Hi folks, I've got a few modifications to do to the diagram above. The prototype isn't complete yet but here is my latest video. https://www.dropbox.com/s/1n7z4tx4irtq7gk/Group Prototype 2 - Demo 1.m4v In need of: 1. Stronger steel frame 2. Better quality main bearings 3. A motor that can be easily pulsed. 4. Thicker steel wheels to act as flywheel 5. Pulleys 6. Belts 7. 12v alternator 8. Battery / capacitor 9. 12v - 240v inverter After this one has been conquered, I'm moving onto a high RPM prototype using Maniacal Engineer's design or something very similar. I'm considering using a motor to use to pulse this once every revolution. Something like a 555 timer circuit with variable pulse width and time control. Any suggestions for improvement please folks? Best regards, Paul
Hi folks, here is an update: I visited a local engineering company to get a quote for a steel frame. After I showed them the prototype, the business owner who is a veteran mechanical engineer, offered me storage space, free labour and materials. It couldn't get much better than that outcome! One of their team has come up with what appears to be a brilliant design. Looks even simpler than Maniacal Engineer's design. This is open source folks. Get involved if you can One way bearings are enabling a huge mechanical advantage and without them it won't work. Opinions on this design please folks. Best regards, Paul
Hi, the previous prototype has yet to be modified into this one. I will let you all know by posting a video if it does work. Best regards, Paul
Hi Dana, would you consider this study material. http://opensystemthermodynamics.com/ Here is someone else that appears to be pursuing the same vision as me. http://www.universalengines.com.au/ Thoughts? Cheers, Paul
If an active flywheel is connected to a motor the efficiency of the motor is improved. The level of engineering behind the active flywheel depends on the improvement. Just because a professor or a book taught you, doesn't mean it is entirely a full truth.
Thoughts, yes... the guy on the first website either doesn't understand the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy, or he does understand them and is just a scammer selling his $17 (marked down from $375, heh) book. The second guy has so many gears and wheels he's totally confused himself (or he's just trying to confuser others). I did like one statement on the website, though: Well, duh. People have been building devices like this or similar for hundreds of years. Not one of them has ever produced more energy than input... because you can't. A telling point is that machines of this nature always have an electric or other motor driving them in the "demonstrations"... which would not be necessary if the machine was producing its own power. The point you're missing, as near as I can make out the muddled explanations, is that although a wheel weighted more on one side will tend to rotate in a gravity field, it takes just as much energy to move those weights forward and back, or inboard and outboard, whatever, as they can produce. Most of these machines either tear themselves to pieces, or else the builder blames inefficient bearings, etc., for the failure to work... "it's almost working." But if a machine can't produce enough power to overcome the minimal drag of modern bearings, then it can't produce enough power to be useful. It's possible that a device such as these, if there were perfect zero friction bearings and the machine operated in a vacuum, could continue to rotate forever if spun up initially by an external input... but as soon as a load is connected to the output, it would slow down and stop, producing exactly as much energy as was originally input. A flywheel, spinning on frictionless magnetic bearings in a perfect vacuum, will rotate forever... but it's an energy storage technique, not an energy producing device.
Hi Dana, I do see where you are coming from but the more I research the history of electricity the more I discover that the biggest lies are made up of half truths. Lets just forget the possibility / impossibility of perpetual motion for a minute. Do you believe it is impossible for a mechanical device to increase the efficiency of a motor? If no, why? If yes, what do you consider the maximum efficiency of a motor could be increased to? Also, would you consider this statement to be correct? In order to produce excess energy a device would need a COP >2 in order to power itself and a load. Cheers, Paul
COP is generally used to describe the efficiency of a heat pump, not a motor by itself, though the free energy True Believers like to use the term. A motor is properly described in terms of percent efficiency. As a heat pump can move more heat (energy) than the pump consumes, it's possible to have a COP > 1. But moving energy from one place to another isn't the same thing as creating it. For a motor, efficiency can never greater than 1 (100%). A mechanical device can't exactly increase the efficiency of a motor, but can allow it to operate at its design point where the efficiency is highest. The efficiency of a motor is dependent on its operating conditions, with efficiency being at a maximum (but always less than 100%) at its design point. For example, say you have something that needs to run at 2500 rpm, and you're using a motor that has an efficiency (I'm making up these numbers) of 50% at 2500 rpm and 90% at 2500 rpm. Direct drive, you get 50% efficiency, but if you use a 2:1 reduction drive the output is at 2500 as needed but the motor runs at 5000 where its efficiency is highest. In this case you might have a a total efficiency of, say, 85% due to losses in the reduction drive. You wouldn't need a 200% efficiency for a device to power itself and a load, just anything in excess of 100% (which is, as I have said, impossible anyway).
