One essential basis of hypothesis and maschines here, a well known phenomena is. Prof.Dr. Werner Klein did talk about a ball-experiment in ´Physik unserer Zeit´, 1998/2. At least two times it was demonstrated at German TV. Since november 1998, I did describe this experiment as Trick of Six-Days-Drivers, also at NET-Journal I aksed for explanation and help.
Thousands of physicans saw that TV-show, hundreds did read these journals, at least fifty do visit my website each day. However up to now, I got no knownledge of sufficient explanation to this phenomena. That´s why once again, I ask all physicans for help (and to solve that phenomena-problem of physics).
Phenomena
Two balls are pushed by same power to a starting speed, for example by running down a start-ramp (see EVEB 01, left). So starting position (A) for both balls are equal.
One ball, (here the red one, called even-ball) will go on rolling at even track. The other ball (here the blue one, called valley-ball) will roll on a wavy track. At the end (positions D), both balls again will be at same level and will also show same speed. Thus, to all physicyans asked, this experiment doesn´t show any special problem, no energy-law will be injured.
Point of this experiment however will be, even the valley-ball does show the longer track, but will be first at the end. Each time running at the top, it will show level and speed like even-ball, but will run ahead more and more (positions B, C and D).
It must be registered, turning of balls doen´t matter here (but rather negative concerning inertia and friction). Theoretically, but mass has to be looked at, which may glide at these tracks without friction. So a heavy car with light ball-bearings would better fit to this experiment.
Higher performance
To me, it´s not allowed to look but at situation at the tops and to ignore that ´higher throughput performance at a whole´ of the valley-ball. Naturally, the terminus performance in physics will be defined other kind. Nevertheless I would like to know, how physicans would call that ´more´ the valley-ball does achieve.
Thus, now I do claim, the valley-ball will show higher speed in average than the even-ball. This might correspond to higher kinetic energy in average - even potential energy of level will be same time by time. Thus, the valley-ball does show a surplus of energy, not once and short but again and again, resulting in significant long-term higher average.
Uneven comparison
Physical world will be ok, when the ´trick´ will be explored: comparing different stuff. In average, the valley-ball will move at an average level (F). Around this level, its potential energy will sway and correspondingly also its speed.
If one would allow the even-ball, to roll at same level (G), by correspondingly longer start-ramp would achieve higher speed, so would reach the end (H) same time like valley-ball.
This experiment I didn´t bring into discussion, physicans did. I do hope, specialists can accept and confirm my suggestion of explanation above. So, I will have to withdraw my statement about energy-wins and earlier statements like this (but still can´t withdraw energy-wins concerning sling-effect, as mentioned later). Nevertheless, an other essential consequence will remain, and I ask for explanation of following questions.
Symmetry broken
By discussing potential and kinetic energy of but the balls, this experiment is not decribed completely. On the even-ball, still gravity will affect, vertical to even track, which corresponding counter-pressure will effect. Naturally also to the valley-ball gravitiy will affect, however the hill-sides my but effect counter-pressure right-angles to each angle of inclination.
Thus, besides vertical components also horicontal thrust-components will exist. When a ball just would roll forward and backward within a valley, these components would be symmetrical, in sum null, thus neglectable. Now, as this motion is overlayed by that starting speed, at the downward-hill-side will be less pressures than at the ´upward-hill-side´. Like a ski jumper, the valley-ball could glide down over the down-hill, by maximum speed downside would crash hard onto that up-hill.
So, these horicontal components towards the track, not at all are balanced. Just this difference of pressures, in constructions here are tried to use for output energy. Broken symmetries, physicans make sensitive and thus I do hope, specialists will check my conciderations seriously.
Movable track
Here as an example, the waves of track could be installed more narrow (I), thus showing steeper sides. When now, while motions procedure, the track as a whole could move to right (J), the profile of track relative to the valley-ball would show same characteristic. So valley-ball would come to its end (D) same manner.
