Awarded machine multiply force from a motor (free energy)

[Aaron]

Clarification of power misuse and conservation of energy lie

Here is an example of what Lets Replicate - a disinformation expert had to say about measuring a bouncing ball:

-----------------------------------

The work done at the first bounce is:
0.049 joules / 0.451 seconds = 0.109 watts

The amount of work done from the start to the peak of the first bounce is:
(0.049 joules - 0.0441 joules) / (0.451 s + 0.429 s) = 0.0049 joules / 0.88 s = 0.00557 watts

and the amount of work done from the start to the second second bounce point is:
0.049 joules / (0.451 s + 0.429s*2) = 0.049 joules / 1.309 seconds = 0.0374 watts

-----------------------------------

This is 8th-9th grade physics.

To lift a mass of x to a certain height dissipated 0.049 joules (force x distance) to determine the joules of work done (joule seconds or watt seconds). He then divides the time of how long it took in order to get to the watt reading, which is POWER. 0.109 WATTS - that is a power reading. The power reading has no time in it and is not work done.

He is misusing the POWER, which is 0.109 watts as "work done" which can only be determined AFTER you multiply the 0.109 watts for example by the 0.451 seconds, then you get the work done 0.049 joule seconds or 0.049 watt seconds.

So in the POWER measurement itself, you have to strip time out of the energy dissipated to see it (the power at which the energy was dissipated).

-----------------------------------

Mario said: "because power ist rate of energy in time"

So is "ist" supposed to be is or is it supposed to be isn't? In either case,
power can be increase but so can energy.

On the clarification of no such thing as conservation of energy...

When you put in x potential that winds up doing work on one cycle, 100% is GONE and DISSIPATED back to the environment. NO PART of that is conserved. What happens is a NEW potential difference is established, that allows NEW potential from its source to come in, which will do more work. This is a very simple concept and is why there is no such thing as conservation of energy.

1. potential difference is established

2. NEW potential comes into the system.

3. potential is dissipated through resistances towards a lower potential difference (energy dissipation - real work done).

4. 100% is gone and when the system becomes asymmetrical again.... goto step 1 and repeat.

No energy is ever conserved - there is only new potential that comes in, goes to work, dissipates COMPLETELY, new potential difference is established, new potential comes in, goes to work, etc...

And if we're talking about a mechanical unit, we are using gravitational potential as input that DOES do work in the system so the entire notion of "storing" potential and conserving any energy is completely unnecessary as we have no shortage of free dynamic inflowing potential at every point.

1. Power isn't work.
2. There can be and ARE energy gains in 100% of every over 1.0 cop system.
3. There is no such thing as conservation of energy.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

increase of "FORCE"

We can increase forces in a system but if it is over 1.0 cop, we also multiply the energy in the system, which is the entire premise of what COP over 1.0 means.

It (over 1.0 COP) is a measurement of joules X time and if the total amount of work over time (energy dissipated) is more than what was input, there is a multiplication of energy. And of course COP doesn't include REAL ENERGY DISSIPATED in losses, which is still further energy done in the system, just UNINTENDED (losses) work done.

It is possible to increase forces in a system and still be under 1.0 cop and in that case there is no multiplication of energy.

But if it is over 1.0 COP, energy is multiplied in the system - an ENERGY GAIN.

Yes Aaron you are right. The problem is people play with words or misunderstand the meaning or the words.

This is a thread on it's own, but the thread I started on the improved ram pump is a parallel to this thread. The inventor "for a name" has not explained in the right words or it has been lost in translation, of what is happening.

If you look at ALL THE EQUATIONS of the pump system you can make a parallel to the thread here. Under NORMAL LAWS OF CONSERVATION OF ENERGY nothing is violated, you need to stand outside the wood to see the trees, both sides are right.

Take a large hammer and hit a steel block with all your force, what happens if you do not counter the rebound when the hammer hits, yes it lifts, but you put X amount of force, net force, and the steel recieved X amount of force in the first instance equal to the force you put in, but in the secound instance the hammer rebounded a little and the weight of the hammer plusthe gravity brought the hammer back down again to give a net gain force on the steel, here is your GAIN.

