It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

page: 1
2
share:

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 05:02 PM
Hello. I just thought I would throw out an idea for free energy for you, "scientific" minded people. For years I have been working on a lever that might multiply speed and power simultaneously. Though I have had some success, a stable design eludes me. I have had one successful design out of thousands of different models. Out of the successful design I built hundreds, with various rates of success in only about 20 of them.

The most powerful model that worked only had a 1.12:1 gain; meaning a 10" lever had the out-put of a 11.2" lever. However if you run about 81 consecutive, [working models] together you would have over 1 million pounds of output where you only would have had 100; with no speed reduction.

What are the implications of the, "mechanical" technology? Your output would simply be determined by how many levers you desire to use. You could literally power the Earth with a micro-motor; "unlimited" free energy.

In explaining the principal and design of the working model, I hope to encourage people who are gifted in engeneering mechanical devices to take up the challenge of the idea of making A super-lever. My origonal reason for attempting to create the device was to have the power to flap large mechanical wings to fly; a short lever that out-powers a longer lever without loosing speed..

In the design shown on the following illustration it shows the mechanical device with the thin green lines representing the vectors of force generated, and what I was thinking might be, "counter vectors" that I might use to multiply and re-direct the forces generated within the device; in hopes to produce the simultaneously multiplied speed and power. I have lots of work on the devices; so ask whatever you wish in order to clarify my attempt to describe my efforts. It is a, "similar" illustration of the exact design that worked. Here's pic:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

A = the distance between the center of the axel and the point where the force is taken from the, "initial force lever" to be introduced into the end of the, "multiplication arm".

B = Pushrods

C = multiplication arm.

D = the distance between the center of the axel and the point where the force is introduced to the multiplication arm.

E = total distance of possable mechanical multiplication gain from which potential force can be calculated. [Represented by green lines].

F = The red arms, "vector multiplication arms" that lie on both sides of the multiplication arm. [The red arm on this side being made see through to show multiplication arm.]

G = My percieved vector of force that I intended to turn to a right angle to the vector multiplication arms on the end away from the axel. [Thin green line]

H = Resistance lever. [What you are driving.]

In the working model A was equal to D; with the mechanical gain being the difference between D and the sum total of E.. If I can, I'll put real pic on when friend brings camera; the latest attempt looked like the pic here:

files.abovetopsecret.com...

In that attempt I tried for more gainful math; which did not work at all; "again".. The bolts are for trying different vectors within the axel hole of the multiplication lever; shown on first pic, [ letter I ]

I will stop here and wait for a nibble..

No consequencE..

Thank you.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by noconsequence]

posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 11:55 PM
Im not exactly sure what you are try to accomplish, but I think you need a little more math, at least up to vector mechanics, and then some basic statics and dynamics classes then with a good rounding out of machine design. Then you see why you cant really do what you are trying to achieve.

I would suggest reading "Kinematic Analysis of Mechanisms" by Shigley and its companion "mechanical engineering design".
They cover the basics of mechanical motion, especialy levers and such.
I think the fact that you dont see mechanisms consisting of stacked levers being used very often, if at all, should tell you something.
There are several basic flaws with your reasoning, firstly you cant magnify force and have velocity remain the same.
Change one,you change the other, an increase in output force will be paired with a lower velocity.

Oh yah youll have to add basic physics to that class list, so that youll understand the energy parts of the solutions to mechanical systems.

There are some many other much better more modern ways of generating motion, than to go back 2500 years to when the most complicated machines were just collections of levers.

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 12:38 AM

Originally posted by noconsequence
What are the implications of the, "mechanical" technology? Your output would simply be determined by how many levers you desire to use. You could literally power the Earth with a micro-motor; "unlimited" free energy.

No, you couldn't. Allow me to explain by going back to the basic lever:

Suppose the 'effort' was put by a tiny DC servo motor, while the load was a huge turbine. Now I ask, where is the best place to put the pivot at? Obviously, close to the load, so the tiny motor can drive the huge turbine with little effort.

