Energetic Forum  
Facebook Twitter Google+ Pinterest LinkedIn Delicious Digg Reddit WordPress StumbleUpon Tumblr Translate Addthis Aaron Murakami YouTube 2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE - PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!!

2020 Energy Science & Technology Conference
PRE-REGISTER NOW!!!
http://energyscienceconference.com


Go Back   Energetic Forum > >
   

Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #451  
Old 07-11-2014, 08:20 PM
purelyprimitives's Avatar
purelyprimitives purelyprimitives is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 169
Wow! Impressive build Drak. Well done.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote

Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann
Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets

  #452  
Old 07-11-2014, 09:57 PM
shylo shylo is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 594
Nice

Hi drak, I notice at the 9second mark all the holes in your plate.
Have you found the best locations yet?
Also it seems that about 270* of rev are free falling , the other 90* for input.
Just like pushing the grandkids on a swing.
Nice build wish I had that stuff.
artv
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #453  
Old 07-11-2014, 10:41 PM
Matthew Jones's Avatar
Matthew Jones Matthew Jones is offline
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 2,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by drak View Post
Does anyone know if this type of prony brake is accurate?

The Newman's Machine v2.0 - Towards Free Energy ?

It seems easier to build and use vs Peter's way with the leather strap and I already have all the materials to build it. Naudin says he uses this method http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/pronybrk.gif but I can't read it. I loved Peter's way of explaining how to do the straps step by step. I wish there was a step by step for the way Naudin did it. According to the site the equation he used was: Power (watts) = Couple(Nm) X 2 X Pi X RPM / 60.

What is Couple(Nm) ?

Sorry about the video quality, I'm too lazy to de-interlace. Currently set up for linear, but I have a circular set up I can swap out and am also working on an elliptical. I'll test all three. When I had circular set up it didn't feel too strong but I'd rather do the prony brake method to find out. skinner1

Anyhow, if no one knows much about that type of prony break I'll order the stuff to do it Peters way.

Thanks
I've done it both ways but I like the scale better (Naudins Way)

Matt
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #454  
Old 07-11-2014, 10:58 PM
drak drak is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew Jones View Post
I've done it both ways but I like the scale better (Naudins Way)
Do you know what Couple(Nm) is?

Quote:
Originally Posted by purelyprimitives
Wow! Impressive build Drak. Well done.
Thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shylo
Hi drak, I notice at the 9second mark all the holes in your plate.
Have you found the best locations yet?
Also it seems that about 270* of rev are free falling , the other 90* for input.
Just like pushing the grandkids on a swing.
Nice build wish I had that stuff.
Haven't found best locations yet, that plate is just something I threw together, I'm still trying to figure out if the plate is attached to the bottom shaft and not allowed to change angles or not ("swivel"), or maybe its attached to the top shaft and not allowed to swivel. Or maybe its as Aaron has showed and they both swivel. By swivel I don't mean spin, I mean does the plate stay perpendicular to one of the shafts. I'm slowly reconstructing a part of his build in blender to see how the plate moves vs the other shafts. And to watch the motion of both weights, I think it would be interesting to see, I just wish a professional was doing it. Its hard to match everything up considering the lens on the camera is kinda "fish-eyed". skinnerblender

Its still work in slow progress.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #455  
Old 07-11-2014, 10:58 PM
bobo bobo is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2
Couple is frech for torque, measure in Newton meters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drak View Post
Does anyone know if this type of prony brake is accurate?

The Newman's Machine v2.0 - Towards Free Energy ?

It seems easier to build and use vs Peter's way with the leather strap and I already have all the materials to build it. Naudin says he uses this method http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/pronybrk.gif but I can't read it. I loved Peter's way of explaining how to do the straps step by step. I wish there was a step by step for the way Naudin did it. According to the site the equation he used was: Power (watts) = Couple(Nm) X 2 X Pi X RPM / 60.

What is Couple(Nm) ?

Sorry about the video quality, I'm too lazy to de-interlace. Currently set up for linear, but I have a circular set up I can swap out and am also working on an elliptical. I'll test all three. When I had circular set up it didn't feel too strong but I'd rather do the prony brake method to find out. skinner1

Anyhow, if no one knows much about that type of prony break I'll order the stuff to do it Peters way.

Thanks
Hello, as far as I now is couple french for torque, measured in Newton meters. Will make a replica as soon as my health get's better.
Bobo
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #456  
Old 07-12-2014, 01:41 AM
goldpro goldpro is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 36
Drak:

Great build you've done there.
Looks like that took quite a while to make.
Good idea using the plexiglass so we can see through it.

