• 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
      Dana, I understand your a sceptic.

      Asymmetrical systems were cleverly suppressed. That isn't a conspiracy theory, it is fact that has been proven by many people over the last year or so.

      Big claims require big proof.

      Do you consider this guys asymmetrical motor efficiency testing to be incorrect?

      bvgoRRfgbA0

      Cheers,

      Paul :D
       
    2.  
    3. Dana

      Dana Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Sep 2010
      Posts:
      403
      Likes Received:
      3
      Call me a skeptic if you like, but really I'm just somebody who understands basic physics, unlike the poster of the video ("ufopolitics"? A multiple conspiracy theorist?)

      There are so many things wrong with the youtube video you linked to I don't know where to start, but I'll try:

      1. He's attempting to measure DC current with a clamp on ammeter, which only measures AC current. All the meter can possibly be displaying is AC transients due to the varying draw of the motor as it rotates and the commutators make and break the coils... not the true current draw powering the motor.

      2. He's not measuring the motor's output with his scales, but the side load on the motor shaft. The motor's output torque would be the difference between the scale readings times the radius, not the sum.

      3. On one of the pictures (at 1.00), he says "Efficiency = HP IN / HP OUT." That's exactly backwards.

      4. Later (at 1:14), he talks about "RPM's at Momentum of Force convert to RPS." This makes no sense at all, there is no such thing as "momentum of force".

      "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"... but this guy has proved only that he doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about.
       
    4. JohnJWang

      JohnJWang New Member

      Joined:
      Sep 2013
      Posts:
      1
      Likes Received:
      0
      Hey dude, because of your little project, I finally decided to make an account and post here.

      Energy in > Energy out. This is the rule. I don't know exactly the details being throw around here, but you can't break this rule.

      There is possibility that there is some potential energy stored in the initial configuration of your device, so perhaps you are unlocking some of that with your initial spin.. but for some reason I don't get the impression that this is what's happening. P:
       
    5. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      Hi Dana, I'm not going to agree or disagree with you about the video.


      Would a device that self rotates with no motor convince you that the laws of physics are incomplete?

      How about making it more substantial by fixing a grinding wheel to the main shaft and producing sparks when in comes into contact with a metal bar?

      Would this be sufficient evidence to convince you or anyone else here to replicate / investigate this further?


      It seems that if there is any motor involved it casts doubt over what is really happening.

      Best regards,

      Paul :)
       
    6. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      Hi John, glad you could join us.

      The energy in > than energy out suits closed systems.

      It doesn't suit solar, wind, tidal, thermal which are all open systems.

      So the rule isn't broken. Gravity, centrifugal, centripetal, inertia are the environmental inputs. The weight and the mechanical advantage of the one way clutch bearings that enables leverage to use these environmental inputs in a clever way.


      Ok, back to basics.


      I have presented an unfinished prototype that has an unstable frame and very cheap pillow block bearings.

      The weights used are two x 10kg weight, therefore a frequency of 2, or 180 degrees firing order.

      The maximum rotations I have achieved is 15 3/4 turns.


      I propose to use a 3mm thick steel frame 50mm box section and some uprated NSK pillow block bearings.

      I will then post a video of the new maximum rotations.


      The next step will be to increase the amount of weights to four x 10kg weights, therefore a frequency of 4 and a 90 degree firing order.

      I will then post a video of the new maximum rotations.


      Whether the amount of rotations increases in a linear fashion or exponential fashion will be answered.


      The results of the experiments will dictate whether to increase the frequency to 8.

      The theory is when a certain frequency is used, the speed and inertia will be enough to sustain rotation with no motor input.

      This effect has already been displayed to me by the inventor using 32 x 6kg weights with a 1440mm diameter wheel. Total mass 250kg.

      I am trying to display this phenomena to you guys using a 1:3 scale size wheel using longer arms.

      Despite being shot down by almost everyone so far. I believe I have the tenacity to deliver this technology into your hands.


      Ask yourselves why a local engineering business has jumped onboard with me.

      They are not a new start business or rookies either. They have been going since 1994 and the business owner is a veteran mechanical engineer.

      I'm not dreaming this up. It happened just over two weeks ago. They have the device in their workshop.


