Mikhail Dmitriyev - Input 1000 W, Output near 3000 W.

[drak]

I see 1500 watts on the meter is that the input ? Because if it is it means very
little. If the 1500 watts is the output then why show the heater power rating ?

The rating on the heater is for maximum heat setting the minimum setting will be
less, probably less than half of the rated power. Also the grinder spinning with
no load should use much less than the rated power.

What is needed is the output energy dissipated, and the input energy in real time.

There is no way I can see to know what is what in that video.

Cheers

@Farmhand

I'm with you on all of those questions. I've studied this and thought about it for 4 days now and I have a guy who will go in half the cost if I decide to replicate this. I'm trying to do the math in my head. Why didn't he use a separate motor to kick the weights out, that way he could get an accurate input/output measurement. He has also been building these things for a while now, why would he keep going bigger if the concept didn't work on a small scale? or did it?

Using a little bit of energy to kick a little weight out to the side by a little bit yet it falls very far. I am trying to work out if size matters in this case. In all logic it shouldn't, right? What are your thoughts on the overall concept Farmhand? You think this device has "potential"? Do you believe in gravity wheels?

[soundiceuk]

@Farmhand

I'm with you on all of those questions. I've studied this and thought about it for 4 days now and I have a guy who will go in half the cost if I decide to replicate this. I'm trying to do the math in my head. Why didn't he use a separate motor to kick the weights out, that way he could get an accurate input/output measurement. He has also been building these things for a while now, why would he keep going bigger if the concept didn't work on a small scale? or did it?

Using a little bit of energy to kick a little weight out to the side by a little bit yet it falls very far. I am trying to work out if size matters in this case. In all logic it shouldn't, right? What are your thoughts on the overall concept Farmhand? You think this device has "potential"? Do you believe in gravity wheels?

Hi Drak, I am willing to contribute financially to your project. I also have two new bearings with 20mm inside diameter spare.

http://budgetbearings.co.uk/shop/pro...ducts_id=21006

I do not expect anything in return.

I believe the math involves quantum physics, so good luck with that.

You can add a motor to kick the weights out and also use a magnet/s to assist. Mikhail has already done this on a previous version.

Imagine a torque wrench.

The longer the wrench the less effort you have to put on it too apply the same torque.

Therefore if a 1m diameter wheel has 100kg it will not produce as much torque as a 2m diameter wheel.


In Mikhail's website texts he talks about gravity as if it is water flowing to earth. I will dig this out when I have time.

The gravity wheel is like pair of old scales, the centre of gravity is constantly moved from the centre, so it is continually tipping.

The bike tyre is not only deflecting the weights, it is also putting them in a state of weightlessness after they have bounced off the tyre. I don't think this is going to be easy to calculate.

[soundiceuk]

Another idea I have is to use a starter motor / flywheel to get the wheel in motion. Very easily available and not too expensive.

Probably a bit safer than trying to turn it by hand

[soundiceuk]

I see the device operating mechanically like a microphone & speaker.

As the speaker feeds back into the microphone it repeats and gets louder.

Only difference is the centrifugal force keeps the wheel in a state of equilibrium, therefore the wheel has a maximum speed.

[drak]

Thanks sounddiceuk, I think I have most of what I would need just to test this theory so I shouldn't need any financial help. Still haven't decided one way or another. It could be tested without a million weights, maybe four or so just to see if OU is there. Find the most efficient way to kick the weight out and a small generator on the axle. Measure I/O.

His site from the archives: Gravitational engine

[soundiceuk]

I think you need to study Mikhail's work more closely.

The minimum frequency for self sustaining is 32 deflections. Cannot go to more per wheel as there is no space for deflecting elements to move.

Therefore to increase the amount of weights you are using 32, 64, 96, 128 and building sidewards with more wheels.

Steel / lead is expensive when you start working out the cost of 32 elements. All parts need to be quite accurate too.

[drak]

I think you need to study Mikhail's work more closely.

The minimum frequency for self sustaining is 32 deflections. Cannot go to more per wheel as there is no space for deflecting elements to move.

Therefore to increase the amount of weights you are using 32, 64, 96, 128 and building sidewards with more wheels.

Steel / lead is expensive when you start working out the cost of 32 elements. All parts need to be quite accurate too.