It looks like when the tip of the input lever rod is all the way over
to one side in it's oscillation, that the top weight is lined up with it all the way over on the same side.
I don't think that will produce any "whipping" action.
It seems like it's "pushing" the lower weight around.

On the translation coupler plate-maybe if you move the tip of the input lever rod into another hole farther away from the lower shaft it may work better.
Keeping the tip, weight and shaft in the 90* arrangement like skinner did
will help that motion I think.

You're using the linear method like Dave Q used.
During start up, does the lower weight eventually start to turn when the timing between the input lever and lower weight coordinates itself like Dave Q showed in his video?

Thanks for your efforts.

Tom
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #457  
Old 07-12-2014, 04:24 AM
drak drak is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by goldpro View Post
You're using the linear method like Dave Q used.
During start up, does the lower weight eventually start to turn when the timing between the input lever and lower weight coordinates itself like Dave Q showed in his video?
Dave never had the lower weight connected when he let it start on its own, only the top weight. If I set it up like Dave did, (the top weight fixed, unable to swivel, from the plate holding the weight) the top weight will start as long as the frequency of the input is at the correct speed. If it is slower then a certain speed it will start on it's own, but if it is too fast it will just stay in the same position. But that is assuming the top shaft is not allowed to swivel around the "mystery connection plate". Fixed but allowed to spin. If I make the input spin to fast, the top weight will not fall in sync and will just jump up and down. Here is a video example. (I didn't expect the weight to fall off at the end, it was being held on by friction) skinner2
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #458  
Old 07-12-2014, 10:56 AM
shylo shylo is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 594
Hi drak, I tried to load a slow mo clip of the upper weight and plate, but it say's invalid link?
I,m seeing the plate is always slightly tilted towards the heavy upper weight, that is where the lower shaft is connected is always the highest part of the plate. The more you accelerate the less drastic the tilt becomes.
Because of this constantly changing tilt the lower shaft has to be able to swivel.( but not rotate)
I'm not sure about the upper , but looking at your clip seems right, still trying to figure out how you made that joint.
I do believe for proper operation we will need all four, working on two right now.
artv
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #459  
Old 07-12-2014, 10:55 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 11,005
@Drak - translation coupler placement

Quote:
Originally Posted by drak View Post
Dave never had the lower weight connected when he let it start on its own, only the top weight. If I set it up like Dave did, (the top weight fixed, unable to swivel, from the plate holding the weight) the top weight will start as long as the frequency of the input is at the correct speed. If it is slower then a certain speed it will start on it's own, but if it is too fast it will just stay in the same position. But that is assuming the top shaft is not allowed to swivel around the "mystery connection plate". Fixed but allowed to spin. If I make the input spin to fast, the top weight will not fall in sync and will just jump up and down. Here is a video example. (I didn't expect the weight to fall off at the end, it was being held on by friction) skinner2
Drak,

Great job putting that together!

I just want to comment on what I saw in your video.

The "translation coupler" plate... from top view you are rotating it counter clockwise in some parts of the video, but in Skinner's he goes clockwise - you also go cw in this video early on: skinner2

You have the weight in the proper place for clockwise movement.

Your lever is where the lower shaft should go - if it is moving in cw rotation, then move the input lever to the other side of the plate.

................................SHAFT



LEVER .................................................. ....NOTHING



................................WEIGHT


That is the top view of how it should be - those are the 4 points of the square. Forget about the ............'s - that is just to keep those
words out there without them defaulting to left align.

Right now, your lever is where the shaft is - move it to the left where LEVER is shown.

Then you're all set for the CW rotation.

I hope that helps.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #460  
Old 07-13-2014, 12:42 AM
Danny B Danny B is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 4,848
inertia and floating weights

After looking at these machines, it appears that one must build a device that wants to shake itself apart. The Milkovic oscillator qualifies. Skinner's device looks like a shaker. I built the Ramos device. It uses full circles and has it's imbalance in the walking beam that connects the discs. The "lollipop" looking weight that he added is definitely a shaker.
Ucros avoids discs and builds with half-circles. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW1TSFkm25Y
Skinner and Milkovic use "float" between weights. Ramos and Ukros have fixed connections. Ramos runs loose belts on his drive motor and that may allow some float.
There is another possible configuration that allows float. Terawatt runs nested weights that appear to float. They call it an oscillator.
Oscillator on Shaft 2
They also run a magnetic coupler to drive the second shaft.
Magnetic Drive / Magnetic Torque and Speed Enhancement Device
I've seen a pic somewhere of the mags. I recall that they were transverse mounted cylindrical mags. They didn't appear to have near the "hookup" that the mags on the Hatem device have . I built that device also. It takes a lot of strength to force the wheels to "skip" a position.

