More energy out than in.

recca02

Joined Apr 2, 2007
1,212
I am stuck with 12-hour shifts ..

is the old 9-5 (8 hrs at work) concept dead?
maybe this is what they call free energy/work :D.

BTW i doubt the college professors are going to be of much help.(i speak from personal experience)
unless we are talking about the top colleges.
 

Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
How about consulting with a college professor (or community college) in your area? I'm pretty sure they can find all the holes in your theory and save you a lot of trouble... or endorse your findings and open doors further up.
That is easier said than done. I have spoken with teachers at my high school when I came up with it, people with PHDs in aerospace when I was working there, Nuclear Physicists from Naval Reactors when I was in the Navy and anyone I have come across since that knows enough about physics that they would be of some help. The response I always get is the same right from the beginning.........thermodynamics blah blah blah........can't exist......not possible.......you need to see a psychologist.......are you smoking rock.....and on and on. Nobody ever even attempts to even look at it and point out where they think I have gone wrong. I haven't ever had a chance to rebuttle something "wrong" that someone points out because nobody has ever gotten that far. It is instant denial in every case and they turn their back to me like I was a child rapist or something. It is abosolutely ridiculous how taboo educated people treat the subject. In science people say there are "laws" that govern the universe and we petty humans pretend that we know them like the back of our hand. Any "law" that is discovered by a finite being is really just a very close approximation to the framework of reality. Some are better than others and therefore may last centuries before something more accurate comes along and even then most of the time it is a minor tweak here or there. There will always be holes in a theory provided the beings that develop those theories are finite. Look at carbon nanotubes..........nobody had heard of them 20 years ago and now they can have a purpose for just about anything you can think of.......the same goes for computers which weren't even indroduced into the household until the late 70's to early 80's. Things change and from what I have personally experienced, people are unwilling to make the initial steps towards that change because they are comfortable where they are. We are going to have to have something very bad happen, like running out of fossil fuel, before those first footsteps are not taken with reluctance. I hope you can start to see WHY I got so frustrated with some of your earlier posts. The content has been repetitively negative over the past 15 years. I was sick of it by the time I had graduated High School. If something is wrong with what I am presenting, show me. Don't just give me vague generalizations about laws of physics or vaguely compare me with someone else and their invention which doesn't have anything but a vague connection to mine. That isn't science, and it doesn't communicate any knowledge.
 

recca02

Joined Apr 2, 2007
1,212
exactly,
while i still m skeptical about that machine, if people are so well acquainted with laws it should be so easy for them to point out hole/loopholes in the theory.
it takes a lot more than just arrogance to stand against the tides and times.
maybe one reason why the overunity machine concepts do not die is the failure of the scientists (or whoever is concerned) to prove them wrong.
maybe you should post a video at least that will make some people think.
the reason i m backing you is i would like to know the reason causing the motion(if at all).so i have my own axe to grind.

edit: oh yeah btw m/c means machine-apologies for using this term it is usually only used in mech engg on which most of my degree is based on.
 

FredM

Joined Dec 27, 2005
124
It is often not possible to 'prove' something wrong, even if it is obviously wrong.. I cannot, for example, prove that we are not all being observed by invisible pink elephants which are omnipresent but exist in a spirit state, and are capable of viewing us, but we are not capable of percieving their presence.. I cannot PROVE this.....

Likewise, proof that something is true can be difficult - and absolute proof of any theory is probably impossible (I will not say absolutely impossible, as I am not sure that there are any 'absolutes')
 

recca02

Joined Apr 2, 2007
1,212
I cannot, for example, prove that we are not all being observed by invisible pink elephants which are omnipresent but exist in a spirit state, and are capable of viewing us, but we are not capable of percieving their presence.
lol.
are they made of ETHER?
maybe those are what we call ghosts.(btw if they are invisible how can they be pink?)
there is a different science dealing with that and that seems totally illogical unless they manifest in some form like electric field or any form of energy.
that said that is a good point.
 

