The Mechanical Engine

[CloudSeeder]

bad news, I have a business friend

Michael:

"bad news, I have a business friend..."

I bet you aren't the only person saying that, just a wild guess.

[Inquorate]

97%

@ michael - 97% is very fortunate, if the design you tested is the ramped weights design. perhaps the centrifugal force is more than 3%

[CloudSeeder]

@Inquorate:

That's a good idea. Perhaps the shape of the cam needs to be more of a smaller radius on the left side for the weights coming up not to have to follow a strict circle radius... that could be introducing extra work on the system. Michael will have to figure out can he do that. This has gone above my head. My powers of visualization have been stretched like taffy.

Rod Serling avoided subjects like this.

[Inquorate]

Frustrated

I once remarked on dmonarch's electrophorous thread re electret info on the web being limited to less than ten pages, and said how conspiratorial it seemed..

I keep trying to research pendulums and centrifugal force and bessler etc etc etc...... Nada. Disinformation. This thread is the only source of info.

When we get this working, we need to disseminate. Asap.

[CloudSeeder]

Defining Pendulum's "Dance Partners".

@Inquorate:

I ran into the same thing in 2003 when beginning my writing. I wrote a bunch of pages not knowing specific Meta Tags were needed, otherwise the Internet spiders would totally ignore my information! Title, Description and Keywords Meta Tags HAVE TO BE IN THE HEADING for html web pages to be catalogued and indexed. So I started searching the Internet looking for the meta tags, ended up taking the better part of 4 and 5 days finding them, and when I did find them they were scattered far & wide, so I had to start Cutting and Pasting the information together. However, since that agony~ordeal I've found out the easy way is to just click on View Source (Code) while visiting webpages and obtain everything you need from just a few minutes exploration into what other writers already knew & used. Same goes for webpage design. Do a search of which topic your pages solves, examine the pages that come up on the first results page and you know what you need to do.

I'm in agreement with Johann Bessler when he said ratios are more important. Ratios define the relationships between the pendulum's "dance partners" we are trying to convince to dance for us. Not at all meaning to discount your work, but Michael Nunnerley's is a good example. He has (imh OPINION) made his device with 3 facets that need to be in a rather exact relationship i.e. partnership:

1a) the outer wheel's weight
1b) the weight of the weights
2) the cam trigger arrangement
3) load drain of attached generator apparatus

I do not believe the finished device has to be going
beyond 100% but it must nail 100% across all 3 combined into
a three-way complimentary synergy, emphasizing the needed equation.
So basically this is a multi-level struggle to get THREE KLUTZES TO DANCE TOGETHER
and I seriously doubt you will find anyone else on the "World Wide Web" telling us how that's done.

We fight this battle here, we win here.

[Ted Ewert]

I once remarked on dmonarch's electrophorous thread re electret info on the web being limited to less than ten pages, and said how conspiratorial it seemed..

I keep trying to research pendulums and centrifugal force and bessler etc etc etc...... Nada. Disinformation. This thread is the only source of info.

When we get this working, we need to disseminate. Asap.

I hear you about searching the web for pertinent information concerning centrifugal force. Modern science takes the approach that centrifugal force is a "phantom" force; i.e. not really there. This is so bazaar that I have often wondered if it is intentionally misleading. It wouldn't surprise me.
Do you have Milkovic's book? It's small but full of good information. The first time I read it I was a little disappointed, but the more I went over it the more I began to see what he is talking about.
I also studied vortexes quite a bit. The Hilsch tube is a good study. A pulsed vortex is a very interesting device, which I've built and plan on developing in the future.
This wheel is one of the best learning tools I've found. It's all right here for those who have the eyes to see it. Your spring experiment showed us how the balance is affected by reflecting the pendulum, and how to move it if we need to. We now know where in the rotation we can shift our weights, and where we can't. And, most importantly, we now know the mechanism that will enable the wheel to become unbalanced and reset, while imparting energy into the system.
This wheel is important because it will help wake people up from their brainwashed coma. It will be very difficult to continue believing that Newtonian physics is the final word in understanding Mother Nature while watching this wheel continue to turn indefinitely.

Ted

BTW, I'm beginning to think that a spring is unnecessary. I believe it is the centrifugal force, with respect to the main axis, that plays a much larger roll than we think. Allowing the weight to naturally swing out and back aids this force.
Anyway, we'll see.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

recommendations

@Peter et al (french/canadian?) by the way my wife is french
@Peter y todos (spanish) my secound language
@Peter and all (my language universal)

The recomendations are quite interesting, oh by the way it was my design not yours, it took my friend several days to load this or so he said, for sure he was not working on it all day. If you are to rely on a computor program this is the closes even though it is man made!!!!!!!!! it was designed purly for engineering projects as a tool for us to develop things much quicker, cost a lot of money$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Recoms:
1. The hing angle should be increased to 28 degrees
2. There should be 8 quadrants not four
3. The external and internal cams should be center pivoted
4. This one I find interesting but no explination as to how to do it, change the cam wheels to gyros at 90 degrees to axis?????????????