This is a very grey area in science I am afraid to say, AFRAID NO, this is what I was saying about the words we use, I am not afraid to say that science is capped depending on how much money is recieved or gained, here we go again with words, recieved and gained, are they the same

Mike

[Farmhand]

Gaining energy is not multiplying energy, it is making "available" more energy to
use. If energy is not something it is nothing and therefore non existent. Energy
can be formed into matter, our entire universe is energy, on a basic level the way
I see it energy is everything and everything is energy.

Yes it's all just word soup.

We take energy from the sun and convert it to a chemical change in a battery,
if energy is not a thing then what charges the battery and what does the
battery produce to power a load ?

As far as I am concerned even a thought is a thing.

Michael the weight of the hammer or the hammer falling on it's own is a direct
result of gravity which must be first overcome to get the hammer in a position
to fall, the rebound of the hammer is nothing more than the elasticity of the
metal flexing and propelling the hammer back up which is only possible by the
first input of work to raise the hammer in the first place. There is no gain.
Some of the force of the hammer hitting the metal is returned to propel it back up.
The same as the bouncing ball.

Energy is tallied in amounts eg. joules, a joule is the measure of a thing in my
opinion just like a mm is a measure of another thing "distance". It's not
possible to measure something that is not a thing and does not therefore
exist.

One cannot take 10 joules of potential energy in a capacitor and without any
more work done in any way somehow make the capacitor have more than 10
joules of potential energy stored in it.

To say energy is multiplied is implying that a solar panel keeps multiplying the
amount of energy it can transform in every instant, it doesn't do that it just
keeps transforming more energy, not multiplying the original energy.

You cannot have 10 joules in a cap and make it 11 joules without more work
being done.

What you are describing in the quote below is not multiplying energy it is
using more different energy.

Only numbers can be multiplied.

In a resonant system all the energy is not dissipated in every cycle, but there
is still no energy gain.

When you put in x potential that winds up doing work on one cycle, 100% is GONE and DISSIPATED back to the environment. NO PART of that is conserved. What happens is a NEW potential difference is established, that allows NEW potential from its source to come in, which will do more work. This is a very simple concept and is why there is no such thing as conservation of energy.

Cheers

[Aaron]

energy gains

Farmhand,

But it is not just "word soup" or semantics. It is very clear. The semantics argument just fills the gap of misunderstanding.

"Energy is everything" is a metaphysical explanation that has been in "new age" use for many years but it has always been a technical misunderstanding.

To be technically correct, we can only say that just about everything is "energetic" (verb describing action of the source potential) but we cannot say everything is energy as it is simply an error in the language and just because it is in the dictionary does not make it so. There are many things in the dictionary that are point blank wrong and this is no exception.

The potential (aether - whatever your choice) is the "tangible" thing in any system or in any piece of matter, etc... Whether it is a neutrino, "virtual photon", aetheric particle/corpuscle/whatever... those are all things (nouns).

When these neutrinos or whatever the source potential is argued to be actually impart a push or resistance to matter, then and only there can we say there is energy. But energy is not the tangible thing, it is only a verb to describe the action of the potential, which dissipates energetically as it is resisted on its path to a lower potential.

Please understand the above is not semantics - it is not about choosing to see it this way out of a preference. This is very black and white - as black and white as 1+1=2 (without any philosophical interpretation).

A battery is a dipole that creates a separation in the internal charges of the battery so that the source potential from the aether/neutrinos/whatever, etc... meet an asymmetrical relationship between the terminals (polarization of the aether). The source POTENTIAL is the thing and when there is a connection between the terminals by way of a motor, light bulb, etc..., that source potential moves towards a lower potential and meets resistance on the way. Any resistance it meets while it is actively moving is work over time and that is what energy is - an activity of potential being dissipated.

So, we can't add more energy - we only keep the system open so on each cycle a new potential difference is created so more potential (the thing) comes into in order to do more work (the activity - being energetic).

Energy isn't formed into matter. The tangible source potential made of aetheric particles, neutrinos, etc... whatever your choice of distinction for what the source potential is - is what agglomerates together by virtue of the polarities of their own charges and these create the subatomic particles such as "quarks" that then become the neutrons and protons and then we have "electrons." That is theoretical of course as we have never proven that electrons exist. Then you have the proton mass and therefore matter. The matter is made of the source potential charges that come together - it is not made of energy. The matter only demonstrates energetic characteristics but it is made of the source potentials and not energy. That matter is created from self-ordered potentials and is energetic in nature.

I consider a thought to be a thing as well - but that is my own philosophical belief and not a technical one. "Considering" something as any particular thing is the compromise intrinsically.

The thing that charges a battery is the separation of the internal charges so that + is on one side and - is on the other side. The thing that had a "physical" interaction with those chemical "charges" is the source potential, the aetheric gas, which is polarized and pressurized and is pumped into the battery from a higher potential to a lower potential. Any resistance it encounters is the work done in the battery, which is the source potential acting energetically. So a battery isn't charged by energy, it is charged by potential that is acting energetically (if works is being done).

It is no different than diagramming a sentence. "The boy runs." The boy is the noun or subject of the this particular sentence. The verb or action is runs. Boy = potential and runs = energy. "The potential dissipates." same thing. A noun is a person, place or THING. Potential is a noun and Energy is the VERB (action) and no matter how much the word energy is misused as a thing does not make it so.

Michael is 100% accurate in saying there is the gain when the hammer falls back down under influence of gravity after it rebounds.

I can absolutely prove he is correct with 2-3rd grade math using 8-9th grade physics equations.

If the hammer is 1 kilogram and we lift it 25 cm or 0.25 meters, we are DISSIPATING in REAL WORK OVER TIME , 2.45 joule seconds - and it doesn't matter how long it took for us to lift it 1/4 of a meter. It can take 1 second or it can take 1 year, the energy dissipation is the same. The time will only tell us how much power it was dissipated at for a particular time.

100% of this 2.45 joules of work is completely gone and when the hammer is at 0.25 meters, 0 potential is being stored in the hammer and 0 energy is conserved. What we got out of this work we put in IS THE LIFT OF THE HAMMER IN AND OF ITSELF. And, it is all gone when it is at the peak.

At 0.25 meters, the potential that will be available to it AFTER it comes down (no longer resisting free fall and potential provided free from the dynamic gravitational potential moving down) is also 2.5 joules of potential that can can be realized as the potential being dissipated energetically AFTER WE ALREADY DISSIPATED THE SAME AMOUNT IN THE LIFT. MGH = potential energy in an object at a certain height. 1 X 9.8 X 0.25 = 2.45 joules.

1. Initial lift = 2.45 joules of real dissipation to lift it - this is our ONLY INPUT!

2. Hammer then has 2.45 joules of potential AFTER we already dissipated that much!

3. Hammer drops and lets say the "elastic" rebound efficiency is 50% - it will dissipate 1.225 joules of dissipation in LOSSES (the falling resistances to air, the strike, heat production, etc...).

4. 2.45 joules of potential losing 1.225 joules of dissipation means at 50% efficiency, it will bounce to half the previous height, which is 0.125 meters. It takes 1.225 joules of real dissipation to lift it to 0.125 meters.

NOTE: The TOTAL AMOUNT OF dissipated energy so far after only 1 rebound is 2.45 initial lift + 1.225 in losses on first drop + 1.225 1st bounce on its own = 4.9 joules of REAL CALCULATABLE JOULES OF DISSIPATION! That is already a COP of 2.0. After any lift, the next drop losses and next lift will always equal exactly the joules of work needed to lift it before hand.

5. At 0.125 meters, there is MGH (1X9.8X0.125) = 1.225 joules of potential energy at 0.125 meters.

6. When dropped, if 50% efficienct, it will lose 50% in the strike, drop, heat production, etc... which is a total of 0.6125 joules of REAL dissipated losses.

