Motors, Magnetism and Theory

(Sigh)

Buzneg, all I can tell you is to make a prototype and prove that it works. I've read a lot about such things and so far none of them have gone beyond making claims. Some of them show pictures and videos but neglect to really demonstrate that it's working on its own (i.e., there's probably a hidden motor driving the thing).

Forgive me if I sound skeptical. It's just that you're one in a long line of people who have thought that they've found the holy grail of unlimited power. Some of them are well-intentioned but working with a lack of complete knowledge and some are just out to get people to shell out cash to support them.

My advice? You shouldn't have spoken out. Just do your experiments and, if (or when) you succeed, then tell the world and show it in a way that no one can refute.

I just adjusted the universal constants to prevent this machine from working, even if it did work yesterday. It would not do to put all us boiler makers out of work :)

All I can say is;

Many have tried but all have failed.

I have lost count of how many people have claimed to have built an over unity machine only to prove that they didn't understand the physics in the first place. When I see people try and slag off the likes of Newton I find it difficult to continue reading. Newton is accredited with developing calculus in the same time it takes most people to learn it. Without which you can't even predict the path of a rock dropped off a cliff.

You seem to have a misunderstanding of what physics and engineering is all about. Physics is the constructing of mathematical models to explain observed events. Engineering is the application of these mathematical models to design and construct objects and machines. The whole concept that is you understand what you want then through the application of physics and mathematics develop and mathematical model before you go ahead and build it.

I suggest you go and read a book on Calculus and Analytical Geometry and another on physics for engineers before you go any further, it may save you a lot of time and money.

Oh dear, another one... Perpetual motion, energy from no-where...

Still it does make me think along different lines whenever I read these type of posts / articles etc...

You never know where your next innovative idea will come from... So I won't scoff at the posting but only the lack of understanding.

John

here's a copy of what I've posted somewhere else.

I can also see how this device works now http://peswiki.com/index.php/Image:Schauberger_jet_turbine_117749.gif

In the top cone water travels down, the whole time gravity is a constant force. the water starts at the top at a slow speed, but really has the same force as the water at the bottom, just that the water at the bottom still has the energy that it built-up at the top. The bottom vortex is to most efficiently take the horizontal energy out.

it's like taking a constrant force to a heavy fly wheel, to use that energy from that force most efficiently you should start at the edge of the wheel and as it speeds up move the force towards the middle, it's compounding on itself in the wheel. and the most efficent way to take the energy back out is to move the generator from the middle to the outside. Therefore you get a vortex in,then a vortex out.

of course like anything it has to be built to a most efficient design.

modern water turbines already get ~92% efficiency, so you say you get 90% more?

Why not use some of that energy to pump some more water to the top and through the turbine again and again, no need to waste water, use the same water over and over again and extract that portion above 100%.

If you make them small, you can put one in every house and if you avoid leakage they can be used in cars, trucks and even airplanes....the possibilities are endless.

Of course, remember what happened to poor Rudolph, alas, I knew him well and guard your life, the vests will be after you...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Diesel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_turbine

I have decided to disclose it, because Steorn is taking too long to get it out, and some other reasons. Sorry, paint's the best modeling progam I got.

diagram 1

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/2944/oudeviceqx6.png

diagram 2

http://img76.imageshack.us/img76/9302/oud2yw0.png

diagram 3

http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/7743/oud3mh4.png

Please tell me you did not give any money to Steorn?

no why would I? I mean they're taking they're time so they can't make more money while people are starving around the world, mabye it's just their investors but somebody is.

The reason I ask is there are a lot of people like them who parasitize people like you who lack the theoretical basis to understand the flaws in their theories.

They usually ask for money to get patents etc etc and lead you down a path $500 at a time.

Have you ever thought of going to work via a downhill road and coming back by a different road, also downhill.

In effect that is what your design is. Now a simple man would go looking for these two downhill roads, one to get to work and the other to get home. You intuitively know this cannot be done. In the same manner your turbine idea seeks to do the same thing.

if I'm stupid enough to fall for that then I deserve to lose the money. Go here for a better explaination

http://www.globaltrb.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=32

or at least observe this

http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/305/explain1pa8.png

Hi buzneg:

Two of my favorite perpetual motion machines are near the top of this page. You can, even with only MS Paint, create animations like these to demonstrate your machine. I'd suggest doing that, and sending your polished animation to Mr Simanek. If you do up a good animation of your machine working, he might include it on his sight. His site has some good info on ways to assess if a perpetual motion machine will work or not. (Of course, in his view, and in the view of all reputable physics professors around the world, such machines cannot work.)