GS3

Joined Sep 21, 2007
408
I have spoken with teachers at my high school when I came up with it, people with PHDs in aerospace when I was working there, Nuclear Physicists from Naval Reactors when I was in the Navy and anyone I have come across since that knows enough about physics that they would be of some help. The response I always get is the same right from the beginning.........thermodynamics blah blah blah........can't exist......not possible.......you need to see a psychologist.......are you smoking rock.....and on and on. Nobody ever even attempts to even look at it and point out where they think I have gone wrong.
Well, that, right there, should tell you something. People are not willing to spend much time on this just the same as I do not spend any time reading spam. It is a waste of time. Offer to pay someone for their time and you might have better luck.

Even if I cannot find the logical flaw I know it is there. The fact that I cannot find it means little. It only means I cannot find it. That is a more logical alternative to you having found something which turns the entire field on its head.

Have you tried making a good presentation and posting it online? If you make a clear, simple, presentation it would be easier to digest and analyze. People are not going to waste their time with shoddy drawings and confusing explanations.

Not only do you seem to know little about science but you seem to know little about how people work and react. You are not selling your idea in any effective way.

I have come across people like you before on other boards. People who claim to have discovered things which are plainly impossible in our universe (like compressing information losslessly to any arbitrary size) or which are just impossibly impractical (like harnessing the energy of the wind as it moves the branches of the trees). They all have a persecution complex and believe that the world is against them for no good reason. But the fact is they never got anywhere with those ideas.

And saying what's holding you up is making square holes in nylon is just laughable or pathetic. I mean, come on, you can do that yourself with the simplest tools. You do not give the impression of being particularly resourceful in any way. You're going to have to try harder if you really expect to get anywhere with this project.

Edited to add some worthwhile citations from Don Lancaster. Please do read How to Bash Pseudoscience cited above.
• The scientific method works. In which you propose a falsifiable theory, test that theory, then invite others to independently attack it.
• Those laws of thermodynamics reverify themselves on countless occasions each and every day. These laws are (1) you can’t win; (2) you can’t break even, and (3) if you play the game, you are sure to lose.
• Each field has its secret insider gotchas. These are certain to cause major grief to the casual inquirer. Accurately measuring rms power or doing low Dt calorimetry are two obvious examples.
• Most labwork ends up dead wrong. Either by not measuring what you think it does. Or easily getting misinterpreted, leading to wrong conclusions.
• An hour in the library is worth a month in the lab. Science and engineering progress by building upon the collective results of what has gone before.
• A single source for any theory or claim will always be highly suspect. Always seek major backup.
• "Too good to be true" results always are. Should they occur, you must spend monumental time and effort in conclusively proving yourself wrong.
• Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Such evidence is always an obligation upon those making the claims, not on those challenging.
And most especially that…
• Finding a source of " Unlimited free energy" would be the most unimaginably heinous crime possible against humanity. For it would inevitably turn the
planet into a cinder. Hastening an isoentropic heat death. If you find a free energy source, you damn well better find a new free energy sink as well. Even then, the relative flux rates will still nail you.
Let me repeat one worth repeating: "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Such evidence is always an obligation upon those making the claims, not on those challenging.".
 

Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
Well, that, right there, should tell you something. People are not willing to spend much time on this just the same as I do not spend any time reading spam. It is a waste of time. Offer to pay someone for their time and you might have better luck.

Even if I cannot find the logical flaw I know it is there. The fact that I cannot find it means little. It only means I cannot find it. That is a more logical alternative to you having found something which turns the entire field on its head.

Have you tried making a good presentation and posting it online? If you make a clear, simple, presentation it would be easier to digest and analyze. People are not going to waste their time with shoddy drawings and confusing explanations.

Not only do you seem to know little about science but you seem to know little about how people work and react. You are not selling your idea in any effective way.

And saying what's holding you up is making square holes in nylon is just laughable or pathetic. I mean, come on, you can do that yourself with the simplest tools. You do not give the impression of being particularly resourceful in any way. You're going to have to try harder if you really expect to get anywhere with this project.

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. Such evidence is always an obligation upon those making the claims, not on those challenging.".
Now there is a response that is more palitable. I can now start to understand your point of view. As far as presentations go.....nope haven't done it but that is a good suggestion. Drawings.......definitely not an artist. Confusing explainations......I thought I was being clear but I guess not. I know a great deal about science but I am definitely not a good salesman. Holes in nylon 1/2 inch thick with 1/500th of an inch tolerance...........extremely diffucult to do by hand. I agree with your assessment requiring that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof.

I do have one question for you....

If you value this like you value spam and you consider it a waste of time, why do you keep reading and replying to this thread?
 

Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
Here is a diagram that has 5 timesteps to illustrate better. The direction of the arrows is the GROSS FORCE at any point.......the NET FORCE acting on the gears at any point is calculated with simple trigonometry. Timesteps are 1-5 from minus 40 degrees to plus 40 degrees range. The calculated torque generated by the NET force at any given point is always positive and is a maximum at 8 degrees and exactly zero at the convergence point (where the magnets are closest). I hope this helps but let me know if it isn't straightforward enough though.

Sorry for the slopinness but I cannot draw to save my life.

Note: this is not 10 magnets, it is only 2 interacting at 5 arbitrary different points in time through a single interaction cycle. Also, there are multiple interactions taking place simultaneously at any given instant such that when one interaction is at a minimum, there are other interactions that overlap and "fill in the void". This aspect, combined with inertia, overcomes any potential "sticking points". The overall waveform lookes like a positively-biased sinusoidal wave.
 

Attachments

beenthere

Joined Apr 20, 2004
15,819
A machinist might express the accuracy as ".002 inches". A small table top drill press might do wonders for your accuracy. You can get surprising results with a good compass and straightedge as far as marking points to drill.

At this point, a proof-of-principle demo would be in order. Also, a question - will nylon gear teeth handle the load? You might need to consider aluminum as an alternative. Check the W. M. Berg catalog online as a source for gears and such. It is obvious that the device will have to be built robustly in order to show if it works or not.
 

Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
A machinist might express the accuracy as ".002 inches". A small table top drill press might do wonders for your accuracy. You can get surprising results with a good compass and straightedge as far as marking points to drill.

At this point, a proof-of-principle demo would be in order. Also, a question - will nylon gear teeth handle the load? You might need to consider aluminum as an alternative. Check the W. M. Berg catalog online as a source for gears and such. It is obvious that the device will have to be built robustly in order to show if it works or not.
W.M. Berg is a rip-off for what you get. Besides, they don't have anything even close to the size I need (13.5 inches for the center and 12 inches for the others). The nylon is highly polished within and around the tooth cavity for a very low friction. I got all 7 gears with a 0.0001" accuracy from India for about 800 bucks. The cheapest I could find in the U.S. was around 3 grand for the same exact thing. The loading that the nylon can handle is ridiculously large.....multiple times larger than aluminum with the same dimensions. I can't remember exactly but it was not even in the ballpark of what I was calculating as the maximum torque that the unit would see.
 

GS3

Joined Sep 21, 2007
408
The calculated torque generated by the NET force at any given point is always positive and is a maximum at 8 degrees and exactly zero at the convergence point (where the magnets are closest).
Well, we'd have to see those calculations. Or, rather, someone who is qualified to analyze them would have to see them and judge them. My first guess is that the graph is mistaken and that, contrary to your assertion, it is not symmetrical with respect to the central point and that there is, in fact, some negative torque involved just before the central point so that the integral over a whole cycle is zero. Have you done some serious calculations or is that graph just intuition off the top of your head?

More than we need to know! - Dave :D
 

Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
Well, we'd have to see those calculations. Or, rather, someone who is qualified to analyze them would have to see them and judge them. My first guess is that the graph is mistaken and that, contrary to your assertion, it is not symmetrical with respect to the central point and that there is, in fact, some negative torque involved just before the central point so that the integral over a whole cycle is zero. Have you done some serious calculations or is that graph just intuition off the top of your head?
Dave :D
What came off the top of my head was waaaay different than what I calculated. All I did was input the basic equations (quadruple checked) into a TI-89 calc and have it do the substitution and the graphs. Unless there is a mathematical flaw with the TI-89 under certain conditions, what I got is what should really be. I even bumped the decimal precision out to "fixed" at 12-point accuracy instead of floating. That really slowed things down but I believe it is worth it when a final equation has over 5200 characters..........there were a bunch of sin, cos, tan, parenthesis, and brackets that made up about half of that and the other half were 12-point precision numbers scattered about everywhere.

