top

Riding the Wave

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | WhipMag Discussion/Development Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next   Page 1 of 5

Wed May 12, 2010 11:43 pm PostPost subject: Riding the Wave
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

The transition from GW to AGW represents a standing/breaking wave in Magnetic field, in the Gamma-atmosphere in other words. Shaun McCarthy drew attention to it (Sean's bump) and Al managed to catch it with the WhipMag and ride it for 7 hours.

Like waves coming up a shoreline it requires skill and timing to catch since the window of opportunity is quite small.

One other person has caught it but didn't seem to appreciate what he had found. He reported it on this forum. I think it was couldbe.

How do I know this?

Because I have found a similar window of opportunity in the gravitational field and hopefully my builder Vina1 is going to ride it.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Thu May 13, 2010 12:42 am PostPost subject:
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Good on ya, Frank!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu May 13, 2010 5:53 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

overconfident wrote:
Good on ya, Frank!

Thanks, OC.

It seems to me the significant problem with the Whipmag is that of producing matched magnets. In my career I had a lot of problems with material variation and so I realise its importance and ubiquity.

Take soil-cement for instance. When I first joined Road Research Lab the coefficient of variation in strength of control cylinders was 10%. I realised this was hampering understanding of relationships between variables and set out to measure and control the variability within specimens. By a combination of techiques we managed to get the coefficient down to 1.5%. Because confidence limits go with the square of the coefficient this means that test on a single specimen gave us a result equivalent to the use of 50 specimens with the original coefficient.

Al has reported that he has been able to replicate everything but the magnets. Apparently he only has one set of magnets that work.

I don't have much experience of surfing and riding the wave but I imagine it needs a smooth uniform beach for surfable waves of any length to be generated. Same must apply to magnets. I see no problem in getting the external geometry right. That variability can be neglected just as it could be in the case of our soil-cement specimens. The problem lies in the internal variability of the magnets and the resultant variability in their external field. Until some means of measuring this precisely is devised thereby producing matched sets of magnets reproduction of Al Turpin's ride is unlikely to be replicated.


_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Fri May 14, 2010 7:11 pm PostPost subject: Re: Riding the Wave
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Frank wrote:
The transition from GW to AGW represents a standing/breaking wave in Magnetic field, in the Gamma-atmosphere in other words. Shaun McCarthy drew attention to it (Sean's bump) and Al managed to catch it with the WhipMag and ride it for 7 hours.

Like waves coming up a shoreline it requires skill and timing to catch since the window of opportunity is quite small.

One other person has caught it but didn't seem to appreciate what he had found. He reported it on this forum. I think it was couldbe.

How do I know this?

Because I have found a similar window of opportunity in the gravitational field and hopefully my builder Vina1 is going to ride it.


Wowsers Frank, thats good stuff. I didn't think anyone was still studying the AGW phenomena. With all due respect to our revered moderator Al who discovered the phenomena (but who is now a proven fraud and hoaxter) I am using the unique characteristics of the AGW mode to create the wave the stator rides on. On my rig I create the wave by continually opposing the back mmf from the AGW section with the back mmf from the GW.

The complication is that it takes a computer to place and keep the stator on the crest of the wave as it naturally wants to slide off. If you can keep the stator on the crest you then get a free ride for both the GW and AGW sections doubling the output! Well, not quite yet. If the stator falls off the crest for any reason, it takes work to get it back up so a few (possibly major) challenges left.

Keep up the good work Frank, I'm very intrigued!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri May 14, 2010 8:41 pm PostPost subject: Re: Riding the Wave
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

cloud camper wrote:
If the stator falls off the crest for any reason, it takes work to get it back up so a few (possibly major) challenges left.


Don't let it fall off!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri May 14, 2010 8:43 pm PostPost subject: Re: Riding the Wave
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

cloud camper wrote:
Frank wrote:
The transition from GW to AGW represents a standing/breaking wave in Magnetic field, in the Gamma-atmosphere in other words. Shaun McCarthy drew attention to it (Sean's bump) and Al managed to catch it with the WhipMag and ride it for 7 hours.

Like waves coming up a shoreline it requires skill and timing to catch since the window of opportunity is quite small.

One other person has caught it but didn't seem to appreciate what he had found. He reported it on this forum. I think it was couldbe.

How do I know this?

Because I have found a similar window of opportunity in the gravitational field and hopefully my builder Vina1 is going to ride it.


Wowsers Frank, that's good stuff. I didn't think anyone was still studying the AGW phenomena. With all due respect to our revered moderator Al who discovered the phenomena (but who is now a proven fraud and hoaxer) I am using the unique characteristics of the AGW mode to create the wave the stator rides on. On my rig I create the wave by continually opposing the back mmf from the AGW section with the back mmf from the GW.

The complication is that it takes a computer to place and keep the stator on the crest of the wave as it naturally wants to slide off. If you can keep the stator on the crest you then get a free ride for both the GW and AGW sections doubling the output! Well, not quite yet. If the stator falls off the crest for any reason, it takes work to get it back up so a few (possibly major) challenges left.

Keep up the good work Frank, I'm very intrigued!

I'm happy to see my recollection was right (albeit I got the name wrong - well, they do both begin with c and cloud is an anagram of could, eh! Wink ) and doubly glad to hear that you have managed to ride the wave. It sounds to me as though you have proved the principle which is the most important step. As I tell my builder, once we have done that the rest is merely Very Happy engineering.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sat May 15, 2010 12:40 am PostPost subject: Re: Riding the Wave
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Quote:

I'm happy to see my recollection was right (albeit I got the name wrong - well, they do both begin with c and cloud is an anagram of could, eh! Wink ) and doubly glad to hear that you have managed to ride the wave. It sounds to me as though you have proved the principle which is the most important step. As I tell my builder, once we have done that the rest is merely Very Happy engineering.


Well I would'nt say I've actually ridden the wave, more like gotten up on it a
few times and got bucked off. But I think we're mostly on the same page I
guess maybe. I do think the concept is good tho. Whether theres any
energy left over after computer overhead is paid is open to conjecture.

I would be very interested in hearing more about your gravity wave concept!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat May 15, 2010 3:35 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

cloud camper wrote:
...

I would be very interested in hearing more about your gravity wave concept!


Well, my jumping off point was the Rubber Band Motor (RBM).



This is normally regarded as a heat engine. Interestingly enough pcstru who should know better was so fixated with the heat engine aspect of this motor that he even claimed it would work in the horizontal position. To be fair to him he did eventually retract when he understood how it worked.

Now with the RBM there are two energy gradients. The temperature gradient and the gravity gradient. Both are required for it to work.

But what is the relative contribution of each gradient. The exchange between the energy at the atom level of the rubber and the energy at the molecular level of the rubber is potentially adiabatic.





Is the heat gradient therefore only needed to compensate for losses?

At the very least we could say we have a thermo-gravitic engine since work is being done by gravity.

Can the thermal gradient be replaced by another gradient?
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sun May 16, 2010 6:53 am PostPost subject: Re: Riding the Wave
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

[quote="cloud camper"]
Frank wrote:
...

I am using the unique characteristics of the AGW mode to create the wave the stator rides on. On my rig I create the wave by continually opposing the back mmf from the AGW section with the back mmf from the GW. ...

It seems to me that with the above statement you are almost there. The two mmfs must be different. One must be bigger than the other in the same way that the pressure in the advancing sea wave is different (the head is greater) than the retreating land wave (the head is smaller)
You are not riding "on the crest of the wave" but continuously sliding down the slope between the two opposing mmfs. Just like a surfer you find this difficult to do without falling off.

So which is the larger mmf? The GW or the AGW. I would guess the GW - but I could be wrong. Very Happy
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sun May 16, 2010 7:35 am PostPost subject: Re: Riding the Wave
overconfident
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 10 Feb 2007
Posts: 1121

Reply with quote

Frank wrote:

It seems to me that with the above statement you are almost there. The two mmfs must be different. One must be bigger than the other in the same way that the pressure in the advancing sea wave is different (the head is greater) than the retreating land wave (the head is smaller)
You are not riding "on the crest of the wave" but continuously sliding down the slope between the two opposing mmfs. Just like a surfer you find this difficult to do without falling off.

So which is the larger mmf? The GW or the AGW. I would guess the GW - but I could be wrong. :D


Frank, up early, eh? I'm having a hard time sleeping tonight. But I'd like to weigh in on this a bit.

First, I agree with you a gradient is required.

Second, with CC's device (I believe ... don't have enough details to be sure), and certainly with WhipMag, the interacting mmfs, with a combination of GW and AGW synchronization are a bit eccentric. It's difficult to stay on the slope of that wave.

Third, the changing radial loading on these devices introduces additional friction and heat to the bearings, reducing efficiency.

Fourth, here's an idea that I've been considering, WRT WhipMag anyway (I'm not familiar enough with CC's current setup). In the WhipMag device Al demonstrated, and we all know and love, there are 3 rotating stators, 2 GW and 1 AGW, and the spacing between them is not equal.

What I have been considering is doubling the number of stators. By doing so, there would still be the same ratio of magnetic transactions, BUT each transaction would be a double transaction, with a GW stator on one side and an AGW on the opposite side. This arrangement should also help to alleviate some of the radial loads as the magnets interact. It will also be more conducive to AGW synchronization.

Consider the base with 6 equally spaced stators (instead of 3) and no rotor mounted. Select one of the stators and spin it CW. The adjacent stators on either side will react and spin CCW (widdershins to you old limeys). The next ones will again spin CW an the final one CCW. It's just the natural stator-to-stator GW interaction.

Now put the rotor in place, and the relationships change a bit. Each of the stators will also be interacting with the rotor and want to sync with it as well. The natural way is GW, but half the stators can be going AGW WRT to the rotor as described above.