Your's is a tough challenge if you intend to convince educated people that you have created a perpetual motion machine where thousand of others (who may be unacquainted with Newtonian physics, or who reject those physics) have failed. But a good first step would be to put together a polished animation (which you can create for free) and send it to Mr Semanik. Perhaps you are simply a lot smarter than people like Stephen Hawking, Einstein, and Newton, who reject this sort of thing out of hand, and who claim that these "machines" violate the most basic foundation of physical science. If you can get a patent on your idea, you can rule the world, quite literally. So your efforts, including the time it takes you to ace for first couple of physics courses, will be time very well spent.

Because the smaller one increases speed losing power to inertia against gravity, and the small one should have the same spacing as the large one so that it has some weights going down with gravity. That's my first guess. why don't you tell me why my machine doesn't work?

When you say "why don't you tell me why my machine doesn't work", I am not sure to whom you are writing. So if I am jumping in here, I apologize. The explanation physics teachers will give you is that any perpetual motion machine violates the law of conservation of energy. In other words, no machine can "create" energy out of nothingness. No machine can operate with better than 100% efficiency. That is the same explanation I would give you.

The link I provided above is from this "Museum of Unworkable Devices". It might be helpful for you to read through all the information on that site. There is a brief description of some of the physics involved, plenty of illustrations of machines that cannot work, etc. After having absorbed all that, then, if you still feel your machine can create "Free energy" your next step would be to prepare a good set of engineering drawings, and patent your idea. (If you give out details of your invention before patenting it, you lose your rights to the idea.) You will find that your first patent application will be rejected, because the PTO routinely rejects free energy machines. Thus, patenting can become hideously costly, with application after application. So what to do?? The world is full of knowing frauds who have swindled money out of unsuspecting investors by promoting free energy machines. I doubt that you fall into that category. But if you make promises to investors when trying to round up funds for a patent that never goes through, then you may run the risk of being prosecuted for fraud, even if your intentions are good. Also beware of the reverse operation, which is very common. In it, a company tells you you have a great idea, and says that for $500, they will help you get it on the market. Then it's another $2000 for the next step, etc, etc, etc. These business probably outnumber legitimate patent attorneys.

If you lack the funds to move ahead, then perhaps getting some patents on several devices that are a little less exotic and commercially successful will give you some creditability. If you've launched let's say five inventions and each one produces millions of dollars for you and a very solid return for your investors, then people are far more likely to invest in your sixth project, even if it sounds completely implausible. These first five inventions would best be things that raise doubts, but actually work. For example, gasoline engines are only about 20-25% efficient. If you can improve the efficiency of an engine to let's say 75%, then you will have done something extremely impressive. (Nowhere near as impressive as a free energy machine, but a start, at least.) In other words, if you are Dean Kamen, your ideas will be better received.

If you can do some good drawings, you can file a provisional patent yourself, inexpensively, which gives you a year to file the complete application. (Many patent attorneys recommend against the provisional application, because you may unknowingly shoot yourself in the foot... but you can read up about such things on the web.) After filing that application, then you could send your idea to Mr Simanek, who would probably be happy to do an analysis. If I were to guess, I'd put your probability of success at less than 6.0221415 × 10^-23. But that is just my opinion -- I probably would have been sceptical of some of Einstein's theories too.

or the large wheel should have a smaller gear and the small one should have a larger one, the force is coming from the large gear so turn a large gear with a small one it's easyer

I'm not trying to discourage you. I'm actually encouraging you to go ahead with your ideas.

What I'm trying to say is that you're going the same path as other "unity-gain" claimers who have published or made public their ideas or work and yet have nothing to show for it. It's easy to do things on paper (or computers in today's world) but actually building a working model has never been done. All those pictures and videos we've seen leave room for doubt and besides, when they showed their "working model", it's been years already! You'd think that if it did work, they'd have something out in the market by this time.

