2018 ENERGY CONFERENCE - ALL SEATS SOLD OUT!

# 2018 Energy Science & Technology Conference Sponsored by Teslacoin Foundation

https://www.teslastarter.org

 Energetic Forum Awarded machine multiply force from a motor (free energy)
 Register FAQ Social Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
 Eric Dollard Magnetizer Products Tesla Chargers 2018 Energy Conference Energy Science Forum Donate Energy Times Advertising

 Renewable Energy Discussion on various alternative energy, renewable energy, & free energy technologies. Also any discussion about the environment, global warming, and other related topics are welcome here.

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX

#31
06-07-2012, 05:05 AM
 Aaron Co-Founder & Moderator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 10,820
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

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

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.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

 Download SOLAR SECRETS by Peter Lindemann Free - Get it now: Solar Secrets
#32
06-07-2012, 03:41 PM
 Michael John Nunnerley Gold Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,193
increase of "FORCE"

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Aaron 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
__________________

#33
06-07-2012, 09:30 PM
 Farmhand Platinum Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Australia Posts: 3,389
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.

Quote:
 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
__________________

#34
06-08-2012, 03:55 AM
 Aaron Co-Founder & Moderator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 10,820
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.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Last edited by Aaron; 06-08-2012 at 07:34 PM. Reason: spelling correction
#35
06-08-2012, 03:55 AM
 Aaron Co-Founder & Moderator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 10,820
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.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

#36
06-08-2012, 03:58 AM
 Aaron Co-Founder & Moderator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 10,820
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.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

#37
06-18-2012, 05:52 PM
 Apolopy Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Paraguay Posts: 10
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.
__________________

Last edited by Apolopy; 06-18-2012 at 06:26 PM. Reason: Cut.
#38
06-23-2012, 04:52 PM
 artoj Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 170
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
Attached Images
 ForceMulp1b.JPG (173.5 KB, 157 views)
__________________

#39
06-23-2012, 11:19 PM
 Rl2003 Senior Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 174
Nice drawings

Quote:
 Originally Posted by artoj 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
__________________

#40
06-24-2012, 03:12 AM
 artoj Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2012 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 170
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
Attached Images
 SixtoSeq1a.jpg (146.6 KB, 104 views)
__________________

#41
06-24-2012, 05:03 PM
 thedude Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 383
Quote:
 Originally Posted by artoj 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.

#42
06-24-2012, 06:12 PM
 Aaron Co-Founder & Moderator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 10,820
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.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

#43
06-24-2012, 07:03 PM
 Peter Lindemann Gold Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Liberty Lake, Washington Posts: 1,191
I'm with you....

Quote:
 Originally Posted by thedude 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
__________________

Last edited by Peter Lindemann; 06-24-2012 at 07:16 PM.
#44
06-24-2012, 09:44 PM
 Nadda Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 314
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

Quote:
 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.
__________________

#45
06-25-2012, 10:10 AM
 Michael John Nunnerley Gold Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,193
I think I have it

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Peter Lindemann 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
__________________

#46
06-25-2012, 10:16 AM
 Michael John Nunnerley Gold Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,193
P.S.

I forgot to say in this complicated action, look where the center of gravity is at any time instant, this is important as well in any calculations of gain in force. The center of gravity is changing ALL THE TIME, infact you would have to use a computor to calculate all the positives and negatives, it is really very very complicated

Mike
__________________

#47
06-25-2012, 02:41 PM
 Peter Lindemann Gold Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Liberty Lake, Washington Posts: 1,191
Still Confused

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley I forgot to say in this complicated action, look where the center of gravity is at any time instant, this is important as well in any calculations of gain in force. The center of gravity is changing ALL THE TIME, in fact, you would have to use a computer to calculate all the positives and negatives, it is really very very complicated Mike
Mike,

You make an interesting case, but it still makes no sense to me. My reasoning is based on the fact that some of the films of these devices operating do NOT show either the counter rotation or the elevated "weight". which I believe may only be a light piece of metal serving the purpose of a "position indicator", more like a stiff flag. Here are two such links that show Mr. Ramos with his machine with no "elevated weight".

Invidente peruano crea sistema para resolver el problema energÃ©tico mundial - YouTube

This one shows blue print type drawings at 1:42 with no elevated weight:
Conozca mÃ¡s sobre el inventor peruano que ganÃ³ premio internacional - YouTube

What I see is that there are FOUR FLYWHEELS on the machine. These flywheels are always shown.

I just don't get what is happening here. Mr. Ramos is obviously very smart. He is being interviewed all over Peruvian television and given great respect. He won a Bronze Metal at an Inventors Convention in Switzerland. He claims the machine can produce gains of 20-to-1 and can be scaled to kilowatts of power.

And we are asked to believe that all of this is supposedly happening because a small weight is bobbing around on top of an eccentric, reverse rotating crank shaft! WOW!

If all of this is true, then God has a much better sense of humor then I originally thought!

Peter
__________________

#48
06-25-2012, 06:00 PM
 Michael John Nunnerley Gold Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,193
The weight is always there

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Peter Lindemann Mike, You make an interesting case, but it still makes no sense to me. My reasoning is based on the fact that some of the films of these devices operating do NOT show either the counter rotation or the elevated "weight". which I believe may only be a light piece of metal serving the purpose of a "position indicator", more like a stiff flag. Here are two such links that show Mr. Ramos with his machine with no "elevated weight". Invidente peruano crea sistema para resolver el problema energÃ©tico mundial - YouTube This one shows blue print type drawings at 1:42 with no elevated weight: Conozca mÃ¡s sobre el inventor peruano que ganÃ³ premio internacional - YouTube What I see is that there are FOUR FLYWHEELS on the machine. These flywheels are always shown. I just don't get what is happening here. Mr. Ramos is obviously very smart. He is being interviewed all over Peruvian television and given great respect. He won a Bronze Metal at an Inventors Convention in Switzerland. He claims the machine can produce gains of 20-to-1 and can be scaled to kilowatts of power. And we are asked to believe that all of this is supposedly happening because a small weight is bobbing around on top of an eccentric, reverse rotating crank shaft! WOW! If all of this is true, then God has a much better sense of humor then I originally thought! Peter
Hi Peter, I agree you do not see the weight, NOT AT FIRST, but it is there but not at 90 degrees but as an extention of the coupling beyond the bearing. I did not see this the first time, few weeks ago, and was a puzzle for me because my explination would not make sence without that weight.

I believe from what I have been told, the Germans told him that it would work like that and did not have to be at 90 degrees, and I see their point if you think about it, but one thing is it has to be there.

As far as going in two directions, well yes it can but only a counter direction works as an increase in force, the same direction is a 1:1. Once started in the right direction it will maintain that direction due to "THAT EXTRA WEIGHT".

The fly wheels are just that, like in any motor an "energy store".

You will note in the very first video posted on this thread, when starting the motor the direction was made to go counter to the drive, by hand, as it was started.

Now to put a real spaner in the works the takeoff can be on the same shaft as the drive, well the other end of it just increase the fly wheel weight on the other shaft.

Mike
__________________

#49
06-25-2012, 06:08 PM
 Michael John Nunnerley Gold Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,193
Hi Jetis

I see you looking at this thread, I think you are the man to build one, you have the workshop for this I know

Mike
__________________

#50
06-25-2012, 06:46 PM
 Aaron Co-Founder & Moderator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 10,820
energy gain

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Nadda 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.
Yes, anytime the system "resets" itself to establish another potential difference, then new potential (not conserved) comes into the system to do more real work (dissipated energy) - and therefore, there is an energy gain measurable in joule seconds. Nobody can dispute the elementary math on this because if they simply add up all the force X distance real dissipated work that can be measured on every cycle, the energy gain is common sense - not just an increase in force.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

#51
06-25-2012, 07:28 PM
 Aaron Co-Founder & Moderator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 10,820
inverted pendulum, crankshaft, flywheel effect, etc...

In this video Peter posted...

Conozca mÃ¡s sobre el inventor peruano que ganÃ³ premio internacional - YouTube

Aside from the weight, which I don't think there can be a gain without gravitational potential, I think there is definitely a flywheel effect that is in operation here to store momentum in addition to the use of the possible weight.

In that video linked above, there is a couple seconds where he cranks the handle to speed up the wheels and lets go to show they keep spinning. 0:51~0:55 of that vid.

I don't understand Spanish but he seems to be demonstrating that there is a flywheel effect. Obviously the effect on the small demo prototype is puny of course scaled up with some real weight, the effect would be significant.

At 0:19 of the same video, the weight looks exactly half way between the two axles of the flywheels and not offset like the animated gif showing the figure 8 motion.

And we see that the input and output are off the same shaft on that one!

At 0:24 of the same vid, we see the weight is also exactly between the 2 bearings - doesn't look offset to me.

At 0:29 weight in still in the middle and input/output are on different shafts.

1:16 to 1:20 you can see the input driver and no output. There is the vertical rod directly between both shafts and not offset. There is no big weight on the top of the rod or maybe it isn't needed unless there is output taken. If vertical rod was just an indicator of position, I would guess it would serve that function without putting the big round thing on it.

Eltimple that did the little replication said to a response in youtube:

"In its current form no... There﻿ is an inverted pendulum missing , that needs to go on to crank. , I will add motors in due course and see what happens."

That was a response to someone in Chile who referred to it as a pendulum too. In Spanish, throughout the videos, is the inventor calling this a pendulum?

Eltimple said it goes on the crank. Is the crank to be considered the bar or "connecting rod" that joins both shafts or is the crank to be considered the shaft with the offset bearing? If the shaft, then I can see how it is supposed to be offset, but visually, it always looks in the middle which would make the crank the connecting rod between both shafts.

Any ideas on that?
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

Last edited by Aaron; 06-25-2012 at 07:37 PM.
#52
06-25-2012, 07:36 PM
 Aaron Co-Founder & Moderator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 10,820
self running

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley 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.
Why can't it self run?

If you have 1000 watt hours in and 5000 watt hours out, you can take 1000 from that and put it to the input motor to self run.

The loop is still open because the input motor and output generator are independent of each other.

And, it is still open to gravity.

If there are gains there that the inventor claims and if it is up to 20:1, that is plenty to make it self run from the electrical output.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

#53
06-25-2012, 07:53 PM
 Michael John Nunnerley Gold Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,193
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Aaron Why can't it self run? If you have 1000 watt hours in and 5000 watt hours out, you can take 1000 from that and put it to the input motor to self run. The loop is still open because the input motor and output generator are independent of each other. And, it is still open to gravity. If there are gains there that the inventor claims and if it is up to 20:1, that is plenty to make it self run from the electrical output.
I should have said it will not self run without an initial input such as a motor and then on the output a generator. It will not run without these convertors of energy, sorry for the miss understanding