Spacing could be an interesting issue here. You might want the GW stators farther out than the AGW stators ... or vice versa, in order to get the balance right, and the surfing a bit easier.

Just some late night thoughts.

OC
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun May 16, 2010 4:40 pm PostPost subject:
Magluvin
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 25 Nov 2008
Posts: 499
Location: USA

Reply with quote

But we have to remember that the wave in the ocean was a cause and effect thing. If it wasnt for the moon, or the sun and solar flares, and even the other planets, the waves that we see would be appreciably less. So the association can not integrate. There must be an outside force to get the wave going. Or just an existing force that, having been set in motion and drawn off of in the least way.
So to gather sea wave energy, we must have the moon and such feeding the waves. We all know why and how, so I dont have to explain it. ;]

Us as humans, in reality dont really ask for much when it comes to power consumption, when you compare it to the universe. Everything out there that has been set into motion and we can use it to our little advantage.

But to produce a wave, continuous, that gains upon itself as so that we can generate extra power for other uses other than the device running itself perpetually, it needs some sort of kick to keep it going. Just like the moon, 186,00 miles away, and look at what it can do.

Lets say that Als whip really worked, we have talked about the possibility of the rotors total field, all magnets and gaps having a cause an effect, as a whole with just 1 stator. Each gap between each rotor mag to the next, the fields flex, expand and contract, just from the interaction of 1 spinning stator, on one side of the rotor.
There may be more to how the whip works than anyone has even imagined yet.

Well the stators in reality, if everything is set perfectly, there could be a phase of operation that could give Als whip, what we have all seen that it might do. Might. =]

Mags
_________________
I always think of it like an electric motor, ya gota have pole switching.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon May 17, 2010 5:34 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Geez, this is all beginning to make my head hurt. I certainly don't pretend to have all the answers, but let's try a Harvey style thought experiment to try and sort this out. It will be fun!

Let's attempt a gravitational analogy here to show what's going on. On the left we have a 100 lb box of bolts we're trying to lift to the top of a 100 ft tower. We'll call this the GW tower. We have a hand crank arrangement with a pulley at the top of the tower with a rope going up to the pulley and back down where it is attached to the 100 lb box. Our tedious chore is to slowly reel in the rope, laboriously turning the crank to lift the load. The forward emf is the force applied to the load to move it up the tower. The back emf is the force applied to our arm to resist turning the crank. As we turn the crank, we are turning the "stator" that the load then responds to by going slowly up the tower. Well, the load is up there now but that was really tiring. There must be an easier way.

Lets build a second tower on the right and this time lets cleverly reverse the direction of gravity at this tower only so the gravity vector faces up. We'll call this tower the AGW tower. Now we have to do something a little different. To move the load to the top of the tower we have to rearrange the crank setup. We now need 100 feet of rope wound around the crank drum and this time we have to let the rope out slowly as it is trying to pull away from us, breaking away and crashing into the top of the tower. To avoid this ugly scenario, we have to let the rope out incrementally, applying a continuous large force in the opposite direction to the direction we want the load to go. Wow, that did'nt work so well either. My arms are just as tired as it was on the GW tower. Doing all this work is a load of nonsense so lets go to lunch and think about this much harder.

After a nice lunch we're feeling much better and we have a new plan. Lets interconnect the crank system from the GW tower to the AGW tower. Now we have a common axle extending across from one tower to the other. We arrange the take up drums so as we turn the crank at the GW tower, reeling in the rope, we are simultaneously reeling out the rope at the AGW. Now lets add a steel I-beam bolted to the top of the load at the GW tower stretching across to the load at the AGW tower and bolt it to the top of the load there. Lets call this I-beam arrangement connecting the loads the "rotor" just for fun.

Now as we turn the crank what happens? The back emf at the GW tower is trying to turn the crank axle one way but the back emf at the AGW tower is trying to turn it the other. So we have counterbalanced the back emf's with each other. Now we can easily turn the crank while sipping a sparkling adult beverage and raise both loads (the rotor) to the top of the tower without breaking a sweat. This is great. What a duck job!

We cannot reverse the direction of gravity in our everyday universe to do this gravitationally (well hopefully Frank knows how) but magnetically we can using the AGW phenomenon. Thats the unique feature of the AGW mode in that it reverses the direction of both the forward and backward emf's. Consider it like a emf inverter (perverter?). All the rest is just engineering like Frank says (but very tricky).

The "wave" in the gravitational thought experiment resides totally within the common axle between the towers. It is a standing wave that is created by the counteracting back emfs. The wave moves or rotates as the crank is turned but is always there. Doing this magnetically is somewhat different as the rotor must be passed off from one stator-rotor event to another as smoothly as possible and the wave constantly varies in intensity as different magnetic transactions amplify and recede.