Bruce Depalma had this to say; "Pendula utilizing bob weights which are rotating, swing non-sinusoidally with time
periods increased over pendula with non-rotating bobs."
Spinning Ball Experiment
DePalma also claimed that inertia was a function of space, not of mass.
DePalma, Free Energy, Anti-Gravity, Space-Drive and the Future of Science

"Bruce DePalma's primary contribution to Science is the discovery that "Inertia is not a property of Mass. Inertia is a property of Space, and Space confers its Inertia on the Masses that occupy it". He further discovered that the Inertial Field of Space can be polarized simply by rotating an object."
Free Energy | Bruce DePalma

"Inertia is a property of space" Seems pretty hard to rationalize. There is an effect that I can't reference at the moment. Let's say that it takes 300 watts to spin a given object up to a given speed. If you stop the object and then RE-SPIN it up to speed, it only takes 30 watts. You must re-spin it withing 1 minute? of the halt.
That seems to tie in with the characteristics of a pulse motor. "An object in motion tends to remain in motion." Does "space" add the energy if you pulse an object? If your bob weights move irregularly, does "space" try to smooth out the movement?
Skinner and Milkovic allow bob-weights to move at the rate that they choose in a DIFFERENT plane-orbit that the primary driven weight.
DePalma, ""Pendula utilizing bob weights which are rotating, swing
non-sinusoidally with time periods increased"
This implies that additional energy is entering the system. If space does indeed contribute to inertia of a rotating objects, one needs to fine-tune the rates of rotation.
Chas Cambell has done quite a bit of work on his device to get the various rotations in the best relationship.

At a guess, I would say that Skinner started out with concentric bob weights on his device. I'm sure that he tried a lot of speeds and combinations.
Milkovic tried LOTS of different combinations.
By looking at the painted/unpainted parts of the Ramos device, it looks like he added heavier discs as he went on. These are balanced. He increased the unbalanced weight with the lollipop device. I suspect that he would have had better results if he had lowered his speed and increased the weight of the walking beam relative to the weight of the discs.

Everybody is discovering flywheels. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTLLnUOPOQk
It seems like the best results occur when the secondary weight is floating relative to the primary weight.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #461  
Old 07-13-2014, 03:53 PM
drak drak is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aaron View Post
The "translation coupler" plate... from top view you are rotating it counter clockwise in some parts of the video, but in Skinner's he goes clockwise - you also go cw in this video early on: skinner2
I was just playing around in that video. But you are right I forgot to move the weight in line with the top lever. I actually just took the plate from the previous video and flipped it over to show goldpro it starting on its own. I've made three different "translation coupler"s so far just trying stuff and will probably make more in the future.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #462  
Old 07-13-2014, 04:01 PM
drak drak is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 271
I was really hoping someone would jump on and post a little help with the prony brake method that naudin used.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #463  
Old 07-14-2014, 01:38 AM
i_ron i_ron is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny B View Post
snip... There is an effect that I can't reference at the moment. Let's say that it takes 300 watts to spin a given object up to a given speed. If you stop the object and then RE-SPIN it up to speed, it only takes 30 watts. You must re-spin it withing 1 minute? of the halt... snip
t.
The Aspden Effect (Harold Aspden)

LECTURE NO. 30

Ron
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #464  
Old 07-14-2014, 08:17 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 11,005
Gravity, Inertia and Aether

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny B View Post
Bruce Depalma had this to say; "Pendula utilizing bob weights which are rotating, swing non-sinusoidally with time
periods increased over pendula with non-rotating bobs."
Spinning Ball Experiment
DePalma also claimed that inertia was a function of space, not of mass.
DePalma, Free Energy, Anti-Gravity, Space-Drive and the Future of Science

"Bruce DePalma's primary contribution to Science is the discovery that "Inertia is not a property of Mass. Inertia is a property of Space, and Space confers its Inertia on the Masses that occupy it". He further discovered that the Inertial Field of Space can be polarized simply by rotating an object."
Free Energy | Bruce DePalma

"Inertia is a property of space" Seems pretty hard to rationalize. There is an effect that I can't reference at the moment. Let's say that it takes 300 watts to spin a given object up to a given speed. If you stop the object and then RE-SPIN it up to speed, it only takes 30 watts. You must re-spin it withing 1 minute? of the halt.
That seems to tie in with the characteristics of a pulse motor. "An object in motion tends to remain in motion." Does "space" add the energy if you pulse an object? If your bob weights move irregularly, does "space" try to smooth out the movement?
Quote:
Originally Posted by i_ron View Post
The Aspden Effect (Harold Aspden)

LECTURE NO. 30

Ron
These DePalma studies are very important. The "Aspden Effect" was known before Harold Aspden discussed this.