The problem is, the closer the pivot is to the turbine, the more turns the small motor will require to move the turbine rotor just a little bit.

In the end, on an ideal system, the output from the turbine would be equal to the power used by the motor.

Now I'm having a hard time trying to understand your device, but I'm going to throw a wild guess and say that the only thing you are doing by adding 'multiplication arms', is making the lever *longer* - that is, you may not see the length of your device grow, but the d1 does get larger, and d2 gets smaller. Heavier loads may feel easier to move, but the distance you move them gets smaller every time you add an arm.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by daniel_g]

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:33 AM
Thank you for your input. I said I have had working models. That means they gained speed and power simultaneously. I don't mind you not believing it can't be done if you don't mind me remembering having done it on more than one occasion..

You were particularly insightful by noting that I was adding length to the lever without actually putting drive or resistance farther from the axel.. However if you note the pictures I provided, you will see there is not a way to reduce speed while gaining the power..

I must agree with both of you in that that is the way, "simple" leverage mechanics works; bottom line.. A working design like what I am attempting is not a complicated device; however I readily admit I have 25 years of intense work in the area, while I believe the one with the right mind could throw it together in a matter of hours..

I appreciate input.. We are on ATS which I believe has many, many gifted people who can accomplish things others can not do. Many architects will tell you that you can accomplish anything as long as you get the angles right..

I find the remark about going back 2500 years to where these devices were more of a burden disturbing. I see it as dissuading to people who might just have what it takes to produce a working design.

There would be great advantage to the type of technology I am trying to share.. I have done it.. It is possible..

You can say I need physics classes all you wish but my guess is that you have never been picked up by a secret govt. research organization as a result of your success, while I have. No offense taken and none intended..

I am not recommending that design at all. I am trying to get the main idea across to someone who might understand the concept and accomplish it in an efficient manner.

Oh and punkinworks of course I could allways use more insight; please feel free to challenge my skills at, "math and physics" here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

No consequencE..

Thank you.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by noconsequence]

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 06:55 PM

Originally posted by noconsequence
You can say I need physics classes all you wish but my guess is that you have never been picked up by a secret govt. research organization as a result of your success, while I have.

Troll.

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:13 PM

Yes. I have stayed under a bridge or two.. I am so hurt because you take pleasure in the hard times I have had enougH now!!

Good to see that you are definitely keeping up with the spirit of research here on ATS. Thank you for your contribution to said research.

Then you must have some worthy input for the thread and I eagerly await your response!!

Back to the movie:

No consequencE..

Thank you.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by noconsequence]

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:30 PM
I am having a bit of trouble understanding your design as well. Perhaps a video of a working model, or at least a good pic of the mechanism itself would help. Here's hoping you get the camera working again soon.

I personally built a device that made a desperate attempt to turn under only mechanical energy (steel weights) many many moons ago. Unfortunately, I mis-calculated one connection (had to make a change in it at the last minute for practicality and did not recheck the strength) and the thing tore itself apart on assembly. I never went back to that machine. In order to rework the connections would have required a complete and total redesign, and to be honest, I had already spent a couple of years' savings on the thing (machining work is expensive!) and decided maybe a better design was in order.

I did finish that 'better design' but never built it due to finances. I still have the old plans somewhere, along with the mathematics that say it will work. The more I thought about the thing, the more I realized how dangerous such a unit would be should a connection give way during high-speed operation, how quickly the bushings would wear out, and how heavy and bulky a unit of any appreciable output would be. Maybe someday; I do now have my own machine shop.

So good luck, and we'll be looking forward to some more info. Perhaps we can better help you when we have better information.

TheRedneck

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 10:46 PM

Originally posted by TheRedneck
I am having a bit of trouble understanding your design as well. Perhaps a video of a working model, or at least a good pic of the mechanism itself would help.