In the magnetic version, the forward direction of the rotor is set by the phase angle of the stator. This is controlled by the computer on both the GW and AGW sides, the idea being to match back emfs integrated over a full rotor cycle. If there is any imbalance over the cycle, work must then be performed to make up the difference. This is like "falling off the wave". In our gravitational thought experiment, this would be like having unequal loads between the GW and AGW towers, requiring that some work still be done to raise the weights as the back emf's would not fully counterbalance.

Well, I had fun. Hope this helps!


Last edited by cloud camper on Mon May 17, 2010 11:51 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon May 17, 2010 7:40 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

cloud camper wrote:
Geez, this is all beginning to make my head hurt. I certainly don't pretend to have all the answers, but let's try a Harvey style thought experiment to try and sort this out. It will be fun!

Let's attempt a gravitational analogy here to show what's going on. On the left we have a 100 lb box of bolts we're trying to lift to the top of a 100 ft tower. We'll call this the GW tower. We have a hand crank arrangement with a pulley at the top of the tower with a rope going up to the pulley and back down where it is attached to the 100 lb box. Our tedious chore is to slowly reel in the rope, laboriously turning the crank to lift the load. The forward emf is the force applied to the load to move it up the tower. The back emf is the force applied to our arm to resist turning the crank. As we turn the crank, we are turning the "stator" that the load then responds to by going slowly up the tower. Well, the load is up there now but that was really tiring. There must be an easier way.

Lets build a second tower on the right and this time lets cleverly reverse the direction of gravity so the gravity vector faces up. We'll call this tower the AGW tower. Now we have to do something a little different. To move the load to the top of the tower we have to rearrange the crank setup. We need 100 feet of rope wound around the crank drum and this time we have to let the rope out slowly as it is trying to pull away from us, breaking away and crashing into the top of the tower. To avoid this ugly scenario, we have to let the rope out slowly, applying a continuous force in the opposite direction to the direction we want the load to go. Wow, that did'nt work so well either. My arms are just as tired as it was on the GW tower. Doing all this work is a load of nonsense so lets go to lunch and think about this much harder.

After a nice lunch we're feeling much better and we have a new plan. Lets interconnect the crank system from the GW tower to the AGW tower. Now we have a common axle extending across from one tower to the other. We arrange the take up drums so as we turn the crank at the GW tower, reeling in the rope, we are simultaneously reeling out the rope at the AGW. Now lets add a steel I-beam bolted to the top of the load at the GW tower stretching across to the load at the AGW tower and bolt it to the top of the load there. Lets call this I-beam arrangement the "rotor" just for fun.

Now as we turn the crank what happens? The back emf at the GW tower is trying to turn the crank axle one way but the back emf at the AGW tower is trying to turn it the other. So we have counterbalanced the back emf's with each other. Now we can easily turn the crank while sipping a sparkling adult beverage and raise both loads (the rotor) to the top of the tower without breaking a sweat. This is great! What a duck job!

We cannot reverse the direction of gravity in our everyday universe to do this gravitationally (well hopefully Frank knows how) but magnetically we can using the AGW phenomenon. Thats the unique feature of the AGW mode in that it reverses the direction of both the forward and backward emf's. Consider it like a emf inverter (perverter?). All the rest is just engineering like Frank says (but very tricky!).

The "wave" in the gravitational thought experiment resides totally in the common axle between the towers. It is a constant stress wave that is created by the counteracting back emfs. The wave moves or rotates as the crank is turned but is always there. Doing this magnetically is somewhat different as the rotor must be passed off from one stator-rotor event to another as smoothly as possible and the wave constantly varies in intensity as different magnetic transactions amplify and recede.

In the magnetic version, the forward direction of the rotor is set by the phase angle of the stator. This is set by the computer on both the GW and AGW sides, the idea being to match back emfs integrated over a full rotor cycle. If there is any imbalance over the cycle, work must then be performed to make up the difference. This is like "falling off the wave". In our gravitational thought experiment, this would be like having unequal loads between the GW and AGW towers, requiring that some work still be done to raise the weights as the back emf's would not full counterbalance.

Well, I had fun. Hope this helps!

It is certainly the type of transformational thinking that is needed.

As for reversing the direction of gravity it has already been done in the Rubber Band Motor (RBM) if one is prepared to take the right standpoint and not keep to a rigidly fixed view.

Try standing on your head for example. The first question that comes up is why everything doesn't fall towards the ceiling.

The trouble with the RBM is that people are so obsessed with Al's mantra that Gravity is conservative and TANSTAAFL that they fail to see that the RBM is getting energy from gravity.

The gravitational force on the 6 to 12 side of the axle is less that that on the 12 to 6 side of the axle. The difference is negative gravity. The difference is the extent to which gravity has been reversed. It hasn't been completely reversed but let's not be greedy, "For greed is an evil plant." to quote Bessler.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Thu May 20, 2010 3:33 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

@ Cloud Camper

Been reading some of your past posts. I feel sure that the GW and AGW mmfs are different strengths.