Space has a memory effect where you entrain a certain pathway - can be done with mechanically moving wheels, electrical discharges, etc...

DePalma did a test with some swinging machines and after a while, they synchronized with each other because of this spacial entrainment. This kind of synchronization is completely different than the demonstration of multiple pendulums on a floating platform where they all synchronize.

Essentially, space itself is turning into a type of localized temporary electret but it doesn't last very long after the motion stops before everything is returned to equilibrium. I think if there as a gargantuan size rotor spinning at ridiculous speed, the effect would last a lot longer.

My particular gravitational model actually accounts for every result in DePalma's tests and simplifies the understanding of the "inertial properties of space". That was all developed before I ever read DePalma's work. It was confirmed to me by a very close associate of DePalma's.

When I said that the downward moving gravitational potential aether encounters a spinning mass, the movement of the mass will deflect some of that aether outward - thereby reducing the full gravitational push and increasing the centrifugal push.

This is exactly what is happening in the Faraday Dynamo:

As the disk is spun, regardless of its position to the downward push of the gravitational potential, the aether is deflected towards the perimeter of the wheel thereby causing a potential difference between its center (low potential) and perimeter (high potential). As that moving aetheric potential cuts through the magnetic "lines of flux", you get current.

If you take a piece of paper and spin it and drop paint on it, it will kick that paint outwards - that is exactly what the Faraday Dynamo is - all in compliance with fluid dynamic principles.

All inertia is imparted to an object by the aether it is moving through.



The faster an object goes, the more aetheric resistance it encounters per unit of time.

The faster an object moves, the more aetheric resistance it encounters per unit of time, which mimics high gravity. The more aether it encounters per unit of time, with a RATE OF CHANGE, there is a repulsion against the mass of the object, which resists its movement.

Inertia is an electrostatic type equivelant of back emf, which opposes the forward movement of mass through the aether when there is a rate of change.

That rate of change creates a potential difference throughout the mass itself. When the mass is moving at steady speed, there is no rate of change and therefore no more potential difference and therefore no inertia because there is no electrostatic "back emf" effect against the mass from the aether.

This is why all inertia is simply the effect of the aether - the positive source charge imparting an electrostatic type repulsion against the protons in the mass of the object so it comes from outside the object and is not an intrinsic property of mass itself.

As the Skinner machine's lower weight is up to speed, there is no inertia because it is at a constant speed (no rate of change) to induce the effect that is equivelant to back emf (inertia).

While up to speed, it certainly is entraining the aether in its own localized space. But I'm not so sure that it increases the amount of gravitational potential being deflected by the mass into centrifugal force at any given time.

However, with sharp gradients, things change. Although the lower weight is spinning at an almost constant speed, it still is asymmetrical. That does mean that it's position in any space during its travel is periodic so maybe it is acting as a disruptive gradient that pulls in more gravitational potential to deflect it to centrifugal more than normal. Maybe it is even creating a spiraling of the aether in that local area around the whole path of the lower weight and that introduces a whole other set of dynamics if anything like that was going on.

__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #465  
Old 07-14-2014, 09:44 PM
bobo bobo is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 2
Wow, got to rethink my rethinking.
bobo
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #466  
Old 07-14-2014, 11:10 PM
ZeroMassInertia ZeroMassInertia is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Burgettstown Pa.
Posts: 55
A Rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #467  
Old 07-15-2014, 03:26 AM
Danny B Danny B is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 4,848
Low spped and heavy

Ron, thanks for the reminder. Aaron, thanks for the explanation. Aspden said that the effect would occur no matter which direction the motor revolved upon restart. This does indeed sound like a conditioning effect. The conditioning of space seems to be a short term effect if the pause can only be about 1 minute. Some time ago, I read a paper explaining that: if you take a mechanical watch that does not keep good time,, and put it in a drawer with watches that DO keep good time,,, it will self correct. Does space try to harmonize movement/inertia? Does space try to add energy to smooth out sharp gradients? Does our planetary gravity and/or magnetic fields try to harmonize electrical or mechanical gradients?
Why did John Bedini name one variant of his motors, the G field motor? ( gravity field)
Howard Johnson has what appears to be a VERY big Faraday disc;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMYo1QlvK5g
It to, is a low speed device. Jim Watson built a very heavy, low speed device.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #468  
Old 07-16-2014, 04:14 AM
Danny B Danny B is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 4,848
Questions on mass