Get in your lab, garage, workshop or wherever you do your work and make a working model in complete secrecy. Once you have it, go public show it on TV and make it convincing. Let others see it and examine it.

Why am I not discouraging you? It's the thought that you may have something that no one else knows; it's the thought that you may stumble onto something completely unrelated; it's the thought that people have dreams and want to do something about them. That's better than people who just dream and do nothing.

where I get most of my encouragment for this is from Tesla, search for him on Google video there's some good video's about him. He was called a mad scientist when he theorized about microwaves and x-ray's, then many years latter someone else invented them. and just recently they're finding out how to transfere power for device through the air.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6129460.stm

something Tesla did 100 years ago.

I could go on..

Tesla failed to achieve long range high wireless power transmission. Radios work by low power wireless power transmission.

A crystal radio that works by direct rectification excites a head phone = power transmitted over a distance.

By using certain higher frequencies you can create a field a few meters in diameter and you can receive and rectify that field and charge a battery or or other low power device.

You could not power a 1500 watt electric heater this way....not if you wanted to live in the same room.

Tesla made some very important discoveries, but he also made errors. He did not realize that to excite the entire earth would take a huge amount of power, both for the excitation and to compensate for the losses that stray conductors in the field would make as they absorbed this energy. If this machine was excited with enough energy such that the average house could be powered by a small antenna you would be one of these conductors and soon after the machine went on you would feel a little hot under the collar, and soon after that you would be cooked, and after a while rendered into steam and fat.

So this tiny field in the BBC article is not to be confused with the one Tesla had in mind, which all the generators on earth would be unable to power to .0001% of his desired power density, for which we are lucky

It depends on who you want to believe

Buzneg what are you claiming your machine will do? From what I can see all that will happen is that the two disks will rotate in opposite directions until a point of equilibrium is reached and then they will stop. They may oscillate about this point a bit but there is absolutely nothing I can see that will make them rotate through even 1 revolution. Are you claiming that the arrangement of magnets is going to keep these disks rotating in opposite directions or do I misunderstand what you are trying to achieve?

My impression is the same as Masu's. If you look at Patrick Voet's Perpetuum Mobile Machine from the link supplied above can you see why that machine will not work? In what way is your machine different? If you can produce clear, neat drawings that show your machine in three or four positions as it rotates, then you may gain a better understanding of it and will be able to better communicate its function to others.

yes I'm claiming that it falls down a hole and then diggs itselft out of it, though I'm not 100% sure that it works.

You are making a fundamental mistake in the way you are calculating the forces acting on the two discs. You are treating the magnetic forces a point forces when they are actually the sum of an infinite number of infinitely small forces. The universe doesn't work the way you think it dose.

Here is an example of the concept behind calculus. Consider the situation below.

There are two identical masses represented by the blue and purple spheres that are attracted to each other by the force of gravity represented by the red line.

Now consider a line of 10 smaller spheres each 1/10 of the mass of the purple sphere represented by the 10 orange spheres. The center the line is same distance away from the purple sphere as the blue sphere. Now you would assume that the force of gravity acting on the line would be the same wouldn't you? Well I am sorry to say it isn't. What you need to consider is that the force of gravity on the line is the sum of the gravitational forces acting on each of the individual spheres (shown by the green lines) if you add all these up you will find the total force acting on the line of orange spheres is not the same as that acting on the single blue sphere even though there mass is identical and there center of gravity is the same distance for the purple sphere.

What we do with calculus in instead of having 10 little masses we divide it up into an infinite number of infinitely small masses and then summate them. Newton¹ is accredited with being the first person to figure out how to do this and the technique is vitally important if you wish to understand the mechanics of the universe.

So what I suggest you do is get some books on Calculus & Analytic Geometry, Calculus for Engineers and Electromagnetic Principals and read them. You will find that if you then apply these principals and techniques to your machine it will show that what you will end up with is a balanced force rather than a continuously moving machine.

Note¹ Recent evidence shows that Galileo Galilei also worked on the concept and my have developed calculus some 1,500 years earlier than Sir Isaac Newton.

Please forgive me I made a huge mistake in my previous post. In the footnote I stated

"Recent evidence shows that Galileo Galilei also worked on the concept and my have developed calculus some 1,500 years earlier than Sir Isaac Newton."