Think electron spins, parallel and anti-parallel. I seem to remember they are different.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Thu May 20, 2010 4:51 am PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Yes Frank, thats absolutely correct. The original 1/2" diametrically magnetized cylinders used were totally unsuited for the purpose as an AGW stator. This is very similar to our gravitational thought experiment when we had to change the rope/pulley system at the AGW tower, the GW rope system being totally unsuited to AGW requirements. Now think "tricky engineering solutions"!

Incidentally, this device being developed by the LaFonte group seems to operate in many ways similar to the concept I am using. I am constructing one of these devices as well to see what I can learn! Eddy currents are killing them though. But no BEMF.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=8852.0

When do we get to hear some more about your new gravity motor concept? Do we get to see some cool hysteresis diagrams?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Sep 14, 2010 4:37 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Looks like this list has gone totally dead but that doesnt mean there's no
activity going on.

I'm on my third gearbox redesign currently and may have to do it again.
What's been killing me is that I had all the AGW reactions occurring simultaneously creating a hellacious cog that the gearbox could not tolerate without shedding gears, bearings and whatnot so I now have figured a way to stagger the AGW reactions. There's a monster bubble that the stator poles have to get thru. They get attracted strongly in, hit the high resistance bubble then get kicked out. The new gearbox design staggers the reactions so as the first stator pole hits the bubble, the next one is still in the high attraction phase. Then as the first one goes thru the bubble and accelerates out, the second AGW pole hits the resistance bubble and gets helped thru. The whole issue currently is softening up the AGW hits to try and keep the gearbox from shredding. Plus the massive simultaneous AGW cog was throwing off the computer timing.

I'm currently using just one stator station and was planning on using four but that would again cause a magnification of the AGW cog so now will be dropping back to three spaced at 120 degree intervals. So with 16 stator magnets will be looking at a total of 96 AGW hits per rotor revolution. If I can get these all separated nicely we should get a very smooth running unit. Just like sex, timing is everything!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Sep 15, 2010 3:16 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

cloud camper wrote:
Looks like this list has gone totally dead but that doesnt mean there's no
activity going on.

I'm on my third gearbox redesign currently and may have to do it again.
What's been killing me is that I had all the AGW reactions occurring simultaneously creating a hellacious cog that the gearbox could not tolerate without shedding gears, bearings and whatnot so I now have figured a way to stagger the AGW reactions. There's a monster bubble that the stator poles have to get thru. They get attracted strongly in, hit the high resistance bubble then get kicked out. The new gearbox design staggers the reactions so as the first stator pole hits the bubble, the next one is still in the high attraction phase. Then as the first one goes thru the bubble and accelerates out, the second AGW pole hits the resistance bubble and gets helped thru. The whole issue currently is softening up the AGW hits to try and keep the gearbox from shredding. Plus the massive simultaneous AGW cog was throwing off the computer timing.

I'm currently using just one stator station and was planning on using four but that would again cause a magnification of the AGW cog so now will be dropping back to three spaced at 120 degree intervals. So with 16 stator magnets will be looking at a total of 96 AGW hits per rotor revolution. If I can get these all separated nicely we should get a very smooth running unit. Just like sex, timing is everything!

Good luck. If anyone can succeed, you will.

All that high tech would be very useful in tackling the gravity problem - but fortunately I think it can be solved with relatively low tec - especially when one has grasped the essence of the Pop Keenie Wheel in terms of the conservation of angular momentum.

Edit: I've just looked back to your previous post.

I am making good progress and I think I know have the equivalent of the proof of the infinite number of primes. In other words the kind of proof that demonstrates coercively to any competent engineer that harnessing gravity is possible and that Keenie succeeded. One needs that kind of certainty in order to have the necessary incentive to overcome the experimental difficulties in building a physical device.

When I've polished the arguments I will post them here after I've posted in my private forum on BesslerWheel.com and then the Community Buzz forum.

I've been very close to success before but have never managed to climb those last hundred feet to the summit by putting all the bits of the jigsaw together in the correct order, if you will forgive the mixed metaphor. Very Happy

Edit: I should have said conservation of Angular Momentum of course, rather than conservation of momentum. I have made the necessary correction in red above.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Wed Sep 15, 2010 8:39 pm PostPost subject: Re: Riding the Wave
bano
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 500
Location: Bulgaria

Reply with quote

[quote="Frank"]
cloud camper wrote:
Frank wrote:
...

I am using the unique characteristics of the AGW mode to create the wave the stator rides on. On my rig I create the wave by continually opposing the back mmf from the AGW section with the back mmf from the GW. ...

It seems to me that with the above statement you are almost there. The two mmfs must be different. One must be bigger than the other in the same way that the pressure in the advancing sea wave is different (the head is greater) than the retreating land wave (the head is smaller)
You are not riding "on the crest of the wave" but continuously sliding down the slope between the two opposing mmfs. Just like a surfer you find this difficult to do without falling off.