7. It then raises to half of the previous height = 0.0625 meters. It will of course take 0.6125 joules of dissipation to lift to that height.

8. At that height, it will have a potential of the same 0.6125.

9. When dropped, it will lose half since it is 50% efficient for this example and will lose 0.30625 joules in REAL dissipated losses.

10. When it bounces back to 1/2 the height, it will take the same 0.30625 in REAL dissipated lifting dissipation to get to 0.03125 meters.

All the RED parts are when there is REAL CALCULATED DISSIPATION IS HAPPENING - REAL WORK in JOULES OVER TIME OR JOULE SECONDS OR WATT SECONDS OF WORK OVER TIME = 2.45 + 1.225 + 1.225 + 0.6125 + 0.6125 + 0.30625 + 0.30625 = 6.7675 joules in total work done including the initial lift, which was only 2.45.

So TOTAL work done over time is 6.7675 joules divided by 2.45 joules of our input = 2.7622449. That is a MULTIPLICATION of our input energy dissipation of 2.45 joules by an entire 2.76 and that is only a couple bounces after we let go! This is "overunity" and is multiplying energy.

Because this is an indisputable fact of what the basic math shows, this means that there can be no conservation of energy, no energy is being stored and gravity is ABSOLUTELY a source of potential that can contribute work to a mass under its influence.

[Aaron]

energy gains 2

So when Mike says gravity comes in and this is our gain, he is 100% correct. The hammer example I'm using is simply a hammer, which is simply lifted vertically straight up and is dropped. It doesn't matter if it is a hammer, bouncing ball, or anything else. The math is indisputable and so is the fact that ENERGY DISSIPATION OF THE POTENTIAL is real work over time and is being multiplied many times above the input. We have multipled the ENERGY by almost 3 times in the above example.

If the hammer rebound is less efficient in bouncing up, then the COP will be lower. If the hammer is 90% efficient, then it wouldn't be much of a hammer but the fact remains, the COP would be much higher. In all cases, when the hammer is released to come down, free gravitational POTENTIAL comes into play to impart a push on the mass of the hammer any time the hammer meets resistance and this is REAL WORK - a multiplication of work over time, which is a direct multiplication of the amount of energy dissipation happening.

Yes, it is possible to measure something that is not a thing and our measurements are full of them. Water at 100C is boiling. 100C is a measurement of the temperature of the water. The water is the thing and it's energetic quality of boiling at this 100C temperature is being measured, but the temperature itself is not a thing.

It is HOT, that is an adjective. It is BOILING, that is an adjective. But if it is to modify a noun as in "water IS boiling", then it is a gerund form of the the verb boils, or water is at 100F, that is an ADJECTIVE. In all cases, NONE of these verbs or adjectives to describe water such as a temperature reading is every a noun or a thing.

There are countless abstract things that we measure all the time, distance being one of them, color, temperature, height, time, etc...

Your solar panel analogy doesn't apply:

Your quote: "To say energy is multiplied is implying that a solar panel keeps multiplying the amount of energy it can transform in every instant, it doesn't do that it just keeps transforming more energy, not multiplying the original energy."

The reason it doesn't apply is because the COP is INFINITE. There is no original energy - we input 0.00 joules of potential energy to get a solar panel giving us something back - same as water generators and same as wind generators.

So what I said about multiplying energy has nothing to do with implying anything about what a solar panel does or any other energy device that requires 0 input from the operator.

You even admit: "Only numbers can be multiplied. "

That's right - there is 0.00 input to the solar panel and therefore, we are not going to multiple 0.00 X anything or divide the solar panel output by 0.00.

You say: "You cannot have 10 joules in a cap and make it 11 joules without more work being done."

Yes, actually I can. Those numbers are obviously just examples but I can take a 33,000uf 60v cap on my bench, short it out to 0.5 volts and then it will climb itself to 7 volts easily without me inputting any work whatsoever.

33,000uf at 0.5 volts is 4.125mj of potential energy stored in the capacitor.

