Open discussion for projects on this forum.

[citfta]

Great discussion!!!

Thanks to all involved in this discussion. I am so glad we could all come to the same understanding about this device. These kinds of discussions are what I was hoping this thread could be about when I started it. You guys did great! A solid technical discussion without any bashing or name calling. Just a rational discussion of the evidence presented with pros and cons as to what it meant.

Thanks again to all of you.
Carroll

[i_ron]

Thank to both of you, Bistander and Ron,

snip

This is what I guess happens when we start thinking and writing up too much without real lab testing backing up whatever we are putting together in our minds and on paper, one step at a time...I mean, paper takes all you write on it...but real models do not.

snip

Have a good one you both!

Regards

Ufopolitics

You hit the nail on the head! Nice working with you both.

This was just another one of those intriguing devices that I had high hopes for. Visiting with Kevin and hearing all his ideas was fascinating. But at the end of the day I couldn't make it work... nothing new there. Good job I recycle or my trophy shelf, when it fell on me, would be my end...LOL

Ron

[Ufopolitics]

Nice Couple of Posts Guys!

Thank to both of you, Bistander and Ron,

Excellent posts, great and easy to understand explanations as examples!!

Well, this is it...no sense in applying magnetism if mechanical and simplest test failed.

This is what I guess happens when we start thinking and writing up too much without real lab testing backing up whatever we are putting together in our minds and on paper, one step at a time...I mean, paper takes all you write on it...but real models do not.

I have put the basic design in movable CAD Models...and I have also noticed all this huge disadvantages...

I was just interested in looking deeper into this when it was brought over here...it seemed interesting.


Have a good one you both!


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Nice write-up Ron. Like that calculator. Centrifugal force is a lot higher than I expected.

bi

[i_ron]

Hi Ufo and Ron,

snip

Now, when you do away with my simplification assumptions and use real values for the weights and distances, I am pretty sure that you will see that Ron would need excessive (dangerous) speed to move the beam with the imbalanced wheel had he not balanced the beam to lower the initial F1.

Am I correct Ron?

Regards,

bi

Hi UFO and Bi and all,

This is my view at the present. Supposedly the teacher has an OU machine?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to present my idea of how Kevin Hay’s MAGIC device works,

As has been discussed, the correct formula should include the radius, so Ma2r

Using the Calc Tool,CalcTool: Centrifugal force calculator
I input the radius of 16 cm (.16m) angular speed in RPM’s, 351 and mass, 1 kg, changed Centrifugal force to Kg-Force and hit calculate... and the resultant? 22Kg’s Force.

Now despite the implication, this is not a continuous force. At 9 o’clock and 3 o’clock there is no input to the device. The vertical input to the beam thus starts at zero, with the weight at 9 o’clock and rises sinusoidally to the full 22 Kg’s at 12 o’clock before reducing to zero at 3 o’clock.(CW rotation)

However it has driven the beam up. The beam is of course subject to the first Law of Motion. The beam is counter balanced and so not subject to Gravity. Only the weight is subject to gravity. Therefore the downward pulse from 4 o’clock onwards is required to set the beam in downward motion. But then again the downward motion of the beam must be arrested and the motion reversed. Thus the weight will probably be at 11 o’clock before there is enough Force input to achieve this. This reluctance of the beam to rapidly change direction is of course Inertia.

It would be fairly safe to say that the up motion imparted to the beam occurs between 11 o’clock and 1 o’clock while the downward motion of the beam occurs between 5 o’clock and 7 o’clock. Thus the beam is driven upwards for 1/6 of a revolution and downward for 1/6 of a revolution. One revolution at 350 RPM is about 171 mS (milli seconds) so 1/6th of that is 58 mS for the up pulse and 58 m seconds for the down pulse.

A further implication was that doubling the RPM quadrupled the force. True to a point, except the pulse length is cut in half so the 87 Kg’s of force is only applied for 29 mS.

Thus the 120 horse power at 6000 RPM is beyond reason, as inertia, friction, and load will have brought the beam to a quivering stop long before that moment. The input pulse while massive would be so brief as to render the beam unable to respond. Keep in mind that massive forces require a massive build which leads to greater mass which leads to greater inertia and so on.

Then comes the fantasy that a lever will increase the Force. Again, true to a point, but subject to the formula F1 X D1 = F2 X D2. A 2:1 lever doubles F but reduces D to one half so the energy is always in balance (subject to friction and other losses).

