The wheel is round the half moon shape is the track the wheel or pulley to run on. The path the wheel runs on to make it spin and rotate the belt rotates the alternators and the alternators maintain a set power storage. It comes down to the amount of air it takes push a piston up a tube to lift the pulley, so gravity, weight and tension can force the wheel downward on the track. A trigger sets off the spurt of air that lifts the wheel to the top of the slanted half moon and the process begins again and there is no loss or slowing of the system even when the dc motor is off. Is it still like the motor your talking about Recca02?

 

it might be a good idea to attach some sort of schematic here though now i get a clearer picture. whatever i posted earlier still applies(will always apply no matter how much you change the way the wheel drives the alternator)
except now there will be even more losses that due to the contact between the
half moon shaped path and the wheel(both with or without slip).

if you release the compressed air it all comes down to how much pressure it was compressed to and to what pressure it will be released to.
the total mass of air compressed --this will affect energy supplied.
the discharge rate---this will affect the power delivered by the compressed air.
controlling the rate of discharge or any other parameters will not improve efficiency if the design of the machine was for a certain discharge rate.
all you can do in the end is to reduce the losses by keein the system with the minimum amount of links possible increase in kinematic links will only decrease efficiency.
one simple observation:the only noteworthy change in this mech and previous one is previously motor used to directly power the wheel.
now you have included a compressor in between which still will require a motor or a prime mover to power the compressor.
this only brings into effect the compressor efficiency and other mech losses hence efficiency is lesser than the previous mechanism.
after all you have to increase the enthalpy of air to do all the work.
i:e to put the bar in tension(store strain energy), work against gravity to store potential energy in the wheel.
this all has to be done by compressor (any less energy in air will make it rise to lesser height and any more will go either as waste or act as opposition thus reducing o/p even further.
like i said whatever work ur bars and gravity is doing was stored in the wheel by the air which lost its energy doing all this.where did this energy come from ---your prime mover or motor.
we see small examples of your system like the pendulum and never has there been and nor will there ever be violation of conservation of energy and mass.

 

I believe that it all comes down to how much air pressure and amt of air to raise the wheel or pulley. The spurt of compressed air will come from a tank and the amount of cycles or rotations the tank will produce before the electric motor has
turn on and fill the tank back up with compressed air. The smaller the amount of compressed air to lift the pulley the better output achieved. What do you think?

Belief is one thing, but you don't seem to have any quantitative evidence to support this belief. What if any experimental work have you done, and what were/are your results that lead to this belief?

Dave

 

Thanks Recca02 for your input. I will continue to search for more ideas. I do think you overlooked one thing. Multiple alternators could be run on this last system and not effect the work load of the motor. Work load of the motor would be the same. But you are correct there is no violation of conservation of energy and mass.

 

no sir you are mistaken here,
a single alternator is much efficient than multiple alternator in parallel.
besides
if u connect multiple alternator and connect equal amount of loads to each then the loads add up and hence the opposing torque to the working motor is addition of these loads.
consider this if u put in 100 w bulb to be powered by each alternator say having output voltage as 100. each bulb will circulate 1 A current this will form a opposing field in alternator opposing the motor .
think of it it will be like ten men are trying to stop a motor instead of one giant bull trying to stop the motor.
note one giant bull = ten men lol
horsepower Vs manpower.

like Mr Dave said: if u conduct these experiments u will actually be able to see that work o/p is actually less than input not even equal to it.

edit: now that i think about it most of your belief seems to be from the idea that gravity does the free work for you in half cycle.
the point is even if motor/compressor was to run continuously for the same load applied to generator the power consumed by the motor/compressor will almost remain constant.the reason for this is the potential energy by gravity if not utilized will get stored as rotational kinetic energy in wheel. also due to this and because of gravity helping in the other half cycle the motor will have to work against lesser load so it will take lesser amount of current and thus less amount of power from the supply.
the net effect will be the energy requirement will be same for both the case. i;e if it has to run for half cycle more power for that half cycle. if for full cycle then less power for the whole cycle.
result: more power* half cycle=less power*full cycle
hope this clears things up a little.