I'm not trying to cause thread drift but, this question of mass seems very important. Tesla, Colorado Springs appeared to be a spindly affair. When Tesla built at Wardenclyffe, he put 60 tons of mass at the top of the tower. The new Russian effort will only require 2 tons. For a single coil SSG, JB specified 10 golf cart batteries. Later, he didn't mention big banks but, he did say that big battery banks acted very differently than small banks. He has stayed away from mass. His ferris wheel didn't weigh much.
JB always promoted sharp gradients. Milosevic and Ramos have gradients. Skinner works with eccentricity of masses. If space confers inertia on moving mass, does it go up lineally or does it cube? when mass doubles.
Depalma, "something spinning of an ethereal nature coextensive with the machine rotor. That 'something' has an effective mass density 20 times that of the rotor, but it is something that can spin independently and take several minutes to decay,"
Hmmm, 20 times the mass of the rotor. So, what does the weight on the Tesla tower actually do? I believe that Sumaruck was using eccentric wheels;
Peter Sumaruck Agrees to Design a Mobile Genset for the U.S. Army | Zero Amp Technology
Skinner built his device fairly large. Maybe, the effect doesn't show much with a small scale.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #469  
Old 07-16-2014, 06:53 PM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 11,005
lower impedance batteries, rotating mass and scale

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny B View Post
I'm not trying to cause thread drift but, this question of mass seems very important.

For a single coil SSG, JB specified 10 golf cart batteries. Later, he didn't mention big banks but, he did say that big battery banks acted very differently than small banks. He has stayed away from mass. His ferris wheel didn't weigh much.

Depalma, "something spinning of an ethereal nature coextensive with the machine rotor. That 'something' has an effective mass density 20 times that of the rotor, but it is something that can spin independently and take several minutes to decay,"

Skinner built his device fairly large. Maybe, the effect doesn't show much with a small scale.
With the SSG, the large battery banks are primarily because of the very low impedance. You want the resistance of the batteries to be as low as possible to offer as little resistance as possible to the discharge. Any resistance offers back-pressure and the resulting peak amperage impulse is lower. It becomes a totally different machine when using large lower impedance batteries compared to smaller batteries with higher impedance. That is why it is important to use big fat wires, etc...

With a 12v 12ah garden battery on the back end receiving the comparator cap dumps, the peak impulse current is about 75 amps - just by putting a 12v 35ah deep cycle on the back end (perfectly matched for the 7 transistor SSG close to the c20 rate), the peak impulse current is about 85 amps - at the same cap voltage. So you're looking at roughly 1650 watt peak impulse to the output battery vs 1870 watts just by lowering the impedence of the back battery - that alone is about a 12% increase in impulse power.

If you put a small 12v 7ah gel cell on the back, you offer too much impedance and the machine can slow down because it is holding in too much back pressure - you'll see this if you're charging with spikes instead of cap dumps. That is because you're putting a potato in the tailpipe. Electricity is a pressurized gas and the SG is an oscillating gas pump - not an analogy, that literally is what the SG is.

--------------

When a rotor is spinning, in addition to the regular forces involved, we have the interaction with the aether - the rotor is deflecting the aether towards the perimeter creating a gradient between the center and edge. If you took that rotor while spinning and moved it in a direction as if it were a bicycle wheel, it can actually move with some of the inertia cancelled. It can accelerate faster than normal and go further with the same input energy - if the rotor is spinning.

If we have a rotor spinning so it is vertical axis and lift it in the direction of the axis - as if a round flying saucer was on the ground and it goes straight up in the air like this:


If it was spinning, inertia is partially cancelled and it can also get to speed quicker, etc.

This is identical to the spinning ball experiment of DePalma - this $50 experiment flushes relativity down the drain - as do countless other experiments.

Anyway, this is the identical action of a gyroscope if it is moved in line with the axis or 90 to the axis where the wheel is moving in the direction of its own flat plane.

Inertia is partially cancelled because since there is that gradient produced and less aether per mass is available towards the center of the object, then that which causes inertia is reduced for part of the mass. It isn't just deflected to the edge to where the same amount is there, there is a deflection off of the mass itself near the perimeter too - not all, but some.

Things change if we actually tilt the wheel, gyroscope or rotor - the densified aether (just because aether can become "denser" - that is not the same as aether being "incompressible) on the face of the rotor towards the perimeter is being pushed against offering resistance to that movement. Or at least, that is how we can directly physically experience that densified "something" that is moving independently of the rotor.

If we look at the saucer on the ground and it goes up, that deflected aether is going to push off the face equally all around around and under it creating a lower pressure zone above meaning it can move up with less resistance. If it was in the air and was spinning fast and came down, same thing - as it moves down, it deflects it around itself and on top of it meaning it can move down towards the ground at negative resistance since it is being pushed from the top. That is how DePalma's spinning ball goes up quicker and higher and comes down faster and further than the non spinning ball.

