top

The Keenie Gravity Motor

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Inventor's Corner    Page 1 of 1

Sat Sep 26, 2009 3:20 am PostPost subject: The Keenie Gravity Motor
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

To understand how the Keenie Gravity Motor works one first has to understand the way that stress is transmitted from the centre to the rim of a solid metal disc.

Consider the blue steel disk in Figure 1 below.



+IHM+IHS+JMJ+



To aid visualization the disk had been cut into rings and a thinner yellow rubber ring (shear modulus 0.0006 GPa) incorporated between each steel ring (shear modulus 80 GPa).

When the central disk is rotated the rings will be twisted from the white arrow static position to the black arrow dynamic position.

If instead of rubber where the strain reaches a limit, a very viscous fluid is used then a continuous slip between the rings and a vortex pattern of distortion. One can think of the figure above as a frozen vortex pattern; indeed, as Bessler's Vortex Verticalis.

In the next Figure the rubber has been replaced by metal of the same shear modulus as the steel. The distortion under rotation will now be reduced below the threshold of perception as shown by the undistorted arrows on the vertical radius. However the shear forces between rings will still be present. These shear forces are represented by the pairs of arrows along the horizontal radius.



+IHM+IHS+JMJ+



Consider next the two rings of the Keenie Wheel rotating without weights. Shear cannot be transmitted across the air gap between them so for the disc and ring to rotate at the same speed shear has to be transmitted from one ring to the other via the axle. The red arrows represent the couple applied by the inner disc; the yellow arrows the couple applied by the outer ring.



+IHM+IHS+JMJ+



This twist of the axle under the action of the couples is reminiscent of the couple in John Collins'
"Maschinen Tractate" (Copyright 2007 - John Collins). Was that meant as a clue I wonder.



+IHM+IHS+JMJ+



Weights are now added to Keenie's Wheel. On the left hand side the weights are attached to the outer ring and the top and bottom dead centres. On the right hand side they are dynamically transferred to the inner disc. This sets up the free couple GI with gravity driving the inner disc CW and inertia driving the outer ring CCW.

This free couple acts at the axle and provides a source of continuous power.



+IHM+IHS+JMJ+



This couple has a somewhat analogous structure, albeit offset, of gravity mass down - inertia mass up, as a pendulum rotating through 360 degrees. The gravitation mass drives the pendulum from top dead centre to bottom dead centre. In so doing it raise the inertial mass potential which the drives the pendulum from bottom dead centre to the top dead centre.



+IHM+IHS+JMJ+



For explanatory purposes a relatively large gap is shown between the disc and the outer ring. In practice this gap should be as small as possible since the essential point is that the action of the weights is moved from control by the outer ring to control by the inner disc. The change in distance of a weight from the axle should be the minimum necessary to achieve this transfer.

The transformation from the Vesica Pisces Gravity Motor to the Keenie Gravity motor is now complete.

The Keenie removes the chief practical objection to the Vesica Pisces operation (the difficulty of transferring the weights from one wheel to the other.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sun Sep 27, 2009 9:11 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

Modification required

On the Vesica it doesn't matter which wheel transfers a weight to the other wheel since there is symmetry between the two wheels.

On the Keenie there isn't this symmetry and so it does matter. The way I have it at present it won't self start. Therefor I see that the load has to go from the inner wheel to the outer, not the way it is at present.

Trouble is I was so concerned with getting the dynamics right that I wasn't thinking straight about the statics. Also, one is lulled into a false sense of security because initially it's easier to drop the weight from the outer to the inner than the other way around which needs sloping slots and has to start well past top dead centre. Bessler's warning about being too greedy comes to mind.

It won't affect the generation of a free couple fortunately. It just means that the couple will be acting the opposite way, which doesn't matter as far as power generation is concerned. It does mean of course that the weights cannot stay on the constant radius I was assuming but have to move outboard to give that starting kick. Once started the rotation will help to send the weights to the outer ring.

However, at speed it would seem advantageous to reduce the distance between the inner and outer weight radius since this will lead to smoother running.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Fri Nov 13, 2009 4:17 am PostPost subject:
Trim
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 217
Location: Colchester, Essex

Reply with quote

Frank assuming it works as you say and produces excess energy on the surface of the earth, would still do so in a spaceship accelerating at 1G ? Also how about in a centrifuge at 40G's? Or would it take energy away?
_________________
Assume all assumptions are wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Nov 13, 2009 11:24 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

Trim wrote:
Frank assuming it works as you say and produces excess energy on the surface of the earth, would still do so in a spaceship accelerating at 1G ? Also how about in a centrifuge at 40G's? Or would it take energy away?

No.

Why not?

Because the energy comes from the interaction of the gravity mass gradient and the inertial mass gradient.

In outer space there is no significant gravity mass gradient so one would only be left with the inertial mass gradient.

Inertial mass is not the same as gravity mass and neither are measures of the amount of substance a body possess but accidental properties such as colour or temperature.

The trouble is that such a statement is so out of kilter with existing dogma that to take it seriously one has to start dismantling the very foundations of modern physics. No one is going to do that until they are faced with a killer app such as the Orbo or a gravity mill which they can't explain.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Mon Nov 16, 2009 2:30 am PostPost subject:
Trim
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 07 Oct 2007
Posts: 217
Location: Colchester, Essex

Reply with quote

Thanks I hear you are not posting at the village. Not even last poster? Mags popped in and last posted has been closed by Sean. I wonder if it means anything?
_________________
Assume all assumptions are wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | Inventor's Corner
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum