Well, its nice to see that people are thinking and talking again!!
   Temperature differences will power a generator, and probably the best one is the Sterling Cycle Motor. The problem with these, though, is that there must be a substantial temp. difference, which is hard to maintain without a flame. (The heat always wants to move to the vacuum). Any that will do any useful work with a small temp. diff. will be too large to be practical. Alternative natural energies work wonderfully, but tend to be intermittent, so need expensive storage systems that most cannot afford. (That is my problem.)
  Did anyone watch P.B.S. last night? The show was about the evolution of flight, and one of the researchers was talking about the original RADIAL engine, from about 1915, and the piston and shaft of the engine remained still, while the cylinders and prop would spin. Obviously this resulted in extreme gyroscopic forces from the engine, and made the aircraft extremely difficult to control. Anyway, they did a small demonstration;  There was a 6 foot string passed through a 1 foot tube. At one end of the string was a tennis ball attatched. At the other end was a 5 lb. weight. When you grasp the tube, and spin the tennis ball on the string, the centrifugal force from the ball is enough to lift the weight, and the string with the ball would pass through the tube, pulling the weight upward. A very simple demo of why the Clem motor will work. Just replace the string with fluid, and the tennis ball with radially pointing jets, to cause the spin. As the rotor is spun, the centrifugal force of the fluid will be enough to 'suck up' more liquid, like the string, which in turn ejects from the jets, reulting in rotor spin, which in turn puts more cent. force on the fluid, and so on.
   I have come to one inescapable conclusion about 'free energy'. Whatever form it takes, the end result must be 'raw horsepower'. Everything we use in our modern world operates the same way, and that is 120 volts at 60 hertz, or 240 volts at 60 hertz. Our electrical appliances also have one other fault, too. The electricity must be 'pushed' through them, instead of 'pulled'. There are very many types and sizes of generators, but their principle operating parameters are identical. A machine like Tom Beardon's M.E.G. is a nice toy, but it won't power an electric motor. Something about hertz, and back E.M.F. screws it up. So, since our applications of electricity all rely on the same technology to operate, the only real solution to the o-u problem is a machine that produces rotary force, ie. Horsepower, that can then be caused to run a conventional generator. Also it must produce at least 10 kilowatts of electricity, as that is the maximum load most households will use. Anything less, and you get into epensive storage and remediation systems, or 'rationing', and most people would just as soon pay a monthly bill for the convenience. And, a small machine would be a help, since you can't put a 50 foot lever in an apartment. The most ideal thing would be an electric motor that powered a generator. This would fit in a closet, and be relatively silent.
   Have any of you ever thought about a 'Transformer Motor'? A typical transformer, such as the one powering your computers and charging your cell phones are about 66% efficient. Just look on the box, do the math conversion, and you will see this. Why can't an electric motor be built that incorporates permanent magnets into a transformer, sort of like the M.E.G. does, whose magnetic field operates the motor as normal, but 'recaptures' the collapsing magnetic field, which is supplimented with the permanent magnets, resulting in the same amount or more electricity being delivered back to the source as originally was sent to do the work? Basically, a Motionless Electrical Generator Motor. What you want to do is increase the magnetic force with the permanent magnets, over what the electro-magnet produced, use the force to spin the motor, and at commutation, when the field collapses, recapture the electricity, and then pipe this extra juice into the next commutation. What you might end up with is a motor that is 95 to 110% efficient, just in electricity usage, and rotary horse power is the BY PRODUCT.  When building such a motor, the first thing to think about is the efficiency of each magnetic pulse, not the overall efficiency. If each pulse returned 100% of the electricity it used, the motor will run 'for free'. A normal d.c. motor commutates at about 23,100 times per minute, a hertz of 385. Tesla proved that once the Hertz gets over about 47, it makes no further difference how much faster the electricity is pulsed, it still does the exact same thing. That is why we only use a 60 hertz cycle today. Any faster is a waste. So, in our mythical motor, once the cycles reach 50 per second, the magnetism will move the motor, and can be recaptured as electricity, to power the next cycle. Simple, Huh? Anyway, there is a new idea to play with.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 8:14 AM
Subject: Re: [Keelynet] differences of potential, vortexes and gravity