When this track is installed movable, its trust (here to right side) would result of difference of horicontal power-components by down-hill and up-hill. The higher starting-speed, the higher that difference would be. At maschines designed corresponding to this principle, mass in addition will be accelerated over the down-hill, thus pressure onto the down-hill will be less once more. Corresponding deceleration at the up-hill, pressure onto that side would increase once more. Difference of pressures towards the track (as an element of maschine-output), thus will be essentially higher, while same time acceleration / decelleration (by an element of maschine-input) will be neutral at a whole.
However, maximum net thrust component but could be achieved, when starting-speed, inclination and bending and length of hill-sides and acceleration / decelleration as well, are coordinated to an optimum.
Energy constant
Not at all, here is taked about ´winning´ energy. Energy-balance of this system however, will but be complete when all power-components are included, power effecting from and affected towards balls and tracks as well. Energy conctance but will be true within a system, when all these components are taken into account.
At even track, continuous gravity can be disregarded, cause power and counter-power all times are same. At rolling-forward-backward of a ball within a valley, amount and vector of powers will change all times, however will be symmetrical, thus also could be neglected. At this system however, all times changing powers will exist, not symmetric with regard to the track, thus a resulting component towards outside will exist.
If the track would be installed fix at the ground, that resulting thrust component would be counter-balanced. If however that track will be installed movable, it will be pushed into general direction of balls motions. This thrust component may be used for output respectively but by its usage, a corresponding counter-power will appeare, lastly balancing that thrust.
Structure of vectors
Here isn´t talked about ´winning´ energy - even I should have written so by mistake. However I am convinced, by ´organisational´ measures a structure of vectors of given power can be achieved, thus un-used energy can be used.
My Fluid-Technology e.g. is based on normal molecular movements, which however within suction areas will show directed structures. Even this order may exist but short time, within constant flux may be steady and thus be used continuously. There I did show, how movement of senceful structur of vectors can be established within diverse machines in concequent manner. Powers there will behave strictly to well known laws of flux-theories. Above this, that effect is used in known maschines rather common.
Here at this ball-experiment, gravity is driving power. Better would be to achieve continuous motion with power as we like it. So I did bend that experimental arrangement in principle to a circle, thus gravity is replaced by inertia. Again it will be the point, to get senceful structure of vectors of powers and counter-powers as well.
As a first simple concept, that Swifel-arm-maschine was designed. Lastly I did try to convert this ball-experiment in most direct manner into a maschine called Centrifugal-power-spider. At other concepts, these motions in principle are included several times, up to that rather complex ´Crop-Circle-Maschine´ resp. Inertia Motor.
Design in principle
In principle, always a one time starting impetus must exist, thus turning motion will come up (like that start-ramp above in order to achieve starting speed). Same time, centrifugal forces will come to existance (analog gravity above). Centrifugal power must have chance to act, so additional to start-speed higher kinetic energy may be achieved (like above, by let-weight-fall-downwards ´dead´ potential energy will be transformed into ´living´ energy of motions).
When turning normal wheels, a steady pulling of spokes versus centrifugal force will exist (like above that vertical counter-pressure of even track versus gravity). By differing speeds and directions of complex motions however, asymmetric forces will result (analog horicontal thrust-components above) with a resulting power component into general direction of turning.
Thus decisive will be, centrifugal motion of mass will effect but small power components, backward showing, onto an element of output (like at down-hill above, however reduced here by additional acceleration of mass in tangential direction). Opposite to that, centripedal stroke motion will be done by an element (comparable with up-hill above) that kind, besides an radial component a most large vector in tangential direction will exist (and that one increased again by corresponding deceleration of mass).
Resulting thrust component one could draw off immedialtely into foundation (like above by a fix track). It would make more sence however, first to use that power for output, e.g. to drive a generator (corresponding to linear motion of movable track above). Only by that kind of usage, a corresponding counter-pressure will be established (normally again by foundation into ground), balancing all energy components.
