Open discussion for projects on this forum.

[Ufopolitics]

Hey UFO,

I have to agree with you that Ron did not build this device exactly as Mr. Hay has drawn it.

Hey Citfta, thanks.

I also agree that moving the pivot point to the left will give more force on the left end of the moving beam. But we need to look at a lot more than that.

If we move the pivot to the left we not only get more force on the end of the moving beam but we also reduce the amount of travel on that end of the beam. So while we have more force we have less travel to make use of.

Well, having a 50/50 split or a 1:1 Ratio...according to math, it is an even force exchange, no increase force.

And, yes, I agree that by extending the weight side we will have less travel distance, but MUCH more force, which could be utilized according our displacement.

Like I have cited before as a real comparison with this, is an ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) and basically the Counterweights versus Piston movements...all very compact and nicely aligned to make a sync rotation of engine main shaft (crankshaft) without any "blank spots" missing in the Blue Print Designs... correct?

Also as I have marked in the drawing the way Mr. Hay has shown the moving beam connected to his generator will waste a lot of the force since the connecting arm is connected to the beam at such a shallow angle. Almost all the downward force is only moving the connecting arm sideways and not contributing to the turning of the generator. This also reduces the amount of movement at the end of the arm. In Ron's build he tried to correct that problem by putting the force of the moving beam straight down to the flywheel and then to the one-way bearings when the flywheel idea proved unworkable.

Kevin has a pretty lousy video on YT (which he shows link to Ron's Video on his comments), where he shows a pretty simple bike wheel which is being rotated by a very small motor as also a lousy small wheel attached to it...however, turning into a force which is so strong it can not be stopped by hand as he does stops the small motor...the video is very poor, the model is shaky and made out of wood... without even a base to stand firmly on floor...but still, we ALL could see what he means by doing it...

You mentioned a timing problem with this device. I am not sure what you mean with that statement. The device is self timing. As the weight of the off balance wheel moves up and down the moving beam also moves up and down in time with the weight movement. You can see that in Ron's video. If you see some way to do that differently then please explain what you meant.

Respectfully,
Carroll

Sure,

It is like any mechanical engineered design, dependable on rotary wheels and shafts where we have reciprocating movements...and again I cite the ICE Example:

Any ICE needs to have a Timing setting, normally by a Timing Chain and sprockets, which needs to be set within a specific range otherwise vehicle will not even start.

I did the CAD below as a fast way to show what I mean...like I wrote, fast and easy rough sketch:



Timing is basically dictated by the wheel weight positioning on the right side of graphic above.

When weight is "falling" down (F1-F2) it implies an opposite force -And MUCH STRONGER- on the short side of the arm. We could say here Gravity Forces are "assisting" through that stage (from 12 o'clock to 6)

But at the same token, when weight is displacing along 12-6 it is adding a weight extension to the longer side.

We then should use this max force in our design, in order to align, timing wise, with our generators exciter-fields strongest point of opposition force.

Now, when the opposite takes place (weight climbing up against G Forces)...or F3-F4, then weight is within arm extension, reducing weight towards center or pivot point, and here we could work it out to be almost a 50-50....and so, here is when we use it accordingly.

As you have noticed, I have not set nothing working on the shorter side...but am pretty sure you would understand we could make another wheel-weight which works in opposition to the one on the right...as also to increase the so short travel.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[i_ron]

Hello Ron,

Nice Machine, actually it seems that you may have build it a while back and now just applied to Kevin's work...maybe a pretty heavy built Engine Hoist or also known as "Cherry Picker"?
snip
Kind Regards

Ufopolitics

Thank you, yes I recycle my builds. You will have seen some of that in my Veljko Milkovic efforts, Fernando Sixtos Ramos work, Skinner models etc It is my "mule"

Ron

[i_ron]

Hi Ron,

Been on the road all day. First chance to catch up. It would be nice if Kevin and/or his supporters would engage in constructive criticism and civil discussion. After all, you did exactly what Les Banki told me to do. That is just build. No thinking. No questions. No discussion. Well I'm sorry, I like to think about my projects first.

You appear to be an excellent constructor and technician. It would be ashamed to waste your efforts. Let's hope Kevin or one of his followers, fans, members or whatever they are called, decide to be helpful.