In fact it was Archimedes that had carried out the work some 1,500 years before Newton not Galileo. During the dark ages a monk decided that Archimedes' manuscript was worthless so he bleached the paper and reused it for a prayer book. In one foul swoop he put the field of mathematics and physics back over a thousand years. Modern lighting and computer image enhancing techniques have enabled scholars to read the original manuscript by Archimedes and one section of it deals with the concept of dividing an object or function into an infinite number of infinitely small increments. If the monk had realized the importance of the work and copied the manuscript rather than destroying it we would probably be well on our way to the stars now rather than thinking about going back to the moon.

their centre of gravity is the same but the small balls centre is really more spread out, so the gravity of the ones on the side cancel each other out, to an extent. It's like dropping 2 half balls on oppsite sides of the purple one and measuring them from their centre of gravity which is right-on the purple one, so they would have no gravity. Is that what it means?

The center of gravity is a singularity so it can't be spread out, You are starting to get there but I can see you are having a bit of a problem grasping the concept. That's OK it took the human race thousands of years to grasp it so don't worry. It is however very important so here is the example in detail.

What we have are two 10Kg masses (red labeled Mass 1.0 & blue labeled Mass 2.0) that are positioned 15 meters apart. We also have 10 1Kg masses (orange labeled Mass 3.01 to Mass 3.10) which are welded together. These are arranged so that the center is also 15meters away from the red Mass 1.0 but is inclined at 45º to the radius drawn from the center of the red Mass 1.0

Now the gravity that accts pulling each of the masses together is proportional to the inverse of the square of the distance multiplied by the product masses. If you do the calculations you will find that the distances that separate each of the masses is as shown in the following table.

If you now calculate the force that would be acting on each of the masses it come out as shown in the column Gravity/Individual. If you now sum up the gravity acting on the 10 spheres you will see that it is slightly greater that the gravity acting on the single mass.

If you don't believe me sit down, draw it out and do the calculations yourself.

Now getting back to the concept of calculus. If the orange masses were a cylinder with a mass of 10Kg how could we work out the gravity. That is where calculus come in. To calculate the gravity we would mathematically divide the cylinder up into an infinite number of smaller cylinders that were infinitely thin, or in other words circles. Then as above we would sum up the force acting on each of the circles and bingo we have the gravity.

The mathematical techniques use to do this are way to complex to discuss here but if you wish to do engineering calculation it is vital that you become intimately familiar with the technique.

That's what you are doing wrong with the analysis of your machines. You are using point approximations but unfortunately that's not the way it works. You really do need to go and read the books I mentioned earlier. It will not be easy but I can guarantee it will be worth the time and effort and will save you a lot of wasted time and money building machines that don't work.

Here's a much simpler design, tell me how this won't work?

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/4954/model2dv7.png

ask me if it's not explained well enough

If the magnets in the drawing are all of the same strength and arranged so they are attracting then nothing will happen. If they arranged so that they are repulsive then the magnets on the left will produce a greater force than the ones on the right. The result will be that the shaft will slide until it either reaches an end-stop or the magnetic fields strength decreases enough to not be able to overcome friction.

I am obviously missing something here. May I suggest you look at a software package called DeltaCad. You can get a trial copy from here.

http://www.deltacad.com/

Its what I use to create the drawings you frequently see here at CR4. It will take you a couple of hours to learn how to use and only costs US39.95 so it wont break the bank. If you have ever studied drafting at school you will find it a breeze. The only trick you will need is converting it to an image file format. For that all you need to do is size the drawing so that if fits on the screen, highlight the parts you want then copy and paste into Paint. You can then save it in any number of image file formats.

I have used it for all sorts of things like diagrams for CR4, architectural drawings, circuit diagrams and PCB design. You are obviously and inventive person and creating drawings is a vital step in the process so I would recommend learning some sort of CAD package even before reading the books I recommended earlier.

I think this is what you mean,

http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/4636/concept2ln9.png

If you take a step-in you gain more force then you would lose if you take a step-out. So anything that's more spread-out along the radius will have more gravity then if it where grouped up at it's centre.

Correct so far?

