It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The pendulum would be the equivalent of the piston in an IC engine. It converts gravity, as the fuel, into usable motion. The magnets function as a supply for magnetic energy. The mechanical movements of the machine converts that energy into a mechanical boost, working in concert with the gravity powered mechanics. Again these are components in a motor. These pieces are not the motor itself.
False. The pendulum/magnet is the motor.
The inventor is currently displaying the device in his art gallery. It is open for the public. He seems very open about his 'moving sculpture'. He has no formal training in mechanics or physics. The ball has at present been in constant motion on the track for about one month.
An estimate of the power: If we assume the ball would come to a complete stop after 30 seconds with a starting velocity of 1 m/s without the magnets, the energy of the ball: E = 0.5 * m * V * V = 5 Joule would be spent.
Since P= E/t this gives a power loss along the track of P = 5 / 30 = 0.16 Watt.
This is well below Dr. Hal Puthoffs' '1 Watt Challenge'. BUT, the total ENERGY that the device has already produced is:
Etot = P * t , taking t = 1 month Etot = 0.16 * 2 592 000 s = 414 720 Joules
That would be 80%-90%. Approximately what they were claiming as the total efficiency of the machine. However, if this machine were a patentable invention, the fact that it's efficiency does not exceed that of other motors is not relevant. If for no other reason because it uses a different power source.
Do you know how efficient high-efficient electric motors are?
I do not disagree with that. In fact, it has been my contention all along that what they are claiming is difficult to believe. I asked a few questions which I felt needed to be answered before their claims could be accepted.
This is a work of art, there is no revolutionary motor breakthrough here.
I think you misunderstood the comment I made. The comment had nothing to do a patentable device, it was an explanation of why I ever proposed that a patent should be sought if the device is truly working as claimed. Others have indicated they believe there is another drive hidden in the base.
Which has literally nothing to do with patenting the machine as a revolutionary motor.
originally posted by: DexterRileyI'm sure there will be elements of this post with which you will strongly disagree. In those cases, consider yourself the winner of the debate.
I noticed what looks like it could be a small opening in one of the two pieces of metal that don't touch the wheel, on the top, which would blow the wheel in the direction shown if air was coming out of it, did you see that?
originally posted by: DexterRiley
Some people thought that he was using air to move it. And he edited the sound to remove the noise from the video.
I wonder how many watts he's using just to make all that noise?
originally posted by: samkent
Here is a guy who really went off the deep end.
His machine is a beautiful example of craftsmanship.
But it just ain't over unity.
I don't know who worked that out, but I said before it's one possibility. This video on how to fake it at the end also mentions that possibility, but it shows another method of faking it with invisible wires connected to a 6000V power supply, but as the first comment I see asks, why do all this when you can use air? So that's at least 3 ways it can be easily faked:
originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Arbitrageur
I think somebody worked out he was using a static field from a source nearby.
Even a graphite pencil line makes a good circuit for high voltage transmission