      Best regards,

      Paul :D
       
      Last edited: Sep 28, 2013
    7. Erich

      Erich Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Feb 2012
      Posts:
      277
      Likes Received:
      2
      I know the answer. The engineering firm is being paid to design a mechanism for you. You want a wheel is 16 arms that turns smoothly, he will design one for you and charge you the going rate. I seriously doubt he is making any contractual promises that your device will produce more power than it consumes.
       
    8. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      Hi Erich, the engineering firm has been paid zero funds and they have offered their services to help the project FOC.

      I guess observing and experimenting with the prototype in the flesh makes a big difference compared to watching a video.

      There are no contractual promises being made other than their offer to help for free. It is open source so we all have something to gain if it can be optimised small then scaled up.

      As I stated before the business owner who is a veteran mechanical engineer offered workshop space, a shipping container for storage, labour, materials and design. Free of charge!

      They own a large water jet cutter that will cut 200mm thick steel. It pressurises the water using a 65kw motor. They are very eager to reduce their electricity bill.

      They could very quickly see what I see in the device.


      I have no reason to spout BS. It is not in my nature or my belief system.

      I will continue with the prototype. When I reach a certain value of components, one by one you will slowly realise that there is something worth refining.

      It will benefit the whole planet and everyone in it.

      Best regards,

      Paul :D
       
    9. Dana

      Dana Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Sep 2010
      Posts:
      403
      Likes Received:
      3
      No, it would convince me that there's an energy input from somewhere.

      The laws of physics are incomplete... but on a quantum level. You're not working on a quantum level, or at relativistic speeds... so the classic laws of physics, as described by Issac Newton, still apply.

      No. Gravity is a force. You can get energy from gravity, equal to force x distance, but only if theaverage center of mass of the entire machine is continuously descending. Either the entire machine is in fact descending-- like an electric car going downhill and using the energy to recharge the batteries-- or a part of the system is descending-- like a weight driven clock. But sooner or later you get to the bottom of the hill, the weight hits the floor... and you have to add energy to the system by draining the batteries again and then adding some more energy to compensate for inefficiencies-- or using your muscle power to lift the weight up again.

      Centrifugal, centripetal-- these are forces, not environmental "inputs." They're the inertial effects of a rotating mass, felt entirely within the system. Solar, wind, tidal, etc., yes, there you're supplying energy to the system, and that energy can be used.


      Proving only that when you add energy to spin it up, it takes time to coast to a stop.

      Here's an experiment for you: Lock all the motions so that only the main central shaft can rotate (the entire mechanism rotates with no interior relative motion). Spin it up to the same rpm; I'll bet you find it now takes more than 15 3/4 turns to coast to a stop.

      I have a friend who's also a veteran mechanical engineer. He once took on a consulting job to design a very similar device. In his case, the "inventor" had pages and pages of calculations to "prove" it would work, though he was secretive (should I say paranoid?) about what it was supposed to actually do. He did the work requested according to the dimensions, speeds, and loads that the inventor specified, the machine was built... and apparently [I never saw it] was entertaining to watch as it thrashed around, but never did anything useful. I suspect that somebody, somewhere in this "open system" lost some money. :eek:
       
    10. Paul T

      Paul T Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Oct 2012
      Posts:
      392
      Likes Received:
      0
      Hi Dana, so if the planet wasn't spinning, would centrifugal and centripetal force exist?

      Here is an interesting experiment.

      I wonder what you guys make of it:

      GC5ZiJNZssk

      Time and money will prove who is correct. The old school veterans or the new guy with a vision.

      Cheers,

      Paul :D
       
    11. JDavid

      JDavid Well-Known Member

      Joined:
      Aug 2013
      Posts:
      45
      Likes Received:
      0
      Ein > Eout

      Ein > Eout is always true, open or closed system. The only difference is in an open system you have to include solar, thermal, and etc. in the Ein.

      I'm a little worried for you when you say only time will tell who is right. How much time is enough to say that it won't work? There have been several hundreds, maybe thousands (I don't know if the Mayans tried to do it), of years of research into this similar machine with minor changes and we still don't have one.

      If you can make it out of balsa wood as your frame and washers as your weights and it turns unassisted from a standstill and gets faster, (with no other Ein (motor, fan, solar) besides gravity) then I will agree with you that it works and I would even invest some time and money into getting a larger prototype built.

      What would it take to show that it won't work?

      -David
       

    Share This Page

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