Remember we're moving across the top of the magnets, at least with the lever section of the device. Picture the long end as the magnetic lines of the start, or top of hill magnet. And the other as the bottom of the hill magnet. Now having those pivot on the axis is equal, but you gained energy while going from the top of the hill to the bottom, so that will push it past and make it keep going.

And remember how this works

http://img354.imageshack.us/img354/1496/2motorgearskg0.png

In your second diagram you state that

D1, F5 Work = 5 and D5,F5 Work =25

How are you suddenly jumping for force to work? The relation between force and energy isn't linear so simple multiplication doesn't work. I think you are confusing torque, energy and power. Torque is just a force and is the measurement of ability to accelerate a body. Energy is the ability to do work and power is the rate you are doing the work at and the relationships aren't linear.

Lets look at a specific example of say a 1Kg object at rest that has a 1N force acting on it.

Now if the object were at rest and the force acted on it for 1 second then it would be traveling at 1m/s and it energy would be

V₁ = at = 1

KE₁ = ½ m v₁² = ½ x 1 x 1² = 0.5j

Now lest look at what has happened after a further second

V₂ = v₁ + at = 2

KE₂ = ½ mv₂² = ½ x 1 x 2² = 2.0j

As you can see the relationship between force and energy is not a simple linear function.

Lets now look at a plot of the speed of the object against the time.

As you can see the speed (Red Line) is increasing as a linear function of time. The energy however after 1 second is equal to the area under the line (blue shaded area) to that point. Now after 2 seconds the speed increase or slope of the line is constant but the energy which is the area under the line (purple and blue shaded areas combined) has increased 4 fold.

The slope of the line represents the acceleration and is proportional to the force acting of the body, the line represents is speed and the area under the line represents the energy.

I am not sure what you are trying to explain with your diagrams but you can't equate force with energy in a linear manner. Neither can you equate flux or force density with distance in a linear manner. In your diagram the line on the right is 5 times the length of the line on the left and therefore the force/magnetic effect is the same but the line on the right is not 5 times as far away from the source as the line on the left. In fact if you measure it you will find it is 2.236 or square root of 5 ties as far away.

All this means that everything balances out and you have no net gain in force, speed or energy.

Energy has nothing to do with it though, this is all about force. A small gear has more consentraited force that's why with set energy it can rotate a larger gear with set energy. This is basically useing force to create energy. I have levered 2 close attracted magnets out of attraction with 2 distant attrating magnects. That's the fundimental effect, those 2 farther apart magnets have a distance that they could pull together to make energy and then other far apart magnets can lever them out, so the cycle continues.

OK look at it this way. The magnetic attraction on the line on the left is five times greater than the line on the right. The problem is that the line on the right is not 5 times as far away from the source of the magnetic field as the line on the left. It is in fact only 2.236 or the square root of 5 times as far away. Your machines are working on the principal that the weak forces are compensated for by distance. As you can see in your diagram the right one would need to be more than five times as far away to get any net gain but unfortunately its only the square root of five times as far away so it can never overcome the force acting on the closer line.

how is it the square root of 5? I did measure it and it's centre is 5cm away, the magnetic source is the centre of the circle

your measuring how long the swoop of the bar is, the leverage is how far the bar is from the pivote

Buzneg: Here is a machine that "works" on your principal or different leverages. It was built by Leonardo Da Vinci to demonstrate that perpetual motion machines do not work. In his time, there were more-or-less serious thinkers who still asserted that a machine could somehow run at beyond unity. In the theory of the supporters of perpetual motion of the day, the greater leverage of the weights on the right would cause the wheel to rotate clockwise. Da Vinci showed that even if the axle and all the the pivots are entirely frictionless, and no matter what the value of the weights (the little circles in this embodiment).

Leonardo did not have the benefit of calculus, so if you do not, you can still prove to yourself that this machine will not work. As you can see, one weight is hidden by the machine's frame, but you can see enough of it to find it's center to within half a millimeter. Set up a spread sheet and sum the moments for each weight, of which there are 8 on the right side and 10 on the left. The moment in each case is the horizontal distance from the vertical centerline of the machine, to a vertical line projected through the center of each weight. (Therefore, the moment arm for any weight close to the top and bottom will be very small, but you need to take into account each weight, nevertheless.)