Mike
__________________

#54
06-25-2012, 08:20 PM
 Michael John Nunnerley Gold Member Join Date: May 2008 Posts: 1,193
Quote:
 Originally Posted by Aaron In this video Peter posted... Conozca mÃ¡s sobre el inventor peruano que ganÃ³ premio internacional - YouTube Aside from the weight, which I don't think there can be a gain without gravitational potential, I think there is definitely a flywheel effect that is in operation here to store momentum in addition to the use of the possible weight. In that video linked above, there is a couple seconds where he cranks the handle to speed up the wheels and lets go to show they keep spinning. 0:51~0:55 of that vid. I don't understand Spanish but he seems to be demonstrating that there is a flywheel effect. Obviously the effect on the small demo prototype is puny of course scaled up with some real weight, the effect would be significant. At 0:19 of the same video, the weight looks exactly half way between the two axles of the flywheels and not offset like the animated gif showing the figure 8 motion. And we see that the input and output are off the same shaft on that one! At 0:24 of the same vid, we see the weight is also exactly between the 2 bearings - doesn't look offset to me. At 0:29 weight in still in the middle and input/output are on different shafts. 1:16 to 1:20 you can see the input driver and no output. There is the vertical rod directly between both shafts and not offset. There is no big weight on the top of the rod or maybe it isn't needed unless there is output taken. If vertical rod was just an indicator of position, I would guess it would serve that function without putting the big round thing on it. Eltimple that did the little replication said to a response in youtube: "In its current form no... There﻿ is an inverted pendulum missing , that needs to go on to crank. , I will add motors in due course and see what happens." That was a response to someone in Chile who referred to it as a pendulum too. In Spanish, throughout the videos, is the inventor calling this a pendulum? Eltimple said it goes on the crank. Is the crank to be considered the bar or "connecting rod" that joins both shafts or is the crank to be considered the shaft with the offset bearing? If the shaft, then I can see how it is supposed to be offset, but visually, it always looks in the middle which would make the crank the connecting rod between both shafts. Any ideas on that?
I would say the crank is the offset bearing and drive shaft combined. The conecting shaft is just that, connecting the two cranks at 180 degrees out of phase.

If you look at 0:28 of that video the lolypop seems to be in the middle, but look at the length of the overshoot of the connecting shaft!!!!!!!! I think the lolypop is AND is not a red herring, moved afterwards so people do not see what is happening.

I would love to build this but at the moment I am just not well enough to be up to the task, I have just had removed a cancerous lump from my colon, small operation but left me with little will to build anything, so only doing this type of work for a while, "using my brain for what it is".

Mike
__________________

#55
06-25-2012, 08:24 PM
 Aaron Co-Founder & Moderator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 10,820
self running - simplicity?

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley I should have said it will not self run without an initial input such as a motor and then on the output a generator. It will not run without these convertors of energy, sorry for the miss understanding Mike
Ok, well you did actually say "an input is always needed" - so my misunderstanding.

So, I guess for clarification, we agree that it can self run if there is an input motor being driven by an output generator that is producing enough excess.

The simplicity and counter-intuitiveness of this reminds me of the DWFTTW (down wind faster than the wind) experiment. lol
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

#56
06-25-2012, 08:27 PM
 Aaron Co-Founder & Moderator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 10,820
Peruvian Torque Amplifier Device Wins in Geneva

Some explanation in English...

This site is posted by the guy who did the little replication:
Peruvian Torque Amplifier Device Wins in Geneva – Orbo.es

Maybe some controversy as to whether he actually won the award?

Anyway, read this carefully, has some clear explanations of the mechanics of the unit...
Peruvian Torque Amplifier Device Wins in Geneva

South American Media is a buzz with the News. from here
Fernando Sixto Ramos, a Peruvian blind engineer aged 63, shot to fame this week in Peru after receiving an international award for inventing a system that could solve energy problems worldwide. It is capable of multiplying the force generated by a motor as many times as is required. A force amplifier, a 1 hp motors output is converted into a 30 hp motor.

With his “multiplying system of force”, an invention he developed over the last 15 years, as he lost vision, this humble engineer won the bronze medal in the category of mechanics and industrial processes of the 41st Edition of the international salon of inventions, held in Geneva (Switzerland) last week.

Editor: This story now gets interesting as a quick visit to here and here trying to confirm this prize reveals nothing. So unless there was a pretty serious omission or error there, are we to believe this was a fake? There is no mention that he has won anything.