When it rises BY ITSELF to 7 volts, that is 808.5mj of potential energy, which is 196 times increase above what was there when I quit shorting it out. That is also all with ZERO (0.00) input from me. So, there is more joules of potential energy than I started with all with zero work being input into the cap by me. Again, the COP is infinite in this example.

You say: "In a resonant system all the energy is not dissipated in every cycle, but there is still no energy gain."

That is incorrect. There is an energy gain and all we have to do is make up for the loss by inputting that much and we get the FULL amount of work free in each and every cycle. Full amount minus out input to make up the loss is free from the environment - that is free from the reaction by nature.

In the hammer example, it is a resonant system if I simply lift it from 50% height to the full height on each cycle. I'm putting in 50%, which I get 100% on EACH AND EVERY CYCLE. That is absolutely an energy gain in every way, shape or form.

If the hammer is 90% efficient in bouncing back up for example, I only have to input 10% on each cycle to get 100% of the full amount so 90% is free on EVERY cycle and on a per cycle basis, that is a COP of 10.0, which is a multiplication of the 10% input by 10 times!

There is simply no getting around from the mathematically provable fact that there are not only power gains, which is nothing more than changing the time, but there are energy gains and these energy gains are common to 100% of every over 1.0 COP device - including a hammer strike that bounces up or anything else.

I have proven the energy gain as a reality, not in rhetoric or semantics, but in actual elementary equations that demonstrate an increase in the energy in the system, while admittedly still contributing to entropy as a whole but that is irrelevant - point is, energy is gained in the open dissipative systems.

[Aaron]

multiplication of energy

Farmhand,

As a clarification - you seem to think that stating there is a multiplication of energy means it is coming out from within the device itself - but it is not. That is the whole point to an open dissipative system or a non-equilibrium thermodynamic system - it is open so that we can leverage free source potential input to multiple the amount of work done in the system.

But in any case, mathematically, energy dissipated in compared to energy dissipiated out is absolutely being multiplied. How you choose to see it is semantics or "word soup" but the scientific reality of it, which happens to be mathematically provable is energy multiplication in these systems is a hard core fact.

[Apolopy]

News and more... from sudameric

Good Morning to all:

Here I Have some news for the comunity;

First this is the resolution that granted de patent in Peru to SIXTO RAMOS:

http://sistemas.indecopi.gob.pe/oin_...6/2012/682.pdf

But, that is only the resolution there is not online blueprints of the invention yet.

Best Regard.

Apolopy from Paraguay.

[artoj]

Picture Sequence

Hi, I have been watching this thread, Mr Ramos has something here of importance. I hope this picture of the sequence helps.
Regards Artoj

[Rl2003]

Nice drawings

Hi, I have been watching this thread, Mr Ramos has something here of importance. I hope this picture of the sequence helps.
Regards Artoj

It apears that you have drawn these to be counter rotating.
I did not catch that in the videos.
I thought that maybe one pivot point may have been further
out on the fly wheel.

Mark

[artoj]

Video Sequence

Hi, If you look carefully at the video, you will see clearly that they revolve in opposite directions. check at 1.20 minute mark.
Regards Artoj

[thedude]

Hi, I have been watching this thread, Mr Ramos has something here of importance. I hope this picture of the sequence helps.
Regards Artoj

Thanks artoj. I thought it would be fun to animate that sequence to help visualize the mechanics in motion. Hope you don't mind.

Here it is in flash > Untitled Document

I'm still having some trouble appreciating the gain involved, but his is very intriguing concept.

[Aaron]

replication accomplished

Un invidente peruano espera llevar la luz al mundo - YouTube 0:36-0:45 in that video.

That is also some pretty good glimpses of the mechanism between the wheels. The shaft is some how off set with the bearing in the middle bar deal.

Here is a replica: Torque Multiplier Replication from Peru - YouTube

That is probably the most important video for the whole concept because this guy shows the bearing assembly and you can see him slowly turn the wheels.

There is enough here for "anyone" to replicate the actual device.