Good job so far,

bi

Thanks Bi, yes, all Kevin or Les has to do is post a working model, with numbers... simple?

Ron

[i_ron]

Hello Ron,


Ron, If you still can not see what I am referring to...then I could get my CAD and show ALL images Comparing the RATIOS with Highlighted RED Brackets-Measurements in Scale.


Kind Regards


Ufopolitics

The law of the lever is fairly easy to understand, right?

Lets just take the 2:1 example 200 pounds on the right end gives 400 on the short left end BUT at only over half the distance.

You have to include the distance travelled.

200 pounds over 4 inches is the same product as 400 pounds over 2 inches.

Ron

[citfta]

Hey UFO,

I have to agree with you that Ron did not build this device exactly as Mr. Hay has drawn it. I also agree that moving the pivot point to the left will give more force on the left end of the moving beam. But we need to look at a lot more than that.

If we move the pivot to the left we not only get more force on the end of the moving beam but we also reduce the amount of travel on that end of the beam. So while we have more force we have less travel to make use of.

Also as I have marked in the drawing the way Mr. Hay has shown the moving beam connected to his generator will waste a lot of the force since the connecting arm is connected to the beam at such a shallow angle. Almost all the downward force is only moving the connecting arm sideways and not contributing to the turning of the generator. This also reduces the amount of movement at the end of the arm. In Ron's build he tried to correct that problem by putting the force of the moving beam straight down to the flywheel and then to the one-way bearings when the flywheel idea proved unworkable.

You mentioned a timing problem with this device. I am not sure what you mean with that statement. The device is self timing. As the weight of the off balance wheel moves up and down the moving beam also moves up and down in time with the weight movement. You can see that in Ron's video. If you see some way to do that differently then please explain what you meant.

I have also circled in the attached drawing in the lower right corner the claims about the power out. I find those rather hard to believe. The only way the output generator could turn at 6000 rpm is if the moving beam was moving up and down 6000 times per minute. That would mean the beam would be moving up and down 100 times per second. I don't believe the beam could possibly move that fast.

I also don't understand where the 10 squared = 100 kilograms came from. What formula did he use to get to the 10 squared?

My final problem with this device is the reaction Mr. Hay had to the video. I have been in contact with Ron before the video was shared with Mr. Hay. Ron built this device in good faith hoping to see some good results. The video was not made public in order to give Mr. Hay a chance to see it and make some suggestions as to how it could be better made to more closely get the results he claimed. Instead of constructive criticism, Ron got bashed.

I would like to see Mr. Hay come to this forum and show us a working device that can do what he claims is possible. Maybe there are some things Ron could do to make it better. But we won't know that until Mr. Hay stops bashing Ron and actually gives some helpful information. I invite him to do that here and not on Facebook. There are many of us that refuse to go to Facebook to look at things.

If you take the time to read the privacy policy on Facebook you will read that once you join Facebook you agree to let them track everything you do on the internet even when you are not logged in to Facebook. Where I go and what I buy on the internet is not any business of Facebook.

Respectfully,
Carroll

[Ufopolitics]

The "Timing" Factor...

Hello to All,

I believe that one -very important- thing is still not shown clearly on Kevin's work...and that is the:

TIMING FACTOR

I believe there should be a Timing SETTING, between the wheel WEIGHT alignment POSITION and the executing Arm Angle, in order to "enhance" or I could say to AMPLIFY the execution "tempo" by its positioning on the bigger spinning wheel.

This is simple to understand if we refer to the ICE Timing on the Crankshaft Counterweight position versus the Time Setting when Cylinder is exhausting and when it is at Compression-Explosion side...

If we fail to make the Timing right...then the whole thing would become very unstable and will shake worst than a Belt Weight-Loss Exercise Machine...but mainly, will lack to amplify the "Hammering Impact Factor" on the other side.

My suggestion is that all the people trying to replicate this model, FIRST GO ON A 3D ANIMATED CAD Software, and run it to be able to align all this movements, before wasting time and money putting together a non working CONTRAPTION.

Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Disapointed...

Hi Ron,

Been on the road all day. First chance to catch up. It would be nice if Kevin and/or his supporters would engage in constructive criticism and civil discussion. After all, you did exactly what Les Banki told me to do. That is just build. No thinking. No questions. No discussion. Well I'm sorry, I like to think about my projects first.