As we can plainly see Fernando is not a rich man. In the weeks before his tip to Geneva he appears in this story here Where we learn that in December of last year he won an inventions contest organized by Indecopi. which is the Peruvian intellectual property patent office where he and his device passed all of the tests. The prize was the chance to represent Peru in Geneva in the 41st Edition of the international Invention show. Unfortunately for Fernando he needed extra help to pay the 60 or so dollars required to obtain a medical card that would allow him into Europe. Not to mention funds to allow his son to travel with him as a carer due to his reduced visibility.The article goes on to say however.. That the Peruvian body which advocates intellectual property was doing him a disservice as it is not giving him any help with the patent for his invention, You can not sell your system without the patent he was told.”We went to Indecopi and they told us that the process to obtain the patent takes five years.” “We cannot wait that long because we need the money to continue working and to keep our home , indicated Ramos…

Quite a sad tale of bad advice it seems to far . Ed But just look at the coverage on the local tv. Why would anyone deny or invent a story like this one. What reason would there be for this winner to not appear in the list of published winners?

And also this link to Peruvean newspaper where we can see the machine in action

Conozca a Sixto Ramos - el peruano que inventÃ³ el Sistema Multiplicador de Fuerza | LaRepublica.pe

Ramos told us that his system is “able to move a large vessel with just a car engine”. It is based on two parallel axes whose centers oscillate which connect to the end of a bar that links to both and, in turn, this allows it to implement movement on one axis, the other turns in the opposite direction and “returns multiplied force to the first, which also generates an outside force that can magnify” If you connect other parallel wheels that repeat the same action.

“It’s so simple.” You create an action and a reaction. “Force its transmitted to the other axis and then multiplied, and is so continuously”

The system is exponential because “an engine of one horse power can be multiplied by twenty, and then by forty to 800 horse power”, since it all depends on variables such as wheelbase, mass, diameter, eccentricity and direction, “the greater these figures the greater is the amplified force.”
Its simplicity is found in classical mechanics, with the lever of Archimedes and the Parallels of such: “it varies the gravity of a falling body and that falling force increases with the use of a lever for transmission to the other axis.” It’s like Kung Fu. “You use the strength of the opponent to beat it,” he said…
.
So after reading the news reports from Peru and seeing him in various interviews, it seems very likely that he went to Switzerland. Am i mistaken? Why would anyone want to remove his name from the list of prize winners? I cannot help but believe this mans story, regardless what you may think of the invention, the human side tells me he did indeed go and he did indeed win a bronze for Peru. Why no one outside of Peru knows about this I do not know. I hopefully have rectified so of that with this humble blog.

Excerpts from Peruvian Press…

Fernando Sixto Ramos Solano is the father of eleven children and with the support of his family has fulfilled a dream that began in the classrooms of the National School of engineering in Peru: To save energy through the application of an external force.

Also, his brother, the main economic supporter of the Ramos family was diagnosed with brain cancer. All the money that was intended for the company had to be used to cover the costs of the disease.

Despite the obstacles, the former pupil of colegio Salesiano Don Bosco of the Callao was able to invent the force multiplier system. In December of last year he won the 10th inventions contest organized by Indecopi The Peruvian Patent office. He passed all the tests.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has invited him to participate in the International exhibition of inventions, to be held in Ginebra-Suiza from 18 to 22 April of this year.

Sixto will travel in the company of his son William, who will help you to be mobilized. WIPO only between the costs of the inventor, that is why the Ramos family It is making strenuous efforts to get money. Also need the Swiss Card (cost \$65), a kind of insurance compulsory for entry to the European country.

just found another video… I have replicated this device and will let you know more shortly…

Recieving the prize in Peru that sent him on to Geneva..from 2mins..
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

#57
06-25-2012, 08:31 PM
 Jetijs Gold Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 2,134
Hi Mike
Don't really have time for that right now, especially without any proof that it works. Will see how it turns out

Thanks,
Jetijs

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Michael John Nunnerley Hi Jetis I see you looking at this thread, I think you are the man to build one, you have the workshop for this I know Mike
__________________
It's better to wear off by working than to rust by doing nothing.
#58
06-25-2012, 08:40 PM
 Aaron Co-Founder & Moderator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 10,820
lever offset in this image

The screenshot of this video:

Conozca a Sixto Ramos - el peruano que inventÃ³ el Sistema Multiplicador de Fuerza | LaRepublica.pe

shows the level off set over one of the axles as depicted in the animated gif.