 

Ok I have thought about it again. This time it will work. Take a 10" OD round gear apply magnets along the outside near the teeth of the gear all the way around the gear far enough apart so another magnet can fit between the two magnets but not touch. Take a smaller gear size 4" OD place magnets to when it rotates the magnets will fit between the magnets on the larger gear. Every other magnet on the smaller gear will be of less or greater magnetism or the closer or further apart. The attraction of the magnet will rotate the gear and the repulsion of the magnet will rotate the gear. As the small gear rotates the larger gear the lesser magnet will attract the magnet and as the gear turns the repulsion magnet pushes the attraction magnet around and away. So as it rotates the attraction magnet comes back around and the process begins again complete circle. What do you think?

 

The same magnet will push and pull, the difference is the distance. The greatest attraction will be when the magnets are closest but when the magnets that attract are closest they will driven apart by the rotation. The attraction becomes less as the magnets try to come together. At this point the next magnet starts to push or repulse the magnet in front and attract the magnet behind it at the same time.

 

Yes I understand, it takes way more energy to get to peak speed and when you turn it off that it will simply regain some of what it has lost.

You need to quantify "way more energy" and compare it to what you "regain."

I am confident you will very quickly discover that you are wasting your time.

 

I don't understand how something can come from nothing.
This thread, however, is a counterexample.

 

Ok I have thought about it again. This time it will work. Take a 10" OD round gear apply magnets along the outside near the teeth of the gear all the way around the gear far enough apart so another magnet can fit between the two magnets but not touch. Take a smaller gear size 4" OD place magnets to when it rotates the magnets will fit between the magnets on the larger gear. Every other magnet on the smaller gear will be of less or greater magnetism or the closer or further apart. The attraction of the magnet will rotate the gear and the repulsion of the magnet will rotate the gear. As the small gear rotates the larger gear the lesser magnet will attract the magnet and as the gear turns the repulsion magnet pushes the attraction magnet around and away. So as it rotates the attraction magnet comes back around and the process begins again complete circle. What do you think?

Can you test it and post up your results?

Dave

 

Magnets that attract coming will also attract going. There is no net propulsive force to be found here. Friction will slow the gears down to a standstill.

 

If you are getting more energy out than what you put in, that is because you have an open system (like a solar panel, for example). The energy has to come from somewhere.

Also, I should mention, it is possibly to get free power, that is different from free energy. Good examples of this include capacitors and inductors. The energy can be stored using low power, then released at high power (but for a shorter amount of time).

 

Indeed! Power is a rate after all, not a quantity. Total energy out of the storage will be a smidge less than total energy in. "Smidge" is a technical term.

 

There are many geometric configurations for permanent magnets to interact that require ZERO input and sustain an output of torque indefinitely. One is where you have an inside gear with a diameter of 9x and has 9x teeth. There are 6 outside gears each having a diameter of 8x with 8x teeth spaced 60 degrees apart. The center gear has 9 magnets with fields parallel to the tangent and all north fields pointing in the clockwise direction. The outside gears all have 8 magnets with fields perpendicular to the tangent and the magnets all have their north fields pointing out. If the inside gear is turning CCW, the north and south poles from the outside and inside gears, respectively, will attract. Once the magnets hit the conjunction point that lies along the diametrical union of the inner and outer gear diameters, the force goes to zero but there is still inertia so they remain turning. Once the conjunction point has passed, the pole on the inner gear's magnet will reverse relative to the outside gear magnet. This will produce a repelling force (north-north). The attractive AND repulsive forces BOTH put a CCW torque on the inner gear and a CW torque on the outer gears. I have calculated the maximum force to be at precisely 8 degrees for this configuration. The torque waveform is always positive throughout any 80 degree interaction (beyond which it becomes negligible due to the inverse square law) and thus all torque waveforms are shifted 40 degrees (the spacing of the outside gear magnets) and added (for the other magnetic interactions overlapping) producing a VERY POSITIVE TORQUE THAT IS POLARIZED IN ONE DIRECTION AND FLUCTUATES IN INTENSITY THAT HAS AN "M" SHAPE TO IT BUT NEVER FALLS BELOW ZERO. The tops of the "M" are both at exactly 8 degrees.