My build demonstrates the above nicely. The travel of the beam is reduced with increasing RPM or increasing load. It requires increasing input for increasing RPM or increasing load such that an output of 30 watts requires an input of 125 watts

Edit: Please note that I do recognize an inertial force that seems to make the beam follow the weight... but it is seemingly not a major component so did not include that in my discussion.

Ron

[bistander]

F1

Ron, please help me out of my ignorance here...

According to your build now, setting motor closer to wheel...you had to add more weight on the other side of lever, in order to "balance" the weights...correct?

This added weight is doing absolutely no Output work whatsoever, but just serving as a balance...besides increasing the Input Energy... correct?

But isn't that "added to balance weight" taking away force from the executing side of the lever?

According to the simple lever formula, by using a longer arm (D) we need very little effort (Force "f") to move a much heavier weight, except that distance being moved (d) would be smaller than the travel distance (D) we need to apply on our side.

Then just "adding weight" on the other -executing- side of lever, just to compensate/balance...BUT without making any work directly on Force (F) execution...isn't this balancing weight, taking away force that could be applied DIRECTLY to make the real OUTPUT work we are looking for?

The way I see this Equation, is that FIRST we must have EXACTLY the NET Output Force Required (F) on the execution side of the lever, in order to then set our lever lengths RATIO and minimal force to apply at our end, and so, that way we do not need to add any weights just to balance the whole lever.

Like I've said before...please, correct me if I am wrong...


Regards


Ufopolitics

Hi Ufo and Ron,

Hope you don't mind if I chime in. Let's use this diagram from KH which Ron attached several posts ago.



Let's call the right side side 1 and the left end side 2. Then we can use the equation: F1*D1=F2*D2. D is the distance of the lever arm, or from the pivot to the point where the Force reacts or is applied. D1 is pivot to wheel bearing = 5 ft. (I just choose feet for distance units). On the other side of the beam, D2 = 1 ft.

For simplicity and just this example, let's ignore the mass of the beam, links and hardware, and load. Then F1 = 20 lbs, the 10 lb wheel + 10 lb weight. F1 direction is vertical, downward. (Note the beam would tilt, weight on wheel would rotate to 6:00 o'clock position and arm-crank on side 2 would be fully extended). F2 can be calculated from the equation and F2 = 100 lbs, vertical, upwards, acting against the crank on the shaft of the load.

The system is motionless. How do we start it? Apply input. The motor belt or otherwise coupled to the wheel on side 1 is the prime mover. So we turn on the motor. It rotates the wheel. The wheel rotates the 10 lb offset weight around the bearing at point D1. This causes a centrifugal force acting at D1. Motion of the beam will occur when the centrifugal force exceeds F1 or 20 lbs.

How fast does the wheel need to rotate to produce a centrifugal force greater than 20 lbs? How many RPM? Ufo was kind enough to give us that equation when he first joined this discussion.

Now, when you do away with my simplification assumptions and use real values for the weights and distances, I am pretty sure that you will see that Ron would need excessive (dangerous) speed to move the beam with the imbalanced wheel had he not balanced the beam to lower the initial F1.

Am I correct Ron?

(Also note that in my simplified example I used linear calculations and relationships for distance and force. In reality angular or polar relationships need be used for high accuracy unless the working movement is very short. The concept should be evident.)

Regards,

bi

[Ufopolitics]

Lever simple Math...

Thanks Bi,

Yes, actually the numbers are a noticeable bit worse as with adding more weight I have to increase the input(actually, lighten the load)

Ron

Ron, please help me out of my ignorance here...

According to your build now, setting motor closer to wheel...you had to add more weight on the other side of lever, in order to "balance" the weights...correct?

This added weight is doing absolutely no Output work whatsoever, but just serving as a balance...besides increasing the Input Energy... correct?

But isn't that "added to balance weight" taking away force from the executing side of the lever?

According to the simple lever formula, by using a longer arm (D) we need very little effort (Force "f") to move a much heavier weight, except that distance being moved (d) would be smaller than the travel distance (D) we need to apply on our side.

Then just "adding weight" on the other -executing- side of lever, just to compensate/balance...BUT without making any work directly on Force (F) execution...isn't this balancing weight, taking away force that could be applied DIRECTLY to make the real OUTPUT work we are looking for?