I note that you say in your first sentence: "Energy has nothing to do with it though, this is all about force." Two sentences later you write: "This is basically useing force to create energy." Later: "those 2 farther apart magnets have a distance that they could pull together to make energy." Huh? You might spend some time googling for definitions of energy and work. You'll find that you cannot apply a force through a distance without doing "work," and that doing work requires energy, hence the same units are used for work and energy.

Here, for instance, is what you'll find in Wikipedia:

"The most common definition of energy is the work that a certain force (gravitational, electromagnetic, etc) can do. Due to a variety of forces, energy has many different forms (gravitational, electric, heat, etc.) that can be grouped into two major categories: kinetic energy and potential energy. According to this definition, energy has the same units as work; a force applied through a distance. The SI unit of energy, the joule, equals one newton applied through one meter, for example. Energy has no direction in space, and is therefore considered a scalar quantity."

That said, the easiest way to demonstrate to your own satisfaction that your machine will not work is to build it. The machines you've shown here are very simple and could be constructed quickly. Having done so, I think you'd come to better understand how things work. If you are like most who have claimed to have developed "over unity" machines, no amount of "thought experimentation" will convince you that your machine will not work. You need to do the real thing: build it.

buzneg, you are not willing to learn. To see far, stand on the shoulders of giants.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants

In effect you have a little graphics and no understanding of what goes on.

You can see how silly it is for a man to have a car with no engine as he lives uphill from his workplace....he just gets in, releases the brake, and rides to work. To get home he goes by another route that is also downhill, and as you can see, needs no engine. Obviously in a non escherian world this cannot be done or we could all have free power by making use of this principal.

So if someone came to you with this way to go to and fro to work and back for free, would he fool you and be able to sell you the cars he makes, leaving it to you to find the two routes. I believe you might buy this car and spend your life poring over maps to find the two routes...

That is what your machine does, one part will produce energy but there is no way to return to that point without adding energy (plus more to countervail losses).

So we look at this and instantly see the flaw in it, a flaw you cannot see, because you have an enduring failure to understand the real world that does not have these two routes whereby you can get free energy..

I like your analogy, aurizon. Unfortunately, I've been telling my son how "I used to walk 5 miles to school and back each day, in a blizzard, and it was uphill both ways." I hope he doesn't read your post!

Yes, In my day I did the same, in a howling blizzard, 2-3 days each way with a dogsled. Since I never missed a day of school I had to take two different routes to avoid the paradox of meeting myself going the other way. We handled this with a double helix up and down the hill to the school and to home....

What I meant was energy has nothing to do with the "source", the forces that make the energy. here's what I'm talking about, it's hard for me to explain because I don't even understand it very well yet. It's all about using density to create a voltage, then giving it a path to flow.

rofl sorry I should have put more thought into that one

Buzneg, you are confusing force power energy and a whole host of things so I am guessing that you don't understand basic Newtonian physics. Here is the basics

Newton studied the motion of object and came up with three laws that govern motion. These laws are fundamental and while they are not exactly correct they are more than accurate enough to explain anything you will experience. These laws only start to fall over when you get masses like those in a black hole and speeds close to the speed of light. Your aren't going to come across these in your experiments so you can safely say these laws are set in concrete.

First law, an object will stay at rest or move in the same direction with the same velocity unless acted on by a force.

Second law, the change in motion of a body is in the same direction and is proportional to the force that acts upon it.

Third law, for every action there is an equal but opposite reaction. Put simply this means that for every force acting on an object there is an equal force acting in the opposite direction.

Conservation of energy, there is an additional law that states that you can neither create nor destroy energy. This means that for a closed system the energy within the system remains the same at all times. This is the law you claim you machine violates.

If we now look at how these laws effect us it will give us an understanding of motion so lets look at one point at a time

Velocity is the measure of the rate of change of position. Put simply it is how fast an object is moving and the SI units a meters per second m/s or ms^-1. This is what changes in the first law if a force acts upon it.

The mass of an object is its ability to resist a change in motion. In the SI system mass is measured in grams or multiples of grams. The basic unit that we use in calculations is the kilo gram Kg or 1,000 grams. It is important that you don't confuse mass with weight. The imperial system had no units for force so the same units were used for mass and force. They are not the same. This is what resists the change in motion in the first law.