You appear to be an excellent constructor and technician. It would be ashamed to waste your efforts. Let's hope Kevin or one of his followers, fans, members or whatever they are called, decide to be helpful.

Good job so far,

bi

Hello Bistander,

I still can not believe that you have missed the most important principle on Kevin's work which is completely missing on Ron's Replication...which I have explained on my previous post...

And so, blindly -maybe because of your too high percentage of skepticism got you blind?-approved his beautifully build -but non working- machine...

All I can say...is that I am disappointed of your lack of detailed observation and analysis of such bad replication.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

Bad Replication Machine...

Hello everyone,

I feel that the math has failed to identify how this works.

I will give some numbers in the next post.

Ron

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2thI6Oxopo&feature=youtu.be[/VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2th...ature=youtu.be

Hello Ron,

Nice Machine, actually it seems that you may have build it a while back and now just applied to Kevin's work...maybe a pretty heavy built Engine Hoist or also known as "Cherry Picker"?

However, you are missing a VERY IMPORTANT STRUCTURAL POINT that it is shown VERY clearly in ALL Kevin Diagrams, the LEVER RATIO* PLUS WEIGHTS BALANCING.

Which makes your beautifully put together machine to become a very bad replication of what Kevin is referring to.

Please allow me to clarify...

First I will show Three (3) Kevin Schematics:

1-

On above image it is clearly shown the DIFFERENT RATIO OF LEVER VERSUS FULCRUM POINT DIFFERENCES...

HOWEVER, in ALL We can see that the Weight-Wheel SIDE, WHERE ARM IS BUT, WAY LONGER IN ALL DESIGNS.

Kevin calls this AXIS POINTS as He shows on bottom image a 5:1 RATIO

2-Second Kevin Image:



Note this one above is a Three(3) to One(1) Ratio...

3- And finally, here is a MUCH MORE SIMPLIFIED GRAPHIC:




And now, here is the best image I could get -from your video- of a SIDE ELEVATION of your Machine...



Now, to be fair, I would say that you have -approximately- a "50:50" (1:1) ARM-PIVOT POINT RATIO (Just like a "Teeter-Toter or See-Saw for Kids to balance on both sides EQUALLY)...But, the best that you could do is to provide Us here with a CAD, showing the right Elevation Side Profile of your Machine, just like ALL Kevin's Designs above...

NOW ABOUT WEIGHTS DISTRIBUTION...

And so, If You have noticed, in ALL Kevin's Graphics, He has the Motor and small wheel, rotating the bigger wheel and weight...ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE TO WHERE YOU HAVE IT....and almost SIDE TO SIDE to the big wheel.

Kevin's disposition ADDS EVEN MORE Weight to the LONGER ARM SIDE by aligning Motor on the longer and extreme side of the Arm...this fact, OBVIOUSLY ADDS more weight to that side, therefore more Impact Force on opposite side.

And, Your Nice Machine have it on the EXECUTING SIDE OF THE ARM...

I can see clearly what Kevin is trying to show through all his designs...and it is SO OLD as SO SIMPLE...Actually we all could go back to Archimedes Ancient times (287-212 BC) and review his famous words then his work...

...Give me a lever long enough and a fulcrum on which to place it, and I shall move the world.

Archimedes

Ron, If you still can not see what I am referring to...then I could get my CAD and show ALL images Comparing the RATIOS with Highlighted RED Brackets-Measurements in Scale.


Kind Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Too bad

Hi Bi.

I have to be very careful what I say here as there is a spy on this forum who reports my every word and link to Kevin. Kevin has my email addy and as my build didn't turn out with a cop of 400 he lets me have the full dump... it is not pretty as you can see from the "comments" under my video.

So I have tried to just present the facts and let the folk make their own decisions.

Ron

Hi Ron,

Been on the road all day. First chance to catch up. It would be nice if Kevin and/or his supporters would engage in constructive criticism and civil discussion. After all, you did exactly what Les Banki told me to do. That is just build. No thinking. No questions. No discussion. Well I'm sorry, I like to think about my projects first.

You appear to be an excellent constructor and technician. It would be ashamed to waste your efforts. Let's hope Kevin or one of his followers, fans, members or whatever they are called, decide to be helpful.

