Awarded machine multiply force from a motor (free energy)

[artoj]

Pictures

Thank you for the kind words Peter, I have learnt much from your work over the years. Ron, as for the use of my JPG pictures, no problems for free use, I am in gratitude that I could be a conduit for a blind man, that could make others see.

I have a few more diagrams still to finish. More to follow soon, Regards with thanks Arto.

[i_ron]

Ron, as for the use of my JPG pictures, no problems for free use, I am in gratitude that I could be a conduit for a blind man, that could make others see.

I have a few more diagrams still to finish. More to follow soon, Regards with thanks Arto.

Many thanks Arto! done:

Fernando`s Force multiplier

(link to video on previous page)

Ron

[Motorcoach1]

Looks to me like a torsion multiplyer leaver used on steam locamotives. Old techknowlage use in new methods. I call it the falling fulcrom effect , this works on rotational use too. there may be other uses for this method too ! may be Hodges secret on how he got extreamly cold air for his air engines.

Mike B. i know i don't post much

[markusbraunfe]

Hi all, I'm reposting my thoughts (with some additions) I wrote on overunity.com in Fernando's force multiplier thread
Fernando`s Force multiplier
for those that follow only this forum.
I hope some expert about electromagnetics like UFOPolitics etc, could chime in to comment on my theories:

i_ron, thanks for your replication efforts.

You said no OU so far.
But how about this theory:
due to the CW/CCW rotaton the output shaft contantly speeds up and down, mechanically there is probably no OU but since the generator is directly attached
it gets slowed up and down constantly and this could trigger some strange electromagnetic effect and lead to OU ?

The output current (if alternate) is probably a sine wave with varying frequency so in order to be usable I assume you have to convert it into DC and then back to AC using an inverter.

Another idea if my theory is correct, that OU takes place in the generator and not at mechanical level:
I did not do the math but perhaps one could replace the crank with oval sprockets and a chain and obtain a similar speed curve and it would be probably more robust and not destroy itself easily like
the version with the crank.. Putting a counterweight to the oval sprockets should keep the eccentricity of the wheels at a minimum.

Could this mechanical "out of phase", alias the constant speed-up and speed-down of the generator could lead to some kind of OU ?

I keep reading about these motor -> flywheel -> (modified) generator setups on various sites which claim OU and some say the OU effect is due to some out-of-phase in the system.

If the "out-of-phase" is the key factor then perhaps a combination of
motor -> oval gears to generate constant speed ups/speed downs -> generator
could work.

Honza said in his comment on overunity.com, that according to his research Fernando's force multiplier is probably pure mechanical but the above thoughts I posted are perhaps worth discussing.

Please let me know what you guys think about my theories.

thanks,
Markus

[artoj]

Hyperbolic Impulse

I will say that over unity is not the goal, if there is any, then it will have to be engineered with a secondary or tertiary system. The useful energy will be a gain in the system at the time domain, increasing velocity without gearing and compressing force to a smaller time frame, translating geometrically. The advantage gain is only at the impulse 1/4 wave peak, just like a Tesla coil. The resonant arm is the real interest here, as the impulses are in true translation, making gravity and mechanical resonance add to the impulse velocity.

These diagrams below are some of my musings, I hope they help to understand the interesting geometry that Sixto has revealed in his machine. Concluding my researches is my Hyperbolic Impulse Drive, not complete but included here to show the similarities of the geometry. The next version of my drive will include a type of the resonant arm system that Sixto uses, that is less problematic than his.

Please enjoy Regards Arto

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Very nice

Arto very well done as usual.

I have a suggestion to make for the crank connecting rod, it should be a type of pneumatic piston type connection set at zero pressure/vacuum at a particular angle of the system, then as we move through 360 degrees there will be either pressure in the piston or a vacuum.

This has several advantages, one being a shock absorber, two there is an oscillation between positive and negative pressure and three an aid to get past the "point of no return" without shaking the machine to bits, four, the oscillating weight is no longer needed, it is in the piston.

