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.

[Aaron]

increase force but also energy if over 1.0 cop

The inventor speaks of "multiply forces"

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.

[Aaron]

multiplying energy

That's not multiplying the energy, that is just adding more. If you enable the
environment to input energy to your device then that input energy is a result
of your actions and therefore it's your input, just like with a solar panel. It's
all just word soup. But the reality is.

An amount of energy in itself cannot be increased or multiplied.

If you