With the gyroscope tilting, not only are we pushing one edge of the flat face leading in one direction but simultaneously the opposite edge 180 degrees away is doing the same thing in the opposite direction. We no longer have a increase on one side and a decrease on the other side, we have a situation where where there is an equilibrium on both sides so there is no asymmetrical tendency and it tries to keep it from tilting. It is asymmetrical on each side of their own but together with two sides, it is symmetrical. When we feel that, that is not just the "forces", but we are pushing against densified aether at two opposing parts of the wheel on opposite faces. That is the simplest way for anyone to physically feel the reality of it.

When a build is too small, losses are greater in % and although the calculations are all proportionate, the way they perform in reality are not the same as bigger devices. You can have a small roller skate SG, but you don't see the tremendous results until you scale it up. With something mechanical, if we have a little BB compared to a bowling ball, they are following the same natural principles if they're rolled across the ground, but friction will be a higher % loss for the smaller one compared to the larger one - even if we put in the same input energy per unit of mass to get them rolling. Roll them both on a carpet and lets see how fair it is to show what the bb does and claim it represents what the bowling ball does.

There is just a threshold where mass has to at least be enough to be able to have some significant momentum - otherwise, it is not really a fair test to measure the small machines and compare that to the claims of a full size Skinner machine. Small machines are fine for working out mechanisms and learning how it operates, etc... but not for practical input vs output tests. They can only be compared to other machines of similar size and that is about it, if we want to stay honest about it.

If scale doesn't matter as some have claimed here that it is an excuse often used by some builders in this field, then we should be able to study gravitational attraction using two apples floating in a space station and they should perform the same as two stars but they don't. In principle, they will be pushed together like the two stars, but the effect is so feeble, it will not be measurable. The argument is no different for testing smaller prototype models compared to larger machines.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #470  
Old 07-18-2014, 04:19 AM
Danny B Danny B is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 4,848
shutteling inertia

Peter has a vid that seems appropriate to the Skinner device.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KtYFEqRs94
Compare Milkovic to Constantinesco;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9e2y-5DMNc
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #471  
Old 07-18-2014, 06:57 PM
turbogt16v turbogt16v is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 9
its been a long time to see that amount of stupidity in one video,
thank for video i feel smart now
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #472  
Old 07-20-2014, 01:42 PM
velacreations velacreations is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 248
has anyone actually reproduced a machine that performs COP > 1.0?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #473  
Old 07-20-2014, 04:43 PM
Peter Lindemann Peter Lindemann is offline
Gold Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Liberty Lake, Washington
Posts: 1,192
Gravitational Torque Amplifier

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny B View Post
Peter has a vid that seems appropriate to the Skinner device.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9KtYFEqRs94
Compare Milkovic to Constantinesco;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9e2y-5DMNc
Hi Danny, et al,

I would like to bring a little more clarity to your references here. First of all, I have never used the term "shuttling inertia" so I don't know how that might be done. Second, the film showing me discussing the "mechanical amplifier" ideas was a side conversation at our 2013 conference, and was posted by the person who filmed it. This is not one of "my films".

Third, the ability of a machine to access an environmental input to raise the mechanical output with respect to the input provided by the USER is well established in science. That various people believe it or not is a reflection of their knowledge base and prior interest in these matters.

My specific references in the film concern the work by Jim Murray and his Gravitational Torque Amplifier which has demonstrated the effects I sited in actual bench tests. Here is a short clip where Jim discusses some of his work in this field.

Gravitational Torque Amplifier

There are other threads in this forum that discuss Jim Murray's work. I post this here simply to clarify the comments I made in the linked film and to rebut the sarcastic remarks of those less informed in this line of research.

Best regards,
Peter
Reply With Quote
  #474  
Old 07-21-2014, 11:55 PM
shylo shylo is offline
Silver Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 594
the weights

Hi All, The upper weight throws the lower around, if I spin an upper weight always on an upward terjectury sp....it will always want to fall.Centrifugal force will always keep it the highest.
Connected to an offset plate, the lower shaft always moves in an orbit ,in realation to the upper. That it is always going to the point of gravity.Fallen
Also I put magnets on the lower weight and they seem to slide down and find their own location.
The heavier the weights ,takes more to get going,but once going , ?
The machine is complicated, but the weights are the key, I think.
artv
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #475  
Old 07-22-2014, 01:35 AM
Netica's Avatar
Netica Netica is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by shylo View Post
Hi All, The upper weight throws the lower around, if I spin an upper weight always on an upward terjectury sp....it will always want to fall.Centrifugal force will always keep it the highest.
Connected to an offset plate, the lower shaft always moves in an orbit ,in realation to the upper. That it is always going to the point of gravity.Fallen
Also I put magnets on the lower weight and they seem to slide down and find their own location.
The heavier the weights ,takes more to get going,but once going , ?
The machine is complicated, but the weights are the key, I think.
artv


Hi Shylo,

The way I am understanding it at the moment by what I can see (without building), is that by the way the middle transition plate is connected to everything -

1 - When the larger lower weights spin with respect to the centrifugal action, it wants to pull the upper weight forward (a twisting action on the transition plate) causing the center of gravity to move forward.