Also as Arto has pointed out, the output fly wheel should have a one way bearing and the fly wheel should be of a good weight which will smooth out the rpm for connection to a generator or further step assemblies, the latter being to create a self sustaining system,"hopfully"

Mike

[Michael John Nunnerley]

Rough sketch



Regards

Mike

[markusbraunfe]

Hi Stealth,
what is the design there you find that will work?
Will the simplest design, two counterrotating wheels with the crank work?

i_ron wrote that he did not observe any overunity effect so far and now unfortunately his machine destroyed itself because of the high forces involved.

Stealth, patenting such a device makes no sense now, you already know how it will end: the patent will be kept on hold in the patent office and the men in black or other sinister figures will come to harass you and the big easy money you hoped to make will not materialize and perhaps you will misteriously disappear.

I don't think that this is our goal.

The miserable state of the planet (famines, crises, pollution etc) is only caused mainly by mankind's greed and egoism.

So anyone of us should share their research and let grass root movement start and help people building their own energy generators (assuming there is a viable, cheap design).

So Stealth, please give your contribution here to lead the community to a working and easily reproducible design.

These free energy machines like Fernando's are trivial compared to complex mechanic stuff. And even if there would be patents society would just use this stuff for free.
I think it's easy to leagally work around, just sell some parts and let the user or the installer assemble them ( 2 counter-rotating flywheels and a rod).
I doubt Fernando will get rich out of this. I guess the patent will stay on hold for years for some reasons and we will hear anything about a finished generator we will be able to buy in the store.

So let's be altruistic and let's try to help humanity to improve and stop polluting the world with dinosaur-era-oil and other related technology.

Stealth, you could publish your design and start at the same time help neighbors and freinds to build their own generators for a fee.
I guess you would be pretty busy for the next decades.
And by publishing your work, the men in black will not be motivated to take you out of the way anymore.
Of course if you fear them then you could do it stealthly, publish your findings online without your giving your true name and build generators only for trusted friends.

Thanks everyone on this forum for all your contributions, let's drive forward until we see the light at the end of the tunnel!

I have been reluctant to join in this discussion as it is eerily close to a design I made and prototype I built about 10 years ago. There are some differences however, so I will say that this does work. My design retains the same RPM or increases the RPM, acoording to which way you position it, but increases torque 10 fold. I call it a torque converter, for lack of a better term. I have only shown my prototype to a few engineers, and a couple close friends asI thought of patenting it. I have been sitting on this too long now and need to do something with it. I have, over the years, redesigned it to have fewer moving parts while retaining the original concept and function. There are many ways to get additional energy from a system, mechanical, electrical, and magnetic, but all must be an open system. Good Luck. stealth

[spiner]

Simulator :
Lemniscate Plotting Device - YouTube

You can download the program

Wolfram Demonstrations Project

[spiner]

Lego construction , LEGO Lemniscate - YouTube

Meccano : Traceur de courbe - YouTube

It has gears and a diferential, so it has no death point.

Simulation Lemniscate of Bernoulli - YouTube

Lemniscatograph - YouTube
Inverse Parallelogram Mechanism 6 - YouTube

[markusbraunfe]

Stealth, thanks for your message.
Yes please consider to publish your initial design so that the community can study it here!

If you have a working design, then you are sitting on something which could have profound benefits for humanity.

I know what inventors do feel. "This is my revolutionary idea that will change the world and I deserve the money". But as we know, free energy devices will be disruptive to our society and our governments will try to suppress them because they fear that society will transform into something they don't know and they cannot levy as much taxes as now, do not have that much control over people as now etc...
So they try to take away or silence inventors of such devices.
Our governments do have and outdated way of thinking.
In my opinion the changes free energy will induce will be much more positive than negative.
Western government probably fear that the "technology gets in the hands of the enemy", but I think the "enemies" already do know the stuff as well (espionage, research etc), they just don't release it to the public for the same reasons mentioned above. As you see any country with sufficient resources can develop nuclear reactors and weapons.
Keeping technology and information under wraps is very hard in the digital age. And the H-Bomb in wrong hands is much more dangerous than a force-multiplier!
So I think inventors should just release their design (publicly or in anonymous form), and sit back and enjoy and be proud of the benefits their inventions will bring to humanity.

Do you think your design is superior to that of Fernando's ?
With wheels rotating in the same directions and different diameters, if they are connected with a rod, a two wheel approach like Fernando's seems impossible since the rod is a rigid body. So as you said your mechanism involves more elements.
What I could envision is using an elastic rod, for example with a piston or a spring. In that way one could use wheels of different diameter rotating in the same direction and perhaps the transfer of inertia phenomen would take place too. But who knows if it would be as strong as claimed in these force/torque multipliers ( 10x amplification).