 

You have verified this experimentally, yes?

 

You have verified this experimentally, yes?

I have verified it mathematically and physically with a hand-sized prototype. I have all the parts necessary for a 122-Newton torque generator that is 1 inch thick and about 37.5 inches across but I cannot find a company that doesn't charge thousands of dollars to cut the 57 holes through the 1/2 inch thick nylon gears that I have to place the magnets through. I tried my best and got one hole done after a weeks work. The problem is that I have to have the holes perfectly rectangular, perpendicular to the gear plane, and 1/500th of an inch accurate (smaller than the magnets) so that I can press fit the magnets in..........I cannot use anything magnetic and epoxy is the only thing I can think of that is strong enough to hold the powerful magnets in place at the conjunction point but it would rapidly break down due to the vibrations imposed on the magnets from all the pushing and pulling going on. That 122 Newtons of torque is the integral of the overlapping torque waveforms divided by the range so as to represent the average torque generated by the unit.

 

Here is the calculational method I used for the original device. I have changed a few things since then so as to not produce as much vibration. Everything is a function of x (the inner gear's rotational angle), the strength of the magnets, and the diameter of the outside gears. This is only a calculation for 40 degrees to the left of the conjunction. The right of the conjunction calculation is identical in direction of torque but mirror image of how the interaction takes place.

Oh, and dont pay any attention to the a,b, or c on the miniature diagram of the device in the upper left-hand corner. Those were to designate harmonic relationships and have nothing to do with the rest of the page.

BTW..........the picture format size limits seem just a tad bit too small for the price of a GB today

 

LOL! Mike, this is brilliant! - You should get together with "Dr" Tom Bearden.. All you need to do is connect a ZPE Generator, and a Dirac Sea paddle boat.. And perhaps a few extra bifilar windings, and we are there! .. Provided you can find a suitably "conditioned" load, that is...

 

LOL! Mike, this is brilliant! - You should get together with "Dr" Tom Bearden.. All you need to do is connect a ZPE Generator, and a Dirac Sea paddle boat.. And perhaps a few extra bifilar windings, and we are there! .. Provided you can find a suitably "conditioned" load, that is...

Mr. Bearden's device if far superior to this hunk of junk. This thing I made requires moving parts that are subject to friction and therefore degradation........I guess that is what you get though for not understanding the concept of having to perform maintenance on something which is what the case was when I came up with it when I was 13 years old. I guarantee you though, it does in fact work, just not to the standards of being a practical device below a couple hundred Megawatts. I just thought I would donate it to a museum and use it as a tax write-off.

 

You know, if I thought I had found something which countless scientists and engineers have been after for centuries, I'd be prudent and make sure I really understood the whole thing and had not overlooked anything. Just saying because it takes some arrogance and foolishness to believe you have found on the back of an envelope something which would turn the entire basics of science upside down and which has not been found by scientists who have been able to discover and invent from the atomic bomb to computers. What are the credentials of those who claim to have discovered perpetual motion? Color me skeptical.

It's not like this is anything new. It's been going on for centuries... and yet, here we are, still limited by our failure to recognize the genius in all these inventions.

Nothing new under the sun.
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/unwork.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines

I have a really good idea though. By crossing a pig with a centipede we can breed a "centipig" which will have 100 legs of ham. How's that for an invention? And it doesn't violate any laws of physics.