Check Theories
At physics, nothing could be more interesting than ´phenomena´, like that simple ball experiment here. But of unsolved phenomenas, basic progress can be achieved. One aspect of this problem here, I could solve by discovering that simple trick of wrong comparison. That other aspect of asymmetry of forces, as a serious problem still exists.
Thus I kindly ask all specialists to help. Ok, my desciptions are unsufficient, however problems and suggested solutions not trivial are. We won´t get clear energy as a present, but this planet urgently needs to become clear of combustion. Solutions can´t be like known ones. Thus specialists shouldn´t hesitate to check unconventional ideas and unsufficient suggestions, in order to improve these decisively.
At the moment, friends do construct that centrifugal-power-spider with enormous input of time and money. Technically this maschine is ok. However it´s rather difficult to install input and output devices and especially to get relyable messures. So we can´t expect, that very first maschine will bring most positive results immediately. Above mentioned parameters of optimal configuration can´t be found by practice. That´s why we urgently need help from specialists or physicists to check theoretical questions.
Some more problems
Since thousands of years, men use (Davids-) slings - why? I claim, by Sling-Effect high kinetic energy can be achieved with low input (cause centrifugal forces contribute to motion without ´costs´). There is an ideal sling-curve, depending at diverse parameters. I can find that but approximately by geometry. It´s neccessary to develop a simulation program, so this effective kind of motion can be used within maschines.
It´s obvious, energy of centrifugal force is destroyed by spokes of normal wheels. Opposite, I do claim (like others), by moving mass at spiral tracks, bended inwards or outwards, kinetic energy will be increased. A severe indice will be, at nature practically no circle does exist but lots of spirals, especially to organize ´high-value´ (like high-energetic) structures. At section Energy earning I did prove that by geometry. It would be important to found this thesis theoretically well.
There and also at section Summary this problem of ´double-sling´ by Dr. Imris Pavel is mentioned inclusive clear questions. This physicist did show by formulas and tests as well, momentum-law will be true, energy-constance false at this constellation. I don´t agree with, cause he defined system to narrow (analog to above not looking at the tracks - there a barrier). This barrier again is similar to ´excentric wall´ I often used. It would be very important, specialists would check these statements (patent-description available but in German).
Alternative
Besides highschools and universities, there are lots of inventors or groups, mentally free to think about ´Free Energy´ and ´Alternative Physics´. Most of put their conciderations into the web for free usage. Mostly seaching for clean energy, subject will be. Usage of inertia by pure mechanic, but a minar part is. Reason might be, common sence to laugh about inventors of perpetuum mobile that simple kind.
Whole world does show devices like this. A sailing yacht e.g. won´t drive by kinetic energy of wind, but by existance of gravity. Wind but trigger will be, in order to get suction areas by senceful arrangment of sails, thus difference of static air pressure (based on gravity) will result, pushing the sail ahead. Every airplane remains upside - versus gravity - by skillful usage of gravity. Primitive kind but rockets (and combustion maschines as well) do use pressure direct manner.
Like gravity, inertia a phenomena is, materia inherent power, free to be used. At rotor-systems, centrifugal force all times will exist resp. can be produced as much we like it, by nearby null costs. If centrifugal forces are not destroyed all time (like at primitive wheels), but skillful handled with more or less counter-pressure, that force will contribute to un-balanced power-effects.
Asymmetry it´s all we need to fly. Before these boxes got off the ground, it was common to laugh about. Today, situation looks similar to me. Asymmetry easy can be produced within maschines, also affecting in senceful direction when vectors of all power components are arranged skillfully. Why shouldn´t inertia-motors be as common as flying, a real clean alternative to primitive combustion technology?
Indeed I would be glad, physicists and specialists wouldn´t hesitate to check seriously these problems and suggestions for solutions. Here I did try to concentrate essential theoretical aspects. I would be happy to get argumentative answers to my questions above. My email-address (info@evert.de) and postal address as well are noticed at Menu, Impressum, downside. Thanks in advance.
Evert / 06.09.2000