I was wondering if Fernando's machine can be modified so that the output wheel turns with constant RPM.
I haven't done the math but perhaps one can put two in series with with an offset of certain degrees (180?) so that the inverse effect takes place?

thanks for your contributions!

When i first designed and developed this "torque converter", I fully intended to patent it, and I even did a patent search for anything related to or working on this principle, but found none. Mine does not use counter rotating wheels but uses different diameter wheels, some attached to and some not attached to a fulcrum. I decided many years ago not to patent it. I have been sitting on it for a while now. I found a way to use wheels and a fulcrum in unison to develope many times more torque and not reduce the RPM, such as in gears and belts and pulleys. I only buit the first stage to prove the principle works, when in actuality the machine is a two stage apparatus, having multiple wheels on the same shaft rotating 180 degrees apart for timing. Since it is an open design, it is crucial to get the timing exact. I retained the same RPM from input to output, but it could just as easily be tuned to produce twice the RPM, and the torque is only limited by size of the components. I have been giving considerable thoughts to posting it here, but haven't totally decided whether to or not. What I may do is to post the first design, before I redesigned and reduced the moving parts. Good Luck. stealth

[leely1]

Yes stealth. Post the first design.

[spiner]

markusbraunfe is right, you canīt keep in secret certain technologies, you canīt make money in the orthodox way, if you do you will die and humanity wonīt know your technic. If you have the technology you must comunicate it to all people, you canīt make profit by a patent. Many inventors has tryed to patent and make profit, all of them have failed. Patenting is good because you are making public the technology but you will no earn money. All of us wish make money, but the reality is that it is impossible with some technologies.
Centrifugal force can create inertial propulsion, inertial engines can take humanity to Mars in four days with little money but some forces in society block it. Centrifugal force is a infinity source of energy, I think this is the secret of this device.
The basis of physics is mistake, all physics books are wrong, because they need to hide this knowledge.

[Peter Lindemann]

Think Clearly, and not Emotionally

When i first designed and developed this "torque converter", I fully intended to patent it, and I even did a patent search for anything related to or working on this principle, but found none. Mine does not use counter rotating wheels but uses different diameter wheels, some attached to and some not attached to a fulcrum. I decided many years ago not to patent it. I have been sitting on it for a while now. I found a way to use wheels and a fulcrum in unison to develop many times more torque and not reduce the RPM, such as in gears and belts and pulleys. I only built the first stage to prove the principle works, when in actuality the machine is a two stage apparatus, having multiple wheels on the same shaft rotating 180 degrees apart for timing. Since it is an open design, it is crucial to get the timing exact. I retained the same RPM from input to output, but it could just as easily be tuned to produce twice the RPM, and the torque is only limited by size of the components. I have been giving considerable thoughts to posting it here, but haven't totally decided whether to or not. What I may do is to post the first design, before I redesigned and reduced the moving parts. Good Luck. stealth

Stealth,

Please see the PM I sent you.

Peter

[i_ron]

I had to disable my messages after an incedent with another forum member. I helped him on another project and he kept insisting that I send him money to help complete a motor I helped him design. After our dissagreement, he became beligerent so I disabled my message board. I have taken some time today to write a discription of my "torque converter', and if and when I do post it, I will already have it written down and easily posted. There are many on here that I have the utmost respect for and many have given of themselves, unselfishly to the betterment of the forum, and possibly all ankind. As I have said before, producing excess energy is an engineering and geometry problem. I have many motor and or generator designs I have done over the years, some I have built prototypes to test their parameters, others are just desigsns on paper or CAD. Of the ones I have prototyped and or built to use, most have worked flawlessly. A few others I cannibalized to use components on other projects. It seems that as I've aged that my priorities have changed but not my passion for inventing, designing and building energetic systems. I have a protege now that I am teaching some of my systems to so that they won't be lost(whatever happens). Good Luck. stealth

Stealth,

Need another protege? I would be glad to work with you. If you would like to contact me in a private message here I will give you my regular email and any info you deem necessary

Thanks

Ron