and inertia are free unless the earth stops spinning at approx. 1000 mph. The solar wind spins it quite well!


      Yes, free in the sense of it doesn't cost anything in fuel. The fuel tank is unlimited. I believe that the pivots / bearings etc would have a service life, unless an engineering solution exists that would even remove servicing from the equation?



      Also the information is much harder to suppress as a mechanical device is very easy to understand.

      Electronics have the problem of the "black box" and RFI.


      That's one of the reasons why I'm backing this technology as a game changer.


      In order to evolve as a human race, we have to create a new energy source that makes all the others obsolete!

      It has to be something transparent and simple, so that folks understand it when it does go viral. A video so good, that one watch is enough to understand it.

      Re-invent the wheel!

      I've been pushing this snowball for quite a while to the top of the hill with our small team. From what I can see it's about to drop and where it stops, if it stops, nobody knows!


      I'm not sure about the magnetic bearings, would make for great experimentation.

      I have recently come into contact with an expert in flywheel technology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flywheel_energy_storage

      Strange coincidence you should mention putting it into a vacuum chamber.

      All the best,

      Paul
       
      Last edited: Jun 14, 2013
    8. maniacal_engineer

      maniacal_engineer Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2009
      Posts:
      137
      Likes Received:
      0
      one more time....

      I previously said:
      "If the theory behind this device is correct then it should work even in a less than perfect incarnation. Sloppy waterwheels still produce useable power. internal combustion engines still run with worn rings and clapped out bearings. If this thing is going to work, it should work even with a little backlash or with a few fewer weights than might otherwise be optimum. "

      no one seemed to pay any attention to that. It is very Very VERY important. Magnetic bearing and putting the whole thing in a vacuum etc etc just to get it to run: these things are a very good sign that there is a fatal flaw in the whole thing.

      I like the roller cam follower idea. put a roller follower on the end of an adjustable bellcrank to reset the weights. That will give you a virtually friction free weight resetting mechanism - more efficient than any motor or sliding anything. Then you can spend 6 months systematically trying different cam profiles and positions, diffent bellcrank angles and lengths.

      And then you can return to your family and something of true value.

      Gravity machine energy production is like planting plastic fruit to try and grow food - It looks like it should work but on a fundamental level is incapable of doing so.
       
    9. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      351
      Likes Received:
      0
      Maniacal Engineer - I totally agree with what you are saying about the magnetic bearings and vacuum.

      If the theory behind this device is correct then yes definitely it should run without being optimum.

      As you said before it at least needs enough components to ensure there are little to no dead spots.

      The extra high end parts are just fantasy at this stage.

      How much would you charge me to draw the method you describe to do this action. Almost frictionless sounds very appealing.

      I know your really struggling to see anything in this.

      As far as I am concerned I am not only helping my family but every other family too.

      Changing the world into a better place by finding the cleanest, most abundant energy source is of far higher value than anything else at this point in my life.


      Gravity is only one part of the equation. Do you see inertia, centrifugal force and gravity all as constants or as variable environmental inputs?

      Best regards,

      Paul
       
      Last edited: Jun 14, 2013
    10. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      351
      Likes Received:
      0
      Hi, would the bell crank work anything like this one?

      TcnKvH-1RCg

      Best regards,

      Paul
       
    11. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      351
      Likes Received:
      0
      Hi, this Solidworks design isn't complete.

      However, I think you get the idea.

      The number of arms can be increased gangways.

      I know I need to make the arms longer and I'm trying to visualize the bell crank idea but struggling.

      Any ideas please?

      [​IMG]
       

    Share This Page

    By using this website you agree to our Cookies usage. We and our partners operate globally and use cookies, including for analytics, personalisation, ads and Newsletters