2 - Also when there is a load placed on the lower weights it will have the same effect where by the upper weight will be more forward as the lower weight is held back by the load, causing the center of gravity to move forward.

3 - The forward motion of the top input shaft wants to move the upper weight forward moving the center of gravity forward.

It seems that the forces acting on this machine are designed to always move the center of gravity forward, as best as I can see it at the moment at least.

netica
__________________
 

Last edited by Netica; 07-22-2014 at 03:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #476  
Old 07-22-2014, 03:04 AM
Danny B Danny B is online now
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: L.A. Ca.
Posts: 4,848
I'm still trying to get my head around the Aspden effect. If the encountered mass acts like it has 20 times the mass of the rotor, it doesn't seem like it is elemental matter. It isn't Neutronium,,, to light. I believe that the electron is a likely candidate.
"As in the Drude model, valence electrons are assumed to be completely detached from their ions (forming an electron gas)"
Free electron model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If the Drude model is correct, there are a lot of free electrons whizzing around in conductive metal. If they respond to centrifugal force, there would be a dense electron gas at the outermost surface of the rotating metal disc. This gas would be bound inside the disc because there aren't enough nuclei in the air for them to escape.
electromagnetism - Why do surfaces act like barriers for electrons? - Physics Stack Exchange Apparently, the Faraday disc has a charge differential proportional to the action of centrifugal force on the electrons. The electrons move very slowly but, the charge moves at c.
"When a DC voltage is applied the electrons will increase in speed proportional to the strength of the electric field. These speeds are on the order of millimeters per hour." Wiki
So, apparently the electron gas flows to the surface of the Faraday disc. More mass equals more amperage. The Winshurst is low mass and low amperage.
Is anybody going to tell me why Tesla had 60 tons of metal up on his tower?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #477  
Old 07-22-2014, 06:28 AM
Aaron's Avatar
Aaron Aaron is offline
Co-Founder & Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Washington State
Posts: 11,005
DePalma reference?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny B View Post
I'm still trying to get my head around the Aspden effect. If the encountered mass acts like it has 20 times the mass of the rotor, it doesn't seem like it is elemental matter. It isn't Neutronium,,, to light. I believe that the electron is a likely candidate.
"As in the Drude model, valence electrons are assumed to be completely detached from their ions (forming an electron gas)"
Free electron model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If the Drude model is correct, there are a lot of free electrons whizzing around in conductive metal. If they respond to centrifugal force, there would be a dense electron gas at the outermost surface of the rotating metal disc. This gas would be bound inside the disc because there aren't enough nuclei in the air for them to escape.
electromagnetism - Why do surfaces act like barriers for electrons? - Physics Stack Exchange Apparently, the Faraday disc has a charge differential proportional to the action of centrifugal force on the electrons. The electrons move very slowly but, the charge moves at c.
"When a DC voltage is applied the electrons will increase in speed proportional to the strength of the electric field. These speeds are on the order of millimeters per hour." Wiki
So, apparently the electron gas flows to the surface of the Faraday disc. More mass equals more amperage. The Winshurst is low mass and low amperage.
Is anybody going to tell me why Tesla had 60 tons of metal up on his tower?
Danny,

Where is the reference in DePalma's work to the "20 times density" of the rotor?

I don't know that the Drude Electron Gas are electrons "completely detached". It seems that they are more like "jiggling" around in their own location and are definitely not "zipping" anywhere around the metal. The rate of movement is is a snails pace like you quote. They jump around from one atom to the next to the next and right behind them are electrons that do the same so no atom is really void of that electron very long before another one fills its spot. Of course this is just one model, but it is the model that makes the most sense to me. And it also does not have to mean that electron current is the real electricity but is just what kills the source dipole.