[Peter Lindemann]

I'm with you....

Thanks artoj. I thought it would be fun to animate that sequence to help visualize the mechanics in motion. Hope you don't mind.

Here it is in flash > Untitled Document

I'm still having some trouble appreciating the gain involved, but his is very intriguing concept.

Hey Dude,

I'm with you. If this is all there is to the mechanism, then I have no idea why it should or could produce an increase in force. It looks like a simple crank shaft to crank shaft coupling. These were used extensively in old steam locomotives. I have no idea why one of them going in reverse should change the underlying dynamics of the situation so profoundly that a force multiplication would result.

If this works, I will gladly bow down to Mr. Ramos.

Peter

[Nadda]

Thanks for the diagram theDude. I agree with peter, i dont understand how any real gain could come from that setup. The weight at the top of the shaft would increase the force on the way down but would require force on the way back up. Seems like everything else, positive on one side, negative on the other.

@Farmhand

As far as I am concerned even a thought is a thing.

Yes but not all thoughts are the same "thing". Energy or Potiental may be a thing but its never the same "single" thing. No single thing can technically be multiplied. Not even numbers.

"Multiplication" is only a function. A function which adds more than one of the same type of object. A 2 may equal another 2 but they are two different 2's. When you multiply 2x5, all you are doing is adding the number 2 five times. 22222 = 10. You never actually multiplied a single item (number), you seperately added more of the same type of numbers to get the final output. So after the increase the output had just been multiplied.

I think that is exactly what Aaron is talking about, adding more potiental (which is the same as multiplying the potiental) to get the final output. Even though they are seperate potientials the output had just been multiplied.

Two things are never the same thing, right?
We are all humans but we're not the same human.
We may all be energy but we're not the same energy.

Hope i didnt misunderstand either of you, FarmHand or Aaron.

[Michael John Nunnerley]

I think I have it

Hey Dude,

I'm with you. If this is all there is to the mechanism, then I have no idea why it should or could produce an increase in force. It looks like a simple crank shaft to crank shaft coupling. These were used extensively in old steam locomotives. I have no idea why one of them going in reverse should change the underlying dynamics of the situation so profoundly that a force multiplication would result.

If this works, I will gladly bow down to Mr. Ramos.

Peter

Hi Peter and all

I have been looking at this and I think I know what is happening, let us take it in stages.

1. When one crank is going down the other is going up, this normaly would be a 1:1 energy going down equal to energy going up, less friction losses. But we have an added component, a lever "yes lever" with a weight on top. Look at the action of the lever and weight in different positions in relation to the crank movement, look more at the force given by that lever and weight.

2. What is the force generated by the lever and weight? it's action is the same as a sling shot and we know we can increase the force using a sling shot, that is force in time, we deliver all the force in an instant and not over a time period.

3. The lever is also just that, the same as using a lever to lift a heavy weight that we could not lift without. Look at where the fulcrum is of this lever.

4. The inventor says that it is a gain in force from "gravity", I agree with him, it can't come from any other place, think of that top weight being a person on a swing, little force to maintain the same swing but the force generated by the gravity fall of that person "in a time instant" is huge. That time instant is what it is all about.

5. I think this can only work if the fulcrum of the lever is at the center of the "off set bearing", "crank", that is why it is connected at one end and not in another position on the connecting bar.

As you can see there are more than one component to this "possible" gain in force, note I use the word force and not energy gain, the energy gain is obtained by moving the "generator" or final "power drive" using less input "force". I have given here a mental explination, making one is very simple and would be the next way to go. Something so simple yet very complicated in it's action, a real brain teaser that has to be taken apart to see where "all" the actions are at any "time instant" of positive and negative forces throughout a 360 degree revolution, if you do that then you will see that there are more positives than negatives and so a gain in "force".

One other thing is that this will not self run, an input is always needed "like the person on a swing", time instant is the key and the other thing is this will put a huge strain on the bearings and would be something to be addressed in a workable engine, or drive unit.

I hope I have explained myself

Mike