It IS possible that the math is off........but only if the TI-89 wasn't functioning properly. I can't see that the overall shape is wrong though because it closely resembles what is "felt" when playing around with 2 magnets in your hand and mimicking their positions as if on gears. I don't see why a symmetrical interaction wouldn't have a symmetrical outcome.

I attached the equations again. They are all very basic but when they are substituted, the thing grows to massive proportions. If the gears were the same size, it all would be much simpler. The reason I made it a hexagon is for extended patterning for any size of 2 dimensional device. It ultimately ended up making the math much more complicated but I believed at the time, and still do, that it is worth it to enable a device that can be patterned seemlessly into a large array of any 2-dimensional shape with any number of gears. The math is also generated to incorporate any size gears, any strength for magnets, and any gear tooth depth..........this also profoundly increased its complexity in the long run.

I almost forgot to mention something. The maximum at 8 degrees using that monsterous screwballed equation..........it is precise out to 12 decimal points at exactly 8.000000000000 degrees. That tells me that the math is most likely accurate. The significance of 8 degrees exactly is still perplexing to me though.
 

Attachments

thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,083
I say this as a precautionary measure:

Some of the comments made in recent pages of this thread might easily be misunderstood as ad hominem. It would be most unfortunate if said commentary was actually meant as such. Let's this debate polite.



Mike, where do the magnets go in this thing? Is there one magnet per planetary gear?

Also: What is the significance of 1.125x? How is this value derived?
 

Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
I say this as a precautionary measure:

Some of the comments made in recent pages of this thread might easily be misunderstood as ad hominem. It would be most unfortunate if said commentary was actually meant as such. Let's this debate polite.



Mike, where do the magnets go in this thing? Is there one magnet per planetary gear?

Also: What is the significance of 1.125x? How is this value derived?
The magnets are placed within the gears themselves. The inner gear has a diameter of 9x and the outside gears have a diameter of 8x. 1.125 is the ratio of 9:8 for use to determine the angle of the outside gears. This angle will then determine the position of the magnet on the outside gear as a function of the angle on the inside gear. I had to make it so that all length and angle parameters are a function of x, the inside gear's angle between the current position and the conjunction point (where the magnets are closest) in order to make y=f(x) where, after substitution of the variable parameters, y=net torque and x=inner gear angle. The inside gear has 9 magnets and all the outside gears have 8 magnets. The outside gear will turn with an angular velocity 9/8ths that of the inside gear such that for every 40 degrees the inside gear turns, the outside gears turn 45 degrees. The ratio of gear teeth 9:8 (inside:eek:utside) ensures this.

All other equations are to support the exact distance between the magnets, the inverse square relationship using the force at the conjunction distance as a reference, and the net torque based on the gross force and the subsequent angle of that gross force with relation to the tangent of the gears.
 

thingmaker3

Joined May 16, 2005
5,083
Okay. That answer and finding the jpeg http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1474&d=1194208105 has me understanding better now.

You only need one 8x wheel and one 9x wheel for proof of concept. That's only 17 holes to make. Did you check out the Gingery books I suggested? Shop Notebook has everything you need to very accurately lay out where the holes will be. They can be cut easily enough with a mill-drill - to your specified accuracy needs. You should be able to find someone at your local community college who could help out. (Note the holes don't need to be rectangular - and should not be rectangular. Google "stress raiser" for why not.)
 

Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
Okay. That answer and finding the jpeg http://forum.allaboutcircuits.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1474&d=1194208105 has me understanding better now.