Pics might help. Gotta spend some time on a roof this week and coordinate a meeting with a friend to use his camera. Goal is to have real pics within a week but can't promise. Last failed attempt sitting on floor beside me now..

I did finish that 'better design' but never built it due to finances. I still have the old plans somewhere, along with the mathematics that say it will work. The more I thought about the thing, the more I realized how dangerous such a unit would be should a connection give way during high-speed operation, how quickly the bushings would wear out, and how heavy and bulky a unit of any appreciable output would be. Maybe someday; I do now have my own machine shop.

Sounds intriguing; I must admit; I'd like to see it.. Have you considered roller/needle bearings rather than bushings? They call them near 0 friction bearings sometimes. Sounds like your design could be hard to keep lubricated because of the type of movement going on? as was one of mine. good luck

So good luck, and we'll be looking forward to some more info. Perhaps we can better help you when we have better information.

No consequencE..

Thank you.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by noconsequence]

posted on Sep, 12 2009 @ 11:42 PM

Have you considered roller/needle bearings rather than bushings?

Yes, I did design the device to use the latest bearing technology I was able to get at that time, and it did include bushings/bearings that were near 0% rolling resistance. The problem was never the efficiency of the bushings, but the lifespan... which is the reason I chose bushings rather than bearings.

Perhaps someday I will revisit it. The original attempt is still sitting among other projects from the past, complete with the bushings and bearings installed. the plans for the new prototype are still here, and with my son learning machining in school, perhaps he can build the parts. The purchased parts will run about \$200-\$300, and maybe \$150 worth of metal would be required (based on Internet small purchase quantity pricing). So it's not extremely expensive to try. It just tales me a long time to machine parts, being a novice at the trade.

In the meantime, sorry, no pics just yet. I'm not quite ready to put this into public domain.

To be honest, I would need a better description before I could formulate an intelligent question. Maybe after you borrow your friend's camera?

TheRedneck

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 12:50 PM
Sorry to be chiming in so late... I too have difficulty grasping what is being described, though I think I have some basic sense...

But as far as "free" energy is concerned... I would rather work on extraction methods of the "Dark" Energy that is everywhere in the Universe. Tesla had some successes. Viktor Schauberger and Wilhelm Reich did as well. Others have had successes but have been suppressed.

I know a man who created such a design, to extract the energy of the cosmos, based on a crop glyph. He needs about \$5,000 to create a prototype, though.

Wish my grasp of your efforts was better. Best of luck!

[edit on 9/13/2009 by Amaterasu]

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 01:21 PM

Hi Amaterasu.. Glad you chimed in.

It has become obvious to me that my description of the device has failed; and that a more descriptive narrated video of the actual model, [failed or not] is necessary.
I promise I will do my best to accomplish that in the coming week..

There would be great advantages to power derived from a lever that produced mechanical gain, in that basically, all you would need is steel, a generator, and a small electric drive..

Much simpler and easier to obtain than other devices requiring expensive materials.. Imagine for a moment getting into a heavy car, or sky-crane helicopter with a loaded trailer and pedaling gingerly while your output is generating huge amounts of power; like pedaling a dragster and winning..

Imagine generating the power with only a few dollars rather than \$5,000. Though I am in agreement with all reasonable attempts to generate free energy..

By the way, I hope a lot of people are reading your book on abundance; which I found to be absolutely disarming. [I could drop my guard.] I totally agree with your points. I believe yours is, "an answer".. God's speed..

No consequencE..

Thank you.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by noconsequence]

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:09 PM
The title just made me think of a spring that will not wear out
and keep perfect time.
Compressed air or atomic gas when compressed should bounce
back and never wear out and always have the same compressed
to uncompressed travel time to afford perfect synchronization.

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 04:57 PM

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Compressed air or atomic gas when compressed should bounce
back and never wear out and always have the same compressed
to uncompressed travel time to afford perfect synchronization.

Yes however in order to use the air for power your re-compression of the air will take more time, dwindling the air supply; or you would come up with less power and still have the compression problem.

Makes me understand the reason others believe that mechanical gain such as I am mentioning can not occur.

In contrast; I have heard of a super compressor that could keep up with air requirements while still powering vehicle; I have no first hand knowledge of it other than seeing the schematics.. I really did not understand the schematics; nor do I remember them..

No consequencE..

Thank you.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by noconsequence]

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 05:00 PM

Originally posted by noconsequence

Originally posted by TeslaandLyne

Compressed air or atomic gas when compressed should bounce
back and never wear out and always have the same compressed
to uncompressed travel time to afford perfect synchronization.

Sounds good, no.

ED: something like that could make a seesaw go back and forth
over the pivot for a very long time.

[edit on 9/13/2009 by TeslaandLyne]

posted on Sep, 13 2009 @ 06:15 PM

I have to admit: It sounds like what I am attempting to do from the point of air compression/hydraulics; which I have considered; however I am stuck on stupid with the desire to achieve it mechanically; especially after having had some luck with it.

For me it would mean to begin the learning process all over again, [25 years]; however the point of the thread is to stimulate thought along these lines in hopes that a gifted individual, [myself or anybody else], might pick up the idea and run with it; however they achieve it..

Whether I get insightful help, it helps another noble individual; whatever. The point is:
How can we find the simplest, most efficient way of producing free energy, utilizing it to the empowerment and liberty of the human race?

If I get a consistent design along my talents, people might be very hard pressed to tell me there are better means, though I have seen exotic matter; which can not be topped if it can be utilized.

At one time, I had hope to utilize exotic matter in my life; but I no longer believe that that will be the case.

No consequencE..

Thank you.

[edit on 13-9-2009 by noconsequence]

posted on Sep, 14 2009 @ 12:21 PM

Originally posted by noconsequence

Hi Amaterasu.. Glad you chimed in.

It has become obvious to me that my description of the device has failed; and that a more descriptive narrated video of the actual model, [failed or not] is necessary.
I promise I will do my best to accomplish that in the coming week..

Best of luck, I tell you what! [smile]

Imagine generating the power with only a few dollars rather than \$5,000. Though I am in agreement with all reasonable attempts to generate free energy..

The \$5,000 is prototype costs. A very small amount, overall, eh? [smile] Some places spend hundreds of thousands to prototype. The final product would range in cost, depending on the size of the device, but might run \$5 to \$50ish...

But anything that creates overunity is a boon.

By the way, I hope a lot of people are reading your book on abundance; which I found to be absolutely disarming. [I could drop my guard.] I totally agree with your points. I believe yours is, "an answer".. God's speed..

Thanks! [smile] I like to believe that many are reading and comprehending it... So very few actually want to discuss it (on another board, all they want to do is shoot the messenger but can find no fault with my reasoning).

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 12:26 PM

\$5,000 is a small amount for a prototype. I have had much larger estimates for some of mine.. I have worked on many diverse experiments. I figure 1 success out of 1000 attempts is still fruitful. I also understand that a final product would be a lot cheaper.

This messenger has been shot once or twice. Oh well-All messengers will receive their just rewards; good and evil..

I also believe that my design for gyroscopic propulsion has not been debunked by any engineers; making me feel pretty good about it. I believe that could run itself and produce huge amounts of free energy.. I invite anyone wishing to discuss the gyroscopic propulsion/energy production too..

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Thus far; my only day off the roof this week, and friend with camera is not coming into town.. I'll probly have to start a new thread when we finally do a video.

No consequencE..

Thank you.

[edit on 15-9-2009 by noconsequence]

posted on Sep, 15 2009 @ 02:39 PM

Looking forward!

Thanks for believing in abundance! It is there if we would make it happen.

top topics

2