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.
Originally posted by pauljs75
My crude and sloppy horribly animated .gif that I quickly made in under 10min.
I'm fairly sure the proportions are off and some other bits are not exact, but pretty much what I described in the second paragraph of the previous post. (It's close enough.) At least from there anyone can get an idea of the principle and see if something can be worked out for experimental reproduction. Considering all the factors if the work in (moving the weight along the belt) is less than work out (output at ratchet end), then they might have something here.
I'd like to see this thing in operation to see if I guessed it right.
Even if it does actually work, I'd suspect the power to weight ratio is horrible. (Because you need the weight to get the power.) Scaled down, you'd need something like the mass of a lead acid car battery to keep a small electronic device like a laptop going. But that's acceptable if it's for a static installation, which seems to be the intent here.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
reply to post by Wifibrains
There are no counterweights. The force comes straight from the vertical pieces that are hinged to move vertically. Apparently the weight of those columns alone is deemed sufficient. The excess in force comes from the geometric relationship of the force components.
If (and that is an if; I have run no calcs yet) this thing works, it can be downsized to smaller individual-home sizes. That much I am sure of already.
I am halfway tempted to build a model...
Originally posted by Gazrok
If this thing works, anyone building it had better not tell anybody. I'm thinking you'd likely end up the victim of some kind of "accident". The world runs on fossil fuels. Mess with that at your own peril. I'd love to have something like this powering the ranch, but I'd never tell a soul about it, if I did.
Let us know what you find Redneck!
Is there any further detail on the specs somewhere in these 5 pages? Not much to go on from the OP sources.
Originally posted by Wifibrains
Originally posted by boncho
If it's being powered by gravity it's not a free energy machine, nor is it perpetual energy. Every hydro dam out there is the same thing. Also not free energy, also not perpetual motion.
The energy produced will be free, as it will not be paid for, unless you count maintenance costs. And it will run on its own momentum.
Originally posted by TheRedneck
Many years ago, I built a machine based on this basic principle. Unfortunately, when designing the journals I ran into a problem with construct-ability. I redesigned the journals quickly and made a huge mistake in the stress calcs. I started assembling it, it started turning, then it ripped itself apart.
It never made a full revolution, so I never said much about it. I later realized there was a wear issue as well, so I scraped that design for a different one, one which I was never able to afford to complete. I still have the plans and calcs for it (and still have the remains of that original motor somewhere).
There are some differences in force application geometry, so I will need to rework my old calculations to see if this arrangement has merit. If/when I can find time to o so I will report back. It does have a chance of operating, though, based on my early experiments and the general design. If it does, it is an ingenuous way of overcoming that wear issue.
Originally posted by Oannes
Our patent office is full of it. They always state that free energy devices can't be patened. That's only because they know that big oil interests aren't into free anything. I always knew that gravity could be utilized to create simple free energy devices. Gravity is a force that is always present. They sell toys that demonstrate the ability to run forever given a single starting push. Just because someone says its not possible, dosen't mean you should stop researching it.
Science is about doing the work. Not trying to debunk something.
What makes a statement a scientific hypothesis, rather than just an interesting speculation? A scientific hypothesis must meet 2 requirements:
A scientific hypothesis must be testable, and;
A scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable.
Falsifiability or refutability is the trait of a statement, hypothesis, or theory whereby it could be shown to be false if some conceivable observation were true. In this sense, falsify is synonymous with nullify, meaning not "to commit fraud" but "show to be false".
Originally posted by MysterX
reply to post by boncho
If it's being powered by gravity it's not a free energy machine, nor is it perpetual energy. Every hydro dam out there is the same thing.
Yeah, but you can't build a hydro dam in your backyard...
And if it resulted in cost free or virtually cost free, convenient, safe, clean and reliable source of energy, i don't think people around the world are going to be worrying over the mechanics and operational physics of the machine, or bothered whether it was perpetual motion or not.
These could be scaled down and installed in a garden shed or outbuilding and put anywhere..if it works. Dams are great, but they come with major drawbacks too.
The machines' housing would have to be soundproofed i reckon. Looks like it could be a noisy beggar, wouldn't fancy listening to a town full of those 24 hours a day!
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
to parse it - each "weight" has to produce 1.87kw more energy as it " falls " , than is required to " raise " it the same distance
[ thats over and above any internal losses from friction etc ]
the T&C prohibits the use of the one word that sums this up
Originally posted by Wifibrains
The mechanism reminds me of this....
No, I cannot skip the torque integration... to do so requires an assumption. What I am looking for is a zero summation of torque around the shaft, to match the Conservation of Energy principle.
Truth is that which is always correct. Therefore, the next step is to build an actual working device to see if it will or will not work. I may or may not get to that point, but I at least acknowledge the possibility, however slight, that I may do so.
You fail to examine any possibility of future discovery. If I am driving a car at 60 mph and shoot a bullet in front of the car at 60 mph, the bullet is traveling at 120 mph, right? WRONG! It is traveling at something extremely close to 120 mph, and as those speeds approach 186,000 mph, that tiny minuscule variation becomes substantial. T