Good job so far,

bi

[i_ron]

Hi l_Ron,

But I don't see you state a conclusion.
bi

Edit: I see another post from you came in while I was authoring mine. Thanks. Hopefully another video and further discussion will follow.

Hi Bi.

I have to be very careful what I say here as there is a spy on this forum who reports my every word and link to Kevin. Kevin has my email addy and as my build didn't turn out with a cop of 400 he lets me have the full dump... it is not pretty as you can see from the "comments" under my video.

So I have tried to just present the facts and let the folk make their own decisions.

Ron

[i_ron]

Hey Ron,

Nicely done experiment demonstrating the impact of a rotating unbalanced load on a lever arm. The basic principles are fairly straightforward and the documented results present the basic efficiency of the machine in its current form.

Based on the results one can conclude it is not very efficient and may need some liberal application of Newtonian magic.
QED!

Yaro

Hi Yaro, good to see you here. As you may note I like to build and investigate all claims.

There was some concern with the "rubber band" drive by Kevin. But that is just your standard micro vee belt, very strong and very efficient. You folk might better know it as a serpentine belt... used in all new cars. They come in various widths and strengths.

Ron

[i_ron]

Hi l_Ron,

So is this video made by you and you constructed the machine? If so, nicely done. You say you feel the math fails to identify how it works. Does that imply that you think it does work? In your subsequent post you give some power figures. But I don't see you state a conclusion. What was the purpose of the machine (desired output) and was it a success or not?

It is a well constructed machine but deviates from the diagrams of Kevin Hay. Can you comment about that, like the addition of the one-way clutch?

Thanks,

bi

Edit: I see another post from you came in while I was authoring mine. Thanks. Hopefully another video and further discussion will follow.

Yes my build.

Concerning the one way clutch... the arm has a large swing when at low RPM or unloaded. Higher RPM's will lessen the swing but most dramatic is when you place a load on the arm then the swing reduces dramatically. How then would a crankshaft work? At one RPM and one size of load. A crankshaft does not work. The oneway clutches decouple the out of balance wheel from the flywheel so that they both can work,

These videos are unlisted and were intended just foe my small group so nor polished in any sense with numbers rounded off not intending to be lab reports.

Here is another video. the shunt is 25 amp 50 mV so when it say 20 mVolts that is divide by two or 10 amps. The stroke of the arm doesn;t show in this video but you can hear it slow down... when it slows down that means less stroke.

Ron
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBFf...ature=youtu.be

[yaro1776]

Results of the run:

Input, 10 volts at 12.5 amps = 125 watts

Output 2 ft/lb at 114 RPM (T X N/5252) = .043 horse power, 31 watts

Ron

Hey Ron,

Nicely done experiment demonstrating the impact of a rotating unbalanced load on a lever arm. The basic principles are fairly straightforward and the documented results present the basic efficiency of the machine in its current form.

Based on the results one can conclude it is not very efficient and may need some liberal application of Newtonian magic.
QED!

Yaro

[bistander]

How this works?

Hello everyone,

I feel that the math has failed to identify how this works.

I will give some numbers in the next post.

Ron

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2th...ature=youtu.be

Hi l_Ron,

So is this video made by you and you constructed the machine? If so, nicely done. You say you feel the math fails to identify how it works. Does that imply that you think it does work? In your subsequent post you give some power figures. But I don't see you state a conclusion. What was the purpose of the machine (desired output) and was it a success or not?

It is a well constructed machine but deviates from the diagrams of Kevin Hay. Can you comment about that, like the addition of the one-way clutch?

Thanks,

bi

Edit: I see another post from you came in while I was authoring mine. Thanks. Hopefully another video and further discussion will follow.

[i_ron]

Nice long email from Kevin suggesting many things. One was why was it so constrained.

Well a crank shaft is not constraining?

But in operation it is self constraining.

It was just where I had had it set as it it flails about so much with no load. So I backed the springs well off and gave it a run, unconstrained.

It is running quite well now and a couple of changes since the video. I have the flywheel sped up with a 2:1 ratio now and where the small motor was running at 3:1 That has been changed to 6.8: 1

Results of the run:

Input, 10 volts at 12.5 amps = 125 watts

Output 2 ft/lb at 114 RPM (T X N/5252) = .043 horse power, 31 watts

Ron