In the other vids, it looks exactly between them or maybe it was the camera perspective that made it look that way?

In this case, the crank seems to definitely be the shaft with the offset bearing and NOT the "connecting rod" between the two shafts.

At 0:24 in this video, the lever is clearly over the axle - attached directly to the connecting rod bar.

I'll have to look at that vid Peter posted again because the level does look to be between the axle.

0:57 to 1:03, we can see the lever or "inverted pendulum" on the bar with the shaft rotating pretty clear.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

#59
06-25-2012, 08:45 PM
 Aaron Co-Founder & Moderator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 10,820
Eltimple's first post

Artoj - thanks for posting the original images of the sequence by the way, it shows exactly what Fernando is explaining according to Eltimple.

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

Eltimple's first post:

Published on May 5, 2012 by Eltimple

South American Media is a buzz with the News..

Fernando Sixto Ramos, a Peruvian blind engineer aged 63, shot to fame this week in Peru after receiving an international award for inventing a system that could solve energy problems worldwide. It is capable of multiplying the force generated by a motor as many times as is required. A force amplifier, a 1 hp motors output is converted into a 30 hp motor. go to www.[URL="http://www.youtube.com/redirect?q=http%3A%2F%2Forbo.es%2F%3Fp%3D138&sessi on_token=MruLyLY8oV8gaRWWRvhgK8-axyx8MTM0MDczODQ0NkAxMzQwNjUyMDQ2"]http://orbo.es/?p=138[/URL] for more info.

The idea is that when the wheels are arranged so that the cam makes them contra rotate, the connecting bar traces a figure of 8, Thus when you place a weight on a lever to the connecting rod it ( It is placed vertically, almost like an inverted pendulum ) will appear to be constantly falling, or levering to the left or the right, with each left and right movement. this movement of the weight that has been leveraged against the cams is the source of the torque multiplication The inventor gives that as his explanation.

It does seem this may conform to those machines that claim to use centrifugal force (internal centrifugal potential field) for creating excess energy.

The additional force does not fulfil Newton's third law. No reaction occurs and this force is converted into a torque and power in this case. Now i will just have to connect up a few motors to do some measurements

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

So it isn't ambiguous I believe - it is definitely gravitational potential that is the source of the amplification by using the weight on the vertical lever.

The "no reaction" I believe is not accurate. Is is simply that there IS a reaction but the reaction helps to propel the system forward exactly like Veljko's oscillator violating the third "law".

It is starting to make more and more sense.
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

#60
06-25-2012, 09:08 PM
 Aaron Co-Founder & Moderator Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Washington State Posts: 10,820
self running

Few references:

Directory: Fernando Sixto Ramos Solano: Force Multiplier System - PESWiki

"In a phone interview with me (via interpreter) on May 4, 2012, he said: "This is a project that will benefit the entirety of humanity."

In a phone interview on May 7, 2012, in answering a question about whether or not they have been able to self-loop the output to run the input, with excess energy left over for practical use, Fernado replied that Yes, they have done this; and that is why they received the award in Switzerland. "
__________________
Sincerely,
Aaron Murakami

 Posting Rules You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On HTML code is Off Forum Rules

Please consider supporting Energetic Forum with a voluntary monthly subscription.

For One-Time Donations, use admin@ this domain > energeticforum.com

 Choose your voluntary subscription \$5 : \$5.00 USD - monthly \$7 : \$7.00 USD - monthly \$10 : \$10.00 USD - monthly \$25 : \$25.00 USD - monthly \$50 : \$50.00 USD - monthly \$75 : \$75.00 USD - monthly \$100 : \$100.00 USD - monthly \$175 : \$175.00 USD - monthly \$250 : \$250.00 USD - monthly

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:22 AM.