So which is the larger mmf? The GW or the AGW. I would guess the GW - but I could be wrong. Very Happy

Franky, the thread http://s136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/?start=480
is P E R F E CT Woww:)))))))))))))))))))))))))

Please explane this picture:
http://s136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/?action=view&current=Keene02.jpg
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM&feature=channel_page

 PINK FLOYD FOREVER
: from Bulgaria
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Sep 16, 2010 8:32 am PostPost subject: Re: Riding the Wave
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

[quote="bano"][quote="Frank"]
cloud camper wrote:
Frank wrote:
...

I am using the unique characteristics of the AGW mode to create the wave the stator rides on. On my rig I create the wave by continually opposing the back mmf from the AGW section with the back mmf from the GW. ...

It seems to me that with the above statement you are almost there. The two mmfs must be different. One must be bigger than the other in the same way that the pressure in the advancing sea wave is different (the head is greater) than the retreating land wave (the head is smaller)
You are not riding "on the crest of the wave" but continuously sliding down the slope between the two opposing mmfs. Just like a surfer you find this difficult to do without falling off.
bano wrote:
Frank wrote:
cloud camper wrote:
Frank wrote:
...

I am using the unique characteristics of the AGW mode to create the wave the stator rides on. On my rig I create the wave by continually opposing the back mmf from the AGW section with the back mmf from the GW. ...

It seems to me that with the above statement you are almost there. The two mmfs must be different. One must be bigger than the other in the same way that the pressure in the advancing sea wave is different (the head is greater) than the retreating land wave (the head is smaller)
You are not riding "on the crest of the wave" but continuously sliding down the slope between the two opposing mmfs. Just like a surfer you find this difficult to do without falling off.

So which is the larger mmf? The GW or the AGW. I would guess the GW - but I could be wrong. Very Happy

Franky, the thread http://s136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/?start=480
is P E R F E CT Woww:)))))))))))))))))))))))))

Please explane this picture:
http://s136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/?action=view&current=Keene02.jpg


So which is the larger mmf? The GW or the AGW. I would guess the GW - but I could be wrong. Very Happy

Franky, the thread http://s136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/?start=480
is P E R F E CT Woww:)))))))))))))))))))))))))

Please explane this picture:
http://s136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/?action=view&current=Keene02.jpg


I'm glad to see that there are some people curious enough to rifle through my photo album in search of hidden gems.

Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.


The picture represents the power cycle of Keenie's wheel using the Carnot cycle as a template.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Fri Sep 17, 2010 7:39 am PostPost subject: Re: Riding the Wave
bano
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 500
Location: Bulgaria

Reply with quote

[quote="Frank"][quote="bano"][quote="Frank"][quote="cloud camper"]
Frank wrote:
...


Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.


The picture represents the power cycle of Keenie's wheel using the Carnot cycle as a template.


Frank , thanks,
I was reading some from links posted in Your thread for Keeny.
In mymemory it is coming a message for one bulgarian inventor (He was dead 4 years ago) His name is Sava Kanev He was bulgarian, Hes proffesion was the chair designer. I hope somewhere in my CD's it is hawe a picture with his device - one box with many many kind of litle wheels. He is not patented the invention. No anymore peoples- scientist gave the any possibling for this. He was leawed in Plovdiv second bigest syti in Bulgaria.But one man from Patent Bureau is watched the Kanev's device and klaims which the devize is working whitout any questions...
All design of Kanev's device was from wood. Nothing from his paper was not exist now, instead of the memoyres of his famyly persons.These peoples want not koment this greath period from his life by this moment. But If I go to Plovdiv I will try one more tyme to find and speech with the Kanev's famyli.
Bessler, Keeny, Kanev ...may be this is not only legend. May be this is not only some stuppid tall. Who known.... May be this is not the next my whitout target journey remission in the world of perpetual mashines.
Thanks Frank

Very very difficult theme and science
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM&feature=channel_page

 PINK FLOYD FOREVER
: from Bulgaria
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Sep 21, 2010 5:14 pm PostPost subject: Re: Riding the Wave
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Thanks for all your encouraging words Frank - hopefully we'll get to something useful!

What I'm trying to achieve is a situation where the back mmf's exactly oppose each other and effectively cancel and the forward mmf's mutually reinforce each other. So the idea of one mmf being slightly more than the other still requires work to overcome the difference. If the back mmf's are exactly the same integrated over a full rotor revolution, then there will be no work required to turn the shaft and the forward mmf's will be equal by definition.

A force is just a force and has no intelligence about where it came from nor does it care what the implications are if it just disappears.

What is achieved then is a standing stress wave in the gearbox that exactly cancels the back mmf's with each other but the forward mmf's
reinforce. At this balance condition, there are no forces acting on the motor shaft driving the stators in any position but the motor must still
turn the shaft (just like in the gravitational analogy).

The computer is required rotate the stators to maintain a force-free balance condition at all stator angles. In an ideal implementation, the
stators simply determine timing and input no work, similar to the camshaft in an IC engine.







[quote="Frank"][quote="bano"]
Frank wrote:
cloud camper wrote:
Frank wrote:
...