Force is what acts on a mass to cause a change in motion. In other words force causes a mass to accelerate. The unit for force in the SI system is a Newton N. First law again

Energy is a measure of the ability to do work. A mass that is moving possesses energy or in other words it has the ability to do work. There are two types of energy, potential and kinetic. Kinetic energy is the energy that a moving body possesses. Potential energy is the energy that is associated with gravity. This means that if you have two identical masses and one is a greater height above the ground the higher one possesses more potential energy. When a body is falling it converts potential energy to kinetic energy. The unit for energy is a Joule j . This is the law of conservation of energy.

Power is the rate that you are expending energy and is measured it watts w. Put simply one Joule expended over one second is one watt.

Now lets look at how they relate

If you apply a force to a mass it accelerates or acceleration is force divided by mass.

Force = Mass x Acceleration or Force/Mass = Acceleration or f = m a

Now gravity exerts a force on every mass that is proportional to its mass. Put another way gravity causes every mass to accelerate towards it at the same rate. At ground level on earth the acceleration caused by gravity is 9.81 meters per second per second or 9.81ms^-2 This means that for every second a body is in free fall its velocity will increase by 9.81 meters per second.

Now for energy. The potential energy a mass possesses is proportional to is mass, the acceleration it is under and its height above the ground. Put mathematically

Potential Energy = Mass x Acceleration x Height or PE = m g h

And on earth the acceleration is 9.81ms-1 therefore PE = m * 9.81* h

Kinetic energy is not so easy and is not a linear relationship. The kinetic energy a mass possesses is proportional to the square of its velocity. Put mathematically

Kinetic Energy = ½ Mass x Velocity² or KE = ½ mv²

These are the basics so I would ask you to see if you can apply these basics to your machine and come back to us with what you get.

What is your oppinion on this? Scroll down and watch the "mechanical hammer" video

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/PrototipiEng.html

this whole site is interesting. It's weird but things we don't understand are usually weird. Watch when the guy holds the arm and can't stop its force, while the inventor is only using his finger.

There is nothing that mysterious about this device. Firstly the pendulum need to be topped up due to friction all the time just like the pendulum in a clock it need something to keep it going.. Now I know you going to say but a person can't stop the hammer and it can squash things? Go back and look at the height the bloody great mass at the end of the pendulum moves through. It galling about half a meter or so at it's maximum deflection. Nor if I dropped that weight from half a meter up on your hand it would do a lot of damage wouldn't it? Surprisingly it will do the same amount of damage that the hammer would if you put your hand under it.. If you get the hammer to do any work like hammering in a nail you will find that the pendulum stops swing fairly quickly.

I have spent too much time of recent on CR-4 and something similar to this was discussed in detail some weeks back, look for the trebuchet challenge question, so I am not going to go into the mechanics behind it now. If things cool down a bit I might look at the mechanics behind it and show that you wont get anything free out of this device. and if fact it would be more economical to swing the hammer in the first place rather than the pendulum.

I wouldn't hold my breath though because I haven't even got to looking at today's new CR-4 posts and it almost midnight where I am, so try and work it out yourself and see if you can explain why there is no net energy gain.

Veljkomilkovic's pendulum machines are good demonstrations of classical physics in action. From the little I read on the site, his machines are quite ordinary: they are simply interesting and potentially useful applications of mechanics. The hammering machine mentioned is very similar (actually, nearly identical to) hammering machines that have been used in industry for eons. Most use eccentric flywheels, which have properties very much like those of pendulums.

I was surprised to read elsewhere that Veljkoilkovic apparently claims that these are "free energy machines." He need only connect the output of his machine to the input, to prove hat they create more energy than they use. They will then run forever, without any need for human input. But they don't do that, do they?

An experiment you can do yourself is to securely duct tape a hammer to a bicycle wheel, so that the hammer head is out near the rim. Then have someone spin the wheel for you, while you hold the axle ends. Once the wheels is spinning, the amount of energy expended by the person spinning it is relatively slight. You will find it very hard to hold the axle stationary in space, however, until you learn to anticipate the forces. Veljkomilkovic's demonstration along these lines has little to with anything physically out of the ordinary, but more to do with the very flexible nature of human muscles and the delays in the feed back loop. A small nail driven into a rigid surface, however, would keep the end of the lever in his demo from moving perceptibly (just as the various parts of his machine are not deforming perceptibly).