This would need a lot of changes to the input of the computor and at the moment my friend could not do this as it would change the design completly, the program works on input of each piece of the machine and a scan of a working scale drawing which is what I sent to him in the first place, quite complicated and very time consuming.

Well thats it folks, I'm back to the drawing board, the fourth one I will leave on the back burner as I will have to brush up on gyros

Michael N

[Michael John Nunnerley]

P:S:

I foregot to say that points 1-3 are as one and point 4 was as an alternative

Michael N

[Michael John Nunnerley]

@Michael:

You say the program assumed your device was in balance to begin with? Uhm, that never was the case. Your device actually has two centers of gravity, and it was trying to consider it as having just one. Put a 1 in front => 197%, or flip it for 103%, and you're likely looking at a much closer result. Is my post flawed? I think you cleared the wall and the software needs rewriting myself.

Not the whole machine only the fly wheel component before the rest is assembled on to it.

Michael N

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Based on a moving start

@ michael - 97% is very fortunate, if the design you tested is the ramped weights design. perhaps the centrifugal force is more than 3%

The program will not accept a cold start, you have to put it in motion and then ask it for its energy efficient coif: that is how it gives you the 97%, it can not calculate any other way, so we put it in motion at 10 revs/min.

Michael N

[Michael John Nunnerley]

@Inquorate:

That's a good idea. Perhaps the shape of the cam needs to be more of a smaller radius on the left side for the weights coming up not to have to follow a strict circle radius... that could be introducing extra work on the system. Michael will have to figure out can he do that. This has gone above my head. My powers of visualization have been stretched like taffy.

Rod Serling avoided subjects like this.

The computor answered that one

Michael N

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Michael,



Don't get your friend or yourself fired over this. Sometimes these big companies have a ZERO TOLERANCE policy for this sort of thing. In today's economy, having a job is worth a lot! Personally, I would not risk my job in a situation like this.

Peter

I work for myself, self employed, I do the hard slog design work for this company and trouble shooting on a fee basis but my friend works for them and that does concern me. I did tell him if he gets fired he can come and work for me but he will have to steal the computor and software Really I think they would give him a warning, it is difficult to find a good design tech: and HE IS GOOD, I have been working along with him for some years now and when I put a rough design in front of him he rarely comes back to me untill he has something to show me or may be i'm too good

Michael N

English humor

[Peter Lindemann]

Your Design

Michael,

Thanks for the details on the simulators recommendations. I knew you were not talking about my design, I just didn't know which of YOUR designs you had built in the simulator. I guess my reference to "my design" in quotes, as if I was quoting YOU, was a bit ambiguous. Sorry about that.

As for your friend, I would not count on a "warning" if he is caught working on "non-company projects". They may say that it breaches his employment contract, that "they" own the design, or any number of other responses.

The "industrial espionage" environment is ferocious right now and no large company can risk employing a person who uses company assets for personal gain, no matter how valuable that person may be. Personally, I think the risk is higher than you think it is.

Peter

[CloudSeeder]

I agree with Peter on that one. Using COMPANY property to work on a non-company project seems like not a good idea for anyone. Technically, you should be paying them for use of their computer, their software AND their employee. But, you could offer them a fee reduction or something and not have ta pay cash out of your pocket, whatever it takes to make sure they know you guys aren't doing something to make a fortune w/out cutting them in, because if they aren't cut IN they''re going to FEEL CUT OUT.

That would be head-rolling time.

btw, 28 degrees seems excessive. That's nearly 1/3 of 90... however, if you also increase the weight of the weights it may very well be dead-on target, plus 8 instead of 4. But that's a total of 224 so you've gone well past the 180. I fear that total will put your device lifting more kegs than it can chew.

You'll find out in the next simulation.
I might be more comfortable with 6 x 29 degrees, for 174.
Maybe that can be your next flip of the coin if 8 falls.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

centrifugal or centripetal?

@Peter

Peter you are a scientist and I have a problem which is splitting my brain in two. The problem is if a weight is pushing out as it is turned and comes against a fulcrum and so pushes that fulcrum and the other end of the fulcrum is then pushing inwards toward the axis "the pivot of the fulcrum is off set so the work out is greater than the work in" in my mind centrifugal force (energy) is working to push the fulcrum and the resulting force at the other end is centripetal force (energy) pushing to the axis, or no? If I am right then we have captured centrifugal force to work for us

I was thinking of doing an experiment to do this, but thinking of how, I nearly ended up with the whole shooting bang of the machine. I then started on calculating with the mass of a weight in circular motion on a string of insignificant weight rotating at X rpm of radius Y what is the force on the axis? is it more or is it equal to the mass of the weight in a stationary position directly below the axis. Well it is more by my calculation and that my friends is the energy created by centrifugal force of which we will convert into centripetal force in the engine design. Well the computor program made my brain work overtime and it came to me when I woke up this morning, well after so much brain drain I am tired again, off for a siesta as we do here in Spain

Michael N