I am using the unique characteristics of the AGW mode to create the wave the stator rides on. On my rig I create the wave by continually opposing the back mmf from the AGW section with the back mmf from the GW. ...

It seems to me that with the above statement you are almost there. The two mmfs must be different. One must be bigger than the other in the same way that the pressure in the advancing sea wave is different (the head is greater) than the retreating land wave (the head is smaller)
You are not riding "on the crest of the wave" but continuously sliding down the slope between the two opposing mmfs. Just like a surfer you find this difficult to do without falling off.
bano wrote:
Frank wrote:
cloud camper wrote:
Frank wrote:
...

I am using the unique characteristics of the AGW mode to create the wave the stator rides on. On my rig I create the wave by continually opposing the back mmf from the AGW section with the back mmf from the GW. ...

It seems to me that with the above statement you are almost there. The two mmfs must be different. One must be bigger than the other in the same way that the pressure in the advancing sea wave is different (the head is greater) than the retreating land wave (the head is smaller)
You are not riding "on the crest of the wave" but continuously sliding down the slope between the two opposing mmfs. Just like a surfer you find this difficult to do without falling off.

So which is the larger mmf? The GW or the AGW. I would guess the GW - but I could be wrong. Very Happy

Franky, the thread http://s136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/?start=480
is P E R F E CT Woww:)))))))))))))))))))))))))

Please explane this picture:
http://s136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/?action=view&current=Keene02.jpg


So which is the larger mmf? The GW or the AGW. I would guess the GW - but I could be wrong. Very Happy

Franky, the thread http://s136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/?start=480
is P E R F E CT Woww:)))))))))))))))))))))))))

Please explane this picture:
http://s136.photobucket.com/albums/q171/frank260332/?action=view&current=Keene02.jpg


I'm glad to see that there are some people curious enough to rifle through my photo album in search of hidden gems.

Full many a gem of purest ray serene
The dark unfathomed caves of ocean bear:
Full many a flower is born to blush unseen,
And waste its sweetness on the desert air.


The picture represents the power cycle of Keenie's wheel using the Carnot cycle as a template.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Sep 21, 2010 8:44 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

I'm finding the analogy with IC engines very useful. There are so many different geometries (conventional, Gnome, Wankle, etc.) that one has many different examples to choose from. I also find the it is best to look at centrifugal/petal force as Ersatz Gravity with conventional gravity as Newtonian Gravity. This makes understanding the interaction between the two much simpler.

When I get to a full understanding of the Keenie wheel I shall post it here as well as on BesslerWheel.com
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Wed Sep 22, 2010 7:43 am PostPost subject:
bano
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 500
Location: Bulgaria

Reply with quote

Frank wrote:
I'm finding the analogy with IC engines very useful. There are so many different geometries (conventional, Gnome, Wankle, etc.) that one has many different examples to choose from. I also find the it is best to look at centrifugal/petal force as Ersatz Gravity with conventional gravity as Newtonian Gravity. This makes understanding the interaction between the two much simpler.

When I get to a full understanding of the Keenie wheel I shall post it here as well as on BesslerWheel.com


Franky, I known which we some time by the way spining in circle but please pook here some more for Pomerleu:
http://mazeto.net/index.php?topic=1546.msg24254;topicseen#msg24254
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM&feature=channel_page

 PINK FLOYD FOREVER
: from Bulgaria
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Sep 25, 2010 9:26 am PostPost subject:
bano
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 05 Nov 2008
Posts: 500
Location: Bulgaria

Reply with quote

bano wrote:
Frank wrote:
I'm finding the analogy with IC engines very useful. There are so many different geometries (conventional, Gnome, Wankle, etc.) that one has many different examples to choose from. I also find the it is best to look at centrifugal/petal force as Ersatz Gravity with conventional gravity as Newtonian Gravity. This makes understanding the interaction between the two much simpler.

When I get to a full understanding of the Keenie wheel I shall post it here as well as on BesslerWheel.com


Franky, I known which we some time by the way spining in circle but please pook here some more for Pomerleu:
http://mazeto.net/index.php?topic=1546.msg24254;topicseen#msg24254


http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Alpha_Omega_Galaxy_Freefall_Generator_(AOGFG)
_________________
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SP_o1_jBUSM&feature=channel_page

 PINK FLOYD FOREVER
: from Bulgaria
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Feb 19, 2011 5:42 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Well, still here crawling along cuz I'm too dumb to know when to quit. Decided to dub my project the Waverider (thanks for the great idea Frank!). The whole idea of course is to stay at the crest so no work is required to turn the stators.

Been doing a lot of reading and turns out the concept is very similiar to what Tom Bearden has been saying all along and that is not to destroy the dipole. You only spend energy to create the dipole once then do whats necessary to maintain it without destroying it. In the Waverider, as soon as there is any rotor attraction toward the stator, the rotor is trying to destroy the dipole and if it catches up to the stator, the dipole is destroyed completely, requiring more work to create it again. This also works in repulsion mode as when the rotor tries to escape the stator, it requires work to again catch up to the rotor. To prevent that the stator must turn to stay ahead of the rotor, or catch up to the rotor in repulsion mode maintaining the dipole.

