News on China's scientific and technological development.

Blackstone

Brigadier
There are no such thing as a perpetual engine which defies the law of the conservation of energy.
Yes, of course you're right perpetual engines defy law of physics. However, Bruce DePalma did experiments on spinning balls that produced some eyebrow-raising results that seem to defy conservation of energy. It's not mainstream scientific believe, to be sure.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

By Bruce DePalma

The beginning of this author's work with rotating objects began with moment of inertia measurements of constrained gyroscopes undergoing forced precession. The increased moments of inertia discovered for precessional motion were translated into a series of measurements on pendula with rotating bobs. Although the discoveries of the inertial effects associated with precession and pendulum oscillations of rotating bob weights were highly suggestive, this author greatly resisted attempts to force him to drop a rotating object for two reasons.

Firstly, he had no reason to be able to predict the motion of a freely falling object on the basis of the inertial alterations he had measured which had concerned themselves with constrained situations of rotating objects. Second, there was no reason to expect inertial alterations to affect the rate of fall of a released object and there was no available theory which could in any way be applied to the situation or a falling rotating object in a gravitational field. This is a situation known in religious terms as a "leap into the dark."

Since the author and his assistants are experts in the application of stroboscopic lighting techniques to the study of high speed motions, the first experimental cut at the situation was to photograph the trajectories of a steel ball bearing rotating at a high speed together with an identical control object moving at a similar initial velocity. The result of the experiment was so startling and anomalous as to have taken me five years to understand.

The original results of our experiments were circulated as a report [1] in 1974. Two years later the experiment was published in an appendix to a book of Christian exegesis [2]. In 1977, one of my former students performed a high precision verification of the dropping of a rotating object: "The Gyro Drop Experiment."[3] Actually the experiment has two parts, the spinning ball going up, and the spinning ball falling. Since I would be rather thought a fool than misrepresent results of experiments, I only attempted to analyze the portion of the experiment I thought I understood. Basically, the spinning object going higher than the identical non-rotating control with the same initial velocity, and, then falling faster than the identical non-rotating control; presents a dilemma which can only be resolved or understood -- on the basis of radically new concepts in physics -- concepts so radical that only the heretofore un-understood results of other experiments, (the elastic collision of a rotating and an identical non-rotating object, et al.), and new conceptions of physics growing out of the many discussions and correspondence pertaining to rotation, inertia, gravity, and motion in general. We should remember the pioneers in this field: Wolfe, Cox, Dean, Laithwaite, Rendle, Searle, KŸmmel, DePalma and Delvers, to name but a few.
.
.
.
[article exceeded 10k words]
.
.
.
The question to be answered: is there any gravitational effect from rotation or is gravitation a special interaction of mass with its environment. I would tend to believe gravitation is a special interaction of real mass with its environment. This is not to say that artificial gravitational fields cannot be created but they would be always distinguishable from the real thing through some physical test. An artificial gravitational field would be non-isotropic and anisotropic.

In terms of the dropping of the spinning ball, the understanding of the experiment involves the results of many other experiments as well as the resolution of a mind picture of the Universe which is our best approximation to understanding at the present time. What makes it difficult for other experimenters to understand the experiment is that it is not simply the results which are important. Without a theoretical foundation of understanding to make the experiment comprehendible -- to fit the results into a context of rational understanding and harmony with the facts of other experiments -- the data become trivial and worthless, and, worst of all, subject to misinterpretation.

The availability of free energy from as simple an experiment as colliding a rotating object with a non-rotating one opens up the development of other machines for energy extraction and propulsion which may be more convenient to handle than the extraction of energy from the collision of a rotating object with a non-rotating one.
 

no_name

Colonel
^^^ I would say that the spinning ball bearing possibly interacted aerodynamically and may have generated lift for itself. I'll be more convinced if he repeats the experiment in vacuum.

ball.png
 
Last edited:

Quickie

Colonel
It doesn't matter if the engine is in the wheel or not then since the harvested electricity could be fed into the electric motor via copper wire.

I think the idea was that with the electric motor in the wheel itself, no external gear transmission is needed to drive the wheel, which in turn will increase the overall energy efficiency. The only issue I see is that they would also need to find a way to reduce the weight of the wheel as much as possible if they're going to use it on a car. It is probably more suited for a vehicle/machine with stationary wheel, like that of a train.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
I think the idea was that with the electric motor in the wheel itself, no external gear transmission is needed to drive the wheel, which in turn will increase the overall energy efficiency. The only issue I see is that they would also need to find a way to reduce the weight of the wheel as much as possible if they're going to use it on a car. It is probably more suited for a vehicle/machine with stationary wheel, like that of a train.

Do you mean boogie?
Train wheel are not stationary they are basically a lump of steel.
There are wheels with stationary hub but the draw back is transfer of energy from the motor to the rotating tire. The mechanical loss is large due to slippage between the wheel and hub.
 

Quickie

Colonel
Do you mean boogie?
Train wheel are not stationary they are basically a lump of steel.
There are wheels with stationary hub but the draw back is transfer of energy from the motor to the rotating tire. The mechanical loss is large due to slippage between the wheel and hub.

By stationary, I meant the axle is stationary, or at least with little movement.

Imagine a heavy wheel hitting some pot holes on the road and the damage it would cause.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
By stationary, I meant the axle is stationary, or at least with little movement.

Imagine a heavy wheel hitting some pot holes on the road and the damage it would cause.
Train axles are not stationary, they are part of the wheel and rotates with the wheel.
 

Quickie

Colonel
Train axles are not stationary, they are part of the wheel and rotates with the wheel.

Again, what I meant by stationary is the centre of the wheel is not moving UP or DOWN, like a car wheel axle would when driving through uneven surfaces. We're talking in the context of the internal wheel motor, which obviously would require a fixed axle in relation to the wheel motor.
 

SamuraiBlue

Captain
Again, what I meant by stationary is the centre of the wheel is not moving UP or DOWN, like a car wheel axle would when driving through uneven surfaces. We're talking in the context of the internal wheel motor, which obviously would require a fixed axle in relation to the wheel motor.
Ahhh, that is a misconception whether it be a car or train the axle is fixed to the car and does not move. An axle is a very stiff material so there is no mechanical loss. The axle is connected to a differential which is like a automated gear which is connected to two shafts again fixed to the chassis going right and left which is connected to another ball nut to a wheel that is finally connected to the wheel.
A very simplified explanation but you should be able to imagine what I am talking about.
 

Quickie

Colonel
Ahhh, that is a misconception whether it be a car or train the axle is fixed to the car and does not move. An axle is a very stiff material so there is no mechanical loss. The axle is connected to a differential which is like a automated gear which is connected to two shafts again fixed to the chassis going right and left which is connected to another ball nut to a wheel that is finally connected to the wheel.
A very simplified explanation but you should be able to imagine what I am talking about.

Of course I know that. I did talk about the lost of efficiency through the transmission mechanism in the earlier post. (Btw, the axle for the unpowered pair of back wheels is fixed).

But if the driving motors are in the wheels itself, which the discussion is all about in the first place, you can't expect the axles to be free turning as well. It's just common sense.
 
Last edited:
Top