Hello, the theories discussed lately has some similarities with perpetual motion and creating free energy, Its great fun and interesting to try to break the energy laws but no one has succeeded so far. The more complex you build your free energy machine the harder it is to find the error, and in your head you start to believe that this thing simply must work, been there done that. To try to tap into gravity by buoyancy Its probably another area where the energy laws still holds water. Nothing can be created from nothing, and energy is everything so I guess we have to use something to make some energy, which is the same as transferring energy to a different state. So what shall we transform to usable energy?, fossil fuels is a bad solution, tapping gravity and gravity fields I don’t understand a bit of, it may be too advanced for me, but I have seen nothing who is close to working. The solution is probably to tap into renewable energy sources, mostly energy from the sun who creates light, wind, wave, biomass, water with potential energy, heat etc. or the process of the sun itself fusion.

Anyway got inspired by the discussion and the simpel wheel in a water tank, well that thing does not work, but why don’t it work, and what can you do to make it work? I used my favourite subjects temperature differences, faze changes and turbines and made this concept, a wheel who works the opposite way of a heat pump, and yes its gravity and buoyancy involved.

Simpler than this I couldn’t draw it, and it just show the principe. It’s like a big bicycle wheel standing up, half in cold water and the other half in warm water. The hose contains a refrigerant which evaporates when heated and condenses when cooled, its chambers in the hose so the refrigerant can’t move along the wheel. When the liquid evaporates in the warm water it creates more volume and more buoyancy, when it cools down and condenses in the cold water it creates less volume and less buoyancy. This will make the wheel spinn and you can tap it with an electric generator. This process will heat the cold water and cool down the warm water and is like I said the opposite of a heat pump. To keep the temperature difference you have to fill up with more cold and hot water. In this system you got very little energy loss, only some small loss from friction. A wild guess is an efficiency of 75% including the generator. Then you only have to get cold and hot water, like cold seawater and a warm river. Warm water can you also get from solar heaters, burning biofuel or garbage, used cooling water and spare heat from nuclear plants, industry, buildings etc. It may also be used to increase efficiency in fossil fuel power plants and opens up for generation of electricity from warm water under the boiling point. Hey I just figured, if you turn it with an engine the opposite way you have a heat pump! Wonder what the efficiency is? Wow this opens up for using it as flexible heat storage.....technology is wonderfull!

Well I appreciate if anyone has a comment, does this work, does it make sense?

If it works I have some nice ideas about how to build a machine and get up the speed, I do 3D all the way to manufacturing, need help on the calculations and the rest ,helpers, business developers and people with fat valets can just send me a mail;)

Pardon my English, Audun Hassel, Trondheim, Norway

"Phillip Mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

08.11.2006 21:30

Please respond to

"Interact" <interact@listserv.capital-master.com>
Re: [Keelynet] differences of potential, vortexes and gravity

I love these theories!  I can always picture them working.  However, a
balanced wooden wheel that was half submerged in calm water would push
upwards upon both sides of the axle shaft equally, thus voiding lift.  The
thought of nullified weight immersed in the water and a top-heavy wheel
would be subject to the same effect.  All top weight in a balanced wheel
would press downwards equally, again voiding spin.  However, the act of
spinning, in and of itself, seems key to solving over-unity and/or
anti-grav.  Spinning weights, electrons or fluids point towards the solution
we all seek.  The effect of motion/mass revolving upon an axis holds so much
promise!  Remember, the only force that mankind has yet to harness for
propulsion is centrifugal force.  Harness the 'up' force on a spinning
'something' and release the clutch during the down side of the spin and you
have a Model T anti-gravity machine.  Up, release, Up, release.  Put 4 of
these in series and you have a 4-banger Up Machine.  Can't we, as modern men
& women, put our heads together and finally break the barrier that has held
us spellbound and earthbound for all these years?  Phillip Mark, central
Florida, USA

Stay in touch with old friends and meet new ones with Windows Live Spaces

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.14.1/527 - Release Date: 11/9/2006

Reply via email to