The flashlight demo is fun. If you have a couple of these flashlights you could do a similar experiment with a simple lever. First, measure the force required to just begin to move the flashlight's handle against the spring preload. (Let's say this comes out at 2 oz.) Then measure the force required to fully compress (but not bottom out) the handle. (Let's say this is 10 oz.) Design your lever to a ratio just somewhat greater than the ratio of these forces. Then you should be able to press on the long end of the lever with one flash light handle with a force less than 2 oz, and fully compress the flashligh handle at the other end. After several presses, the flashlight in your had will not light, but the other will. An unscrupulous hoaxter could use such a demo to suggest that there is more "energy" at end of the lever than the other.

Yet another incredible demo you can do for friends. Have them push on a 16 penny nail as hard as they possibly can for twenty minutes, or until their muscles give out, in an attempt to force it into a 2x4. (Give them a small board to use over the nail head to avoid injury, and so they can press really hard without causing pain to themselves.) Now, give the nail a few whacks with a hammer. They'll think you are a genius! In just a few seconds, and with scarcely any apparent effort, you accomplished what they tried to do for many minutes!

You might find interesting a previous CR4 discussion on the effect of a lead vs rubber bullet fired into a log. Also, you might read about the differences between kinetic energy and momentum. This sight has loads of physics info, and many calculators in which you can plug in numbers and see results. There is a really nice pendulum simulator on the web, but I can't find it. Among other things, it will simulate compound pendulums, and inverted pendulums (which can be stable if you jerk the pivot up and down) etc. If I find the one I had in mind, I'll post the link.

So you think the guy holding it wasn't slowing it down very much because of the elasticity of his muscels? What if you were to connect the hammer arm to power a very large flywheel, from just 0.5cm from the axis, of the flywheel?

Many questions are still unanswered about physics...at least you are thinking about it and coming up with ideas. All these other people assume since someone told them they couldnt that it is impossible. space travel and the atomic bomb were impossible at one point. I like you idea, and if you could make a small scale representation and talk about it will many people, you could find out better ideas and probably make a better model. Man! people should be thinking...even day dreaming about this stuff. So many minds, should come up with so much more with an unlimited amount of information at our fingertips

G'day gals, guys & gurus,

• All these other people assume since someone told them they couldnt that it is impossible. space travel and the atomic bomb were impossible at one point.

Yes, but unlike the atomic bomb and space travel bunzeg's machine contravenes the most fundamental LAW OF PHYSICS and that's the conservation of energy.

It doesn't matter how you do it or what the machine is, you just can't get energy from nowhere. If the machine consumes a given number of Joules then it can only do exactly that amount of work and can only output exactly same number of Joules.

If you think about it for a while it can't be any other way. For example if you had a machine that could take 100 Joules of energy and then turn it into 110 Joules which you then fed back into it you would soon end up with a machine that would consume then spit out all the energy in the universe.

Sorry mate, you just can't get round it and it doesn't matter who, what, when, where or how you go about it, any machine can only output as much energy as is put into it.

In reality it's even worse because nearly every machine in the real universe can not operate at 100% efficiency so some of the input energy will be converted into heat, distortion, wear etcetera and as a result the output energy will be less than the input.

The only example of a machine that works at 100% efficiency that I can think of would be a magnet that appears to be defying gravity by hovering above a super conductor. In this case the super conductor is 100% efficient as it produces no resistance or impediment to the flow of electrons. However, super conductors need to be at phenomenally low temperatures to work so when you look at the system as a whole you loose big time because it takes a bucket load of energy to keep the superconductor cold enough for it to be a superconductor.

Now listen hare folks:

There have been tens or maybe even hundreds of thousands of people that have tried to and claimed to have designed a machine that can produce more energy than it consumes and they all have one thing in common.

Regards, masu

The only example of a machine that works at 100% efficiency that I can think of would be a magnet that appears to be defying gravity by hovering above a super conductor.

Of course this is not a machine, and this is doing no work. For work to occur, there must be a force applied through a distance.