You only need one 8x wheel and one 9x wheel for proof of concept. That's only 17 holes to make. Did you check out the Gingery books I suggested? Shop Notebook has everything you need to very accurately lay out where the holes will be. They can be cut easily enough with a mill-drill - to your specified accuracy needs. You should be able to find someone at your local community college who could help out. (Note the holes don't need to be rectangular - and should not be rectangular. Google "stress raiser" for why not.)
I did see the books you suggested. I figured I would give it a try while at my parents house during Christmas. I will not have any money for a tabletop drill press until my tax return comes.......still only 3-4 months away though. Now that you mention it, I have taken a few upper level classes on mechanical stress and you are absolutely correct. I can actually make a slight ripple in the flat surfaces and round off the corners. I am going to have to redesign a little before that but it actually seems like it may turn out to be less work overall due to the circular cuts I will get with a rotating bit. I'm glad you pointed that out or else I may have had a crack form between a hole and the teeth........or worse. Excellent call there!!! I actually need to have at least 2 outside gears for a proof of concept. The explaination for that is fairly deep and I am falling asleep here trying to type this. I will get back to you later on that. It has to do with adjacent gear magnetic interactions and certain harmonics that need to be damped along with the overlapping of torque waveforms to maintain an overall system-wide sinusoidal torque waveform.
 

recca02

Joined Apr 2, 2007
1,212
i took a brief look at the dia.
dont you think the repulsive and the attractive forces balance out a that particular point.
if i m correct may be you shud post a diagram where there is a unbalanced force causing the wheel to turn as u mentioned b4.
by that explanation i had an impression that there will be three different stages of equilibrium,of motion caused by attraction and then the same caused by repulsion.

also Gentlemen, tell me from where does the energy comes when a magnet does some work?(this i need to solve the above mystery ).i know it is due to the potential energy in the object.
let me put it this way if work is done by some sort of magnet configuration how long will it keep on moving?(its hard to convey what i actually want to ask but if u think in the direction i m right now you will perhaps ask yourself similar questions)
i think i'll need to have a look into how magnets are created at first.

somehow the machine is similar to having a motor run to act as prime mover for a generator except for the case that in case of motor an electrical supply is given but in this case magnets are used to create that effect.

but if i m thinking in correct direction i think the m/c may not produce power at least not for long.
it will be the same as digging a hole through earth and letting the gravity at the earth's center do the work of oscillating a mass.
if work is extracted from such a motion the oscillation will damp out and the body will be stuck at the center of earth and attain a static equilibrium.
 

Mike M.

Joined Oct 9, 2007
104
i took a brief look at the dia.
dont you think the repulsive and the attractive forces balance out a that particular point.
if i m correct may be you shud post a diagram where there is a unbalanced force causing the wheel to turn as u mentioned b4.
by that explanation i had an impression that there will be three different stages of equilibrium,of motion caused by attraction and then the same caused by repulsion.
I can actually explain it using the original diagram. There are 6 outside gears. Number them 1-6. 1,3, and 5 would correspond to the original diagram, say they are at timestep 3. Gears 2, 4, and 6 are shifted 22.5 degrees from gears 1,3, and 5 such that when the odd gears are at timestep 3 using one magnet pair, the even gears have a pair of magnets at timestep 1 AND a pair of magnets at timestep 5.

Once the unit revolves another 22.5 degrees, the above explaination remains the same but the evens and odds switch positions in the explaination.

Even if there were only 3 gears spaced 120 degrees apart, such as even or odd, the gears themselves are fairly heavy and the unit would continue to operate due to inertia helping it past the "dead zone" but the lack of another overlapping set would cause the motion of the system to be even MORE ERRATIC that it already is.

Note for clarification: The above explaination using the original one-pair interaction diagram with the timesteps requires that the range from timestep 1 to timestep 5 be 40 degrees for the inside gear and 45 degrees for the outside gear. That means that the drawing is exaggerated about 2-fold since it actually looks like about 80 and 90 degrees. I took a second look and my above explaination and it actually confused me when I compared it to the drawing so I know it would have confused others. If you take a look at the picture with the shoe on it, it will probably make more sense. Each line drawn on the gears represents the position of a magnet.
 
Top