Ordinarily that would take work as you're fighting against the attraction or pushing against a repulsion but with the AGW stators requiring equal and opposite reations to maintain the dipole, the net work is zero or close. I've now got three GW stations set up and six AGW. The AGW stations are 60 degrees apart around the rotor to minimize the nasty regauging hit that is experienced twice per AGW rotation. This will be 96 AGW regaugings per rotor revolution. I wish I could think of a better way to soften/dampen the AGW regauging hits but it's not too bad now. The AGW hits are unwanted cycles but have to be dealt with just like the intake and compression strokes on a 4 cycle IC engine.

The big headache is to equalize the work done by the GW and AGW sections so the back mmfs cancel out, especially under load. I'm working on a spreadsheet that changes the timing to automatically equalize the loads experienced by the GW and AGW sections but that is only a fine adjustment and cannot handle any gross imbalances in the system.

More later!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Feb 19, 2011 6:40 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

Good luck CC.

Am making good progress with the gravity mill and learning the importance of Jerk (dx/dt). Don't think hardly any of the members of BesslerWheel.com understand what I'm talking about but I seem to have intimidated them into keeping quiet which allows me to develop the theory without a lot of stupid interruptions.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Tue Feb 22, 2011 12:32 am PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Well Franky, I guess it's down to just you and me now to save the
planet. Everybody else seems to have packed up and returned to
their normal porno channels!

Maybe we should combine the Wave Rider and Gravity Mill and really
come up with something!

So is an acceleration of an acceleration a hyperjerk? Razz
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Feb 22, 2011 3:25 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

first derivative of position with respect to time = velocity
second. = acceleration
third.... = jerk
fourth.. = jounce
fith...... = snap
sixth.... = crackle
seventh = pop

But the last two are unofficial. Very Happy
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Tue Feb 22, 2011 7:07 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

@ cloud camper Here are two posts where I finally began to understand what I was doing.

===============================================

Posted: 19th December 2010, 4:54 pm Post subject: Conservation of Jerk

Grimer wrote:
I can now see why the differentiated inertia wheel will work.

The the two conservation laws, momentum and energy, are simply the same law at different levels.

Using a multi-storey building as an analogy the we see the conservation of momentum when we are on the same floor, the 10th say, as the action taking place. It is a conservation between batches. When the action takes place on the 9th floor we see it as a conservation of energy because we have not changed our viewpoint. If we move to the 9th floor and thus change our viewpoint to within batches then we see that the conservation of energy is simply a conservation of momentum within batches.

The floor below that, the 8th floor, is the jerk floor. If we move to it we will see the within component variance as momentum which is conserved. However, seen from the 10th floor it is the conservation of Jerk. Jerk has to be conserved because it is only the momentum lamb in wolf's clothing.

I could kick myself for not having seen this earlier.

But there you are. Cognitive dissonance affects me just as much as anybody.


===============================================

Posted: 19th December 2010, 8:39 pm Post subject: re: Conservation of Jerk

Grimer wrote:

With reference to the above diagram which has already been posted in another thread you can see that for Jerk to be conserved (as it must) then one has to add a clockwise acceleration to reduce the high acceleration of the low inertia wheel and increase the low acceleration of the high inertia wheel. This balancing jerk constitutes the useful output from the Keenie wheel in the slightly modified and more explicit form which I have proposed.


===============================================

In relation to what you are attempting it means that CEMF is of a higher n+1 order than EMF. It's analogous to recoil energy and you have to catch it at is maximum extent with some kind of one way valve ratchet device before conditions return to equilibrium. Needless to say this was all completely above the heads of the BesslerWheel forum - but I suppose I'd have been a bit worried if it weren't.

(to be continued)
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Wed Feb 23, 2011 6:03 am PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Franky, I hate to display my ignorance but I just can't understand what's
happening in the Keenie wheel diagram (the second one with the weights).

First, are the two wheels rigidly attached to the axle or are they free to
rotate? They can't be rigidly attached but your first Keenie wheel diagram (without the weights) seems to show they are. My bad if I misunderstand this.

Second, why do the green weights on the inner wheel which must be pulled down by gravity show to rise against gravity by the CCW green arrow?

Third the weights must be transferred at the bottom to the inertia wheel. What causes the weights on the left side of the inertia wheel to go over center (all piled up on the left side). The only way I see this could work if there was some sort of ratcheting arrangement so when each weight transferred at the bottom, a small CW momentum would be imparted to the inertia wheel (the jerk) that would have a fine ratchet preventing any CCW motion that would then slowly ratchet the inertia wheel weights back to the top (maybe). But thats not right either because the I directional arrow shows a CCW direction for the inertia wheel.

Sorry Frank, can you explain the concept better? Trying to but sorry, I'm just a nube at gravity wheels! Sad
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | WhipMag Discussion/Development
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