I hadn't had a chance to read over his website in detail yet. I did see where he says:

To create the simplest gravitational amplifier a small number of elements (6, 8, 12) is enough, but for the transition into the oscillation mode it is necessary to increase the number of elements to 32

What does "oscillation mode" mean in this context? What does he mean by the 6, 8, 12? Are you saying that I would need 32 weights for it to even work? I will read the page more carefully.

[Farmhand]

@Farmhand

I'm with you on all of those questions. I've studied this and thought about it for 4 days now and I have a guy who will go in half the cost if I decide to replicate this. I'm trying to do the math in my head. Why didn't he use a separate motor to kick the weights out, that way he could get an accurate input/output measurement. He has also been building these things for a while now, why would he keep going bigger if the concept didn't work on a small scale? or did it?

Using a little bit of energy to kick a little weight out to the side by a little bit yet it falls very far. I am trying to work out if size matters in this case. In all logic it shouldn't, right? What are your thoughts on the overall concept Farmhand? You think this device has "potential"? Do you believe in gravity wheels?

Hi Drak, I don't have enough information to have an opinion other than we need more info. Some people would sell their mother for an idea they believe in.

Some theoretical questions I have got.

What is providing the energy to lift the weights ?

Do the weights fall further "vertically" than they are lifted ?

If the weights fall the same amount as they are lifted then where is the gain ?

If there is free energy then why not show it ?

Where is the free energy shown ?

Can anyone explain exactly without doubt how the wheel is powered ?

What is plugged into what, is there a schematic ?

Lots of questions, any answers ?

I try not to form opinions without sufficient information.

Wiring diagram ?

From what I can gather the motor is connected to the grid and the wheel is
supposed to spin the motor faster than the grid power does and so it starts
to generate.

Where is the evidence of this ?

Cheers

[soundiceuk]

I hadn't had a chance to read over his website in detail yet. I did see where he says:


What does "oscillation mode" mean in this context? What does he mean by the 6, 8, 12? Are you saying that I would need 32 weights for it to even work? I will read the page more carefully.

I believe that this means that a device following the same principles using 6, 8, 12 deflecting elements would increase the amount of torque but only for a set period.

However when using 32 this period becomes infinite until bearing / component failure.


"Oscillation mode" = self sustaining

[soundiceuk]

Sorry about the delayed response, I was away pimping my mother for a new gravity wheel build!!!



What is providing the energy to lift the weights ?

The impact of the deflecting element on the bike tyre filled with compressed air is deflecting the elements.

Do the weights fall further "vertically" than they are lifted ?

I think the fact is that they are in a state of weightlessness for a small timeframe is enough to move the centre of gravity from the centre of the spindle is enough to keep the momentum.

If the weights fall the same amount as they are lifted then where is the gain ?

I think the last answer fits this question too.

If there is free energy then why not show it ?

I believe Mikhail is trying his best to do that.

Explain a better way, we'll get it translated into Russian and post it on his comments.

A way that isn't going to cost him anymore money would obviously be best.

Where is the free energy shown ?

I think the last answer fits this question too.

Can anyone explain exactly without doubt how the wheel is powered ?

What is plugged into what, is there a schematic ?

It definately could do with one.

Lots of questions, any answers ?

I try not to form opinions without sufficient information.

Wiring diagram ?

It definately could do with more info for replicators.

From what I can gather the motor is connected to the grid and the wheel is
supposed to spin the motor faster than the grid power does and so it starts
to generate.

Where is the evidence of this ?

He is acting on feedback to improve his displays, with questions / constructive suggestions he will be able to do this.

[drak]

This page might explain a little more.

How can make it work a perpetual motion machine?

I. Define, for a start, with the source of motive power, input and output devices.

1. The source of the driving force is the Earth's gravitational field, which is similar to the electromotive force (EMF) can be represented as massodvizhuschuyu force (mDS).
This representation is appropriate, because the gravitational field acts on any material object, including those charged. Power of our source mDS unlimited. But to use in practice, we can only the part which will provide the working masses, creating the workflow.

2. Output for all devices of this type is the axis or shaft, mounted in the supports on which they have to rotate and which can be connected to the payload.

3. As an entry must be selected element or elements of the device, the impact of which can alter the shoulders of forces so as to form a resultant torque of the device as a whole.
In our case, these elements are the flip side spokes, pivotally attached to the fixed parts of the spokes of the shaft.


II. In addition, constructive implementation unit should allow the accumulation and preservation of the greatest possible difference between the moments of forces on the right and left sides of the wheel, that is, the presence of elements from the memory effect.

In this device, such an element is joint with emphasis. It should be noted that many inventions to date devices of this type are elements in the structure have (container with liquid accumulated and discharged from different sides of the wheel, for example).

III. Another important omission is all the developers of these devices is a small (insufficient) number of work items (goods on the spokes, filled with liquids, etc.). In this case, a small net moment of forces may be formed, but it is "eating" the friction loss. The maximum value of the resulting torque can be obtained by increasing the number of elements to achieve the value limited by the capacities of the practical implementation of the device.

Not required for this forget operate at a higher power output of a single device at any cost. Because you can get more power parallel connection of smaller devices with lower structural complexity and cost.

IV. God knows who came up with the idea that the wheel of perpetual motion (gravity) can and must rotate at high speed. But this is a misconception firmly established in the concept of how it works

So - basically can not and therefore should not.
Optimal speed mode with loads of HP - Kettlebell operation hours, barely distinguishable from the statics. The speed of rotation of the Ferris wheel is also suitable.

By the way, with a little modernization, it can be converted to a demo version of the giant HP.
By increasing the effective speed resulting torque is reduced, because the wheels on the side where the goods go down, the weight is reduced, and on the other side of the wheel where the goods go up, their weight increases (a manifestation of the inertial mass). The centrifugal forces of goods increases with increasing speed, also have a negative effect on the performance of HP, until the complete violation of his performance.

V. Taking into account the effects of the input device, the static distribution of the forces should form a resulting torque of the device at any time.

In this case, the condition k> 1 (the device over - single mode).
Otherwise, the device will not function.

So, with the requirements and conditions of the gravitational engines (the eternal, of course), we decided.

[Farmhand]

But the deflection of the weights is on the downward moving side, that would
seem to make the downward side lighter than the upward moving side.

The only explanation I can think of is that the deflection adds to the rotation of
the wheel, by flinging the weights sideways it could put rotational force on the
wheel but still have the falling force afterward.

Still I don't think any conclusions can be made by using lights and ratings on the
back of appliances.

The thing to do would be to show the killo Watt meter reading zero with
whatever load is required for it to do that.

Take load off it until the killo watt meter reads zero or very little and see what
load is running with no net input.

I still think the deflection would only be a reflection of energies. But time will
tell. I only put forward my point of view, no one should be put off doing
anything because of what I say.
My point is there is generally a lot of conjecture about how these things might
work, but never much conjecture about why they might be deceptive. And I
don't mean the person making the claim being deceptive, I mean the
"apparent" output of the machine as being deceptive to all who look at it.

Also, I can imagine there are thousands of people spending a lot of money and time
trying to make gravity wheels work well. Probably causes a lot of family
breakups too. The pressure for them to show something that at least might
look like free energy would be great (depending on the circumstances).

Truth is gravity wheels can work. So can motors based on air pressure
variations. But they are not useful. Not so far that I have seen with any
amount of proof or third party verification.

I don't understand how he could expect anyone to believe that demonstration.

Cheers

[drak]

But the deflection of the weights is on the downward moving side, that would
seem to make the downward side lighter than the upward moving side.

Imagine two kids on a see saw. Kid A is further from the fulcrum then kid B. Which kid will be up and which kid will be down. If the weights are further from the axle, then that side will be leveraged down. Don't forget once the weight is pushed out, it cannot come back because it is on a little one way bearing.

[Farmhand]

Yes Drak I see, I was actually addressing the weightlessness comment.

As I said time will tell and the zero reading meter would be better to see.

Cheers

[soundiceuk]

I hadn't fully studied Mikhail's prototype 11.

addition 2. Input with a wheel - YouTube

3:19

As I suspected like in some of his previous prototypes, the deflecting elements have a free swing but only a certain amount of travel.

When the deflecting elements reach the 11 o'clock postion the centrifugal force swings them over into the bike tyre which make them hit a stop.

The weights then fall down and hit another stop.

You can bet Mikhail has worked out the best angles for maximum torque.