Centrifugal force is the dielectric medium (aether) being deflected outwards like the spiral art paintings and on their way out, they are imparting an electrostatic repulsion against the protons of the mass of the material of the spinning rotor and that is what the centrifugal force appears to be - it is what pushes on the mass of the material in the outwards direction. So I would think any electrons on the metal would most likely migrate towards the axis of the spinning rotor.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Reply With Quote
  #478  
Old 07-23-2014, 04:44 PM
jabrinka's Avatar
jabrinka jabrinka is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 2
watching this thread with much interest... nice work you guys.. one thing regarding terminology.. the word inertia is use in this thread to express what I would term momentum. the root of inertia being inert that of momentum/moment... I' m just sayin... best to all Ja
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #479  
Old 07-23-2014, 08:53 PM
wings wings is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 216
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny B View Post
I'm still trying to get my head around the Aspden effect. If the encountered mass acts like it has 20 times the mass of the rotor, it doesn't seem like it is elemental matter. It isn't Neutronium,,, to light. I believe that the electron is a likely candidate.
"As in the Drude model, valence electrons are assumed to be completely detached from their ions (forming an electron gas)"
Free electron model - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If the Drude model is correct, there are a lot of free electrons whizzing around in conductive metal. If they respond to centrifugal force, there would be a dense electron gas at the outermost surface of the rotating metal disc. This gas would be bound inside the disc because there aren't enough nuclei in the air for them to escape.
electromagnetism - Why do surfaces act like barriers for electrons? - Physics Stack Exchange Apparently, the Faraday disc has a charge differential proportional to the action of centrifugal force on the electrons. The electrons move very slowly but, the charge moves at c.
"When a DC voltage is applied the electrons will increase in speed proportional to the strength of the electric field. These speeds are on the order of millimeters per hour." Wiki
So, apparently the electron gas flows to the surface of the Faraday disc. More mass equals more amperage. The Winshurst is low mass and low amperage.
Is anybody going to tell me why Tesla had 60 tons of metal up on his tower?
Aspden effect just a feeling related to electrons spin alignment due to magnetic flux :
1-Barnet effect :
In 1915 S. J. Barnett3
observed that a body of any substance (initially unmagnetized) set into rotation becomes the seat of a uniform intrinsic magnetic field parallel to the axis of rotation, and proportional to the angular velocity.
Gravitomagnetic Barnett Effect C.J. de Matos ESA ... - arXiv

2-Eisten de Haas effect :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEfDvUAc0qM
http://ilyam.org/proc2005/14_Einstei..._IYPT_2005.pdf

current due to spin alignment on Faraday disc?
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
  #480  
Old 07-24-2014, 03:43 AM
h2ocommuter's Avatar
h2ocommuter h2ocommuter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Fresno Ca,
Posts: 147
Send a message via Skype™ to h2ocommuter
Looking at the G Factor

Quote:
Originally Posted by shylo View Post
Hi All, The upper weight throws the lower around, if I spin an upper weight always on an upward terjectury sp....it will always want to fall.Centrifugal force will always keep it the highest.
Connected to an offset plate, the lower shaft always moves in an orbit ,in realation to the upper. That it is always going to the point of gravity
Quote:
Originally Posted by Netica View Post
Hi Shylo,

The way I am understanding it at the moment by what I can see (without building), is that by the way the middle transition plate is connected to everything -

1 - When the larger lower weights spin with respect to the centrifugal action, it wants to pull the upper weight forward (a twisting action on the transition plate) causing the center of gravity to move forward.

2 - Also when there is a load placed on the lower weights it will have the same effect where by the upper weight will be more forward as the lower weight is held back by the load, causing the center of gravity to move forward.

3 - The forward motion of the top input shaft wants to move the upper weight forward moving the center of gravity forward.

It seems that the forces acting on this machine are designed to always move the center of gravity forward, as best as I can see it at the moment at least.

netica

I agree with you both that the weights are mainly guides for the weight to follow.
That is the way I see it. this machine is sure a brain teaser

I believe you both are thinking about it in the kinetic state. "Motion and force" I think the top weight is mainly to lift the bottom weight. The rotational speed is predicated on getting these two weights in balance. It is like setting a maximum rpm for any engine. Too Fast and it will come apart because it is not perfectly balanced. even highly fine tuned electric no friction balancing included.

So really to me it seems to get energy out of this machine the rpm of the lower weight needs to be some value over and above the input value.
So Using values such as Jewels, Watts, Calories, or HP for this calculation. The output must be greater in value than the input.
I have a guy working on some math for me about the dynamics of the slope of the bottom weight. This will give me That value. If I have chosen the correct weight to have on the lower fulcrum This will give me more energy Out than In. I know it sounds like I am over simplifying it but This math guy is Not going to let me slip up on any calculations in that department.

Anyways, thanks for the thoughts about how the weight is encouraged to move forward.
__________________
 
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
1939, 1939 gravity power, energy, force, free energy, gravity, gravity power, lift, overunity, power, weight, william f skinner, william skinner, skinner, william

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

Choose your voluntary subscription

For one-time donations, please use the below button.


All times are GMT. The time now is 03:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v1.4.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Shoutbox provided by vBShout v6.2.8 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
2007-2015 Copyright - Energetic Forum - All Rights Reserved

Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

Tesla Chargers