The way I see this Equation, is that FIRST we must have EXACTLY the NET Output Force Required (F) on the execution side of the lever, in order to then set our lever lengths RATIO and minimal force to apply at our end, and so, that way we do not need to add any weights just to balance the whole lever.

Like I've said before...please, correct me if I am wrong...


Regards


Ufopolitics

[i_ron]

Kool. Nice job, Ron. It appears you added some weights to the left end of the beam to compensate for relocation of motor's mass.

bi

Thanks Bi,

Yes, actually the numbers are a noticeable bit worse as with adding more weight I have to increase the input (actually, lighten the load)

Ron

[i_ron]

I am completely on YOUR SIDE Ron, as I am also a Proven Builder here...AND, I have also made Replications before.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Good to see we are on the same page!

OK the math for the 5;1, 2000 pounds... it will be for a distance of 0.01 inches (10 thou)
I don't see how I can build a crankshaft that small???

Edit: Just being silly... put in your own numbers, LOL, but you do understand the above attachment?

Ron

[i_ron]

the problem

A lever can....

[Ufopolitics]

Works the same either side

https://youtu.be/Ra4NErHztDk

[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra4NErHztDk&feature=youtu.be[/VIDEO]

Great Ron, NOW you have it (partially) as indicated on K. Hay's Claims!!

Still You have to specify what LEVER RATIO (Based on Axis Point Positioning) You are utilizing in that setup.

Lets see if I have this right... you want me to build an exact copy of a non-existing device?

Ron

Ron,

Nope, I will make it right for you...

I just want you to, whatever you show results for, to be BUILT EXACTLY ACCORDING to whatever you are REPLICATING.

If You are following EXACT SPEC'S, as proposed by Kevin Hay's Design, THEN, there is absolutely ANYONE, ANYWHERE, Who could say You have it wrong, and that is - THE REASON - why it does not operate "accordingly" to WHATEVER WAS CLAIMED.

It is just about a BASIC REPLICATING PROCEDURE Ron, in order to make all your effort to be WORTH IT, HENCE IRREFUTABLE/INDISPUTABLE.

Understand it now?

I am completely on YOUR SIDE Ron, as I am also a Proven Builder here...AND, I have also made Replications before.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[bistander]

Works the same either side

https://youtu.be/Ra4NErHztDk
...
Ron

Kool. Nice job, Ron. It appears you added some weights to the left end of the beam to compensate for relocation of motor's mass.

bi

[i_ron]

snip

about Ron's setup setting Motor on the OTHER SIDE OF LEVER, comparing to Hay's Design.

Regards

Ufopolitics

Works the same either side

https://youtu.be/Ra4NErHztDk

Lets see if I have this right... you want me to build an exact copy of a non-existing device?

Ron

[Ufopolitics]

First you say Ron's machine is all wrong due to the location of the motor. Now you say it's silly. I don't get it.

Sorry,

bi

Also I apologize for my poor graphics. I am far less proficient than yourself. The images appear very nearly the same size as yours when displayed on this laptop. I can go back to edit size. Tell me how much (%).

Bistander,

Please You do not play "silly"...

This is exactly where I refer to "silly":

It does not matter here, where prime mover is and where Gearbox is, in this case gearbox is the Prime Mover TRANSFER MEANS, which happens to be INCLUDED within Counterweight Rotation Circumference.

Arguments about where gearbox and where motor is located are silly

I was referring the term "silly" ONLY to the argument -between You and Me- on the Jackpump Gearbox and Motor positioning...and NOT about Ron's setup setting Motor on the OTHER SIDE OF LEVER, comparing to Hay's Design.

Graphics should be 800X600 Max, based on what size you have now...reduce it to that percentage.


Regards


Ufopolitics

[Ufopolitics]

First you say Ron's machine is all wrong due to the location of the motor. Now you say it's silly. I don't get it.

Sorry,

bi

Also I apologize for my poor graphics. I am far less proficient than yourself. The images appear very nearly the same size as yours when displayed on this laptop. I can go back to edit size. Tell me how much (%).

Bistander,

Please You do not play "silly" with me now...

I was referring the term "silly" ONLY to the argument -between You and Me- on the Jackpump Gearbox and Motor positioning...and NOT about Ron's setup setting Motor on the OTHER SIDE OF LEVER, comparing to Hay's Design.

Graphics should be 800X600 Max, based on what size you have now...reduce it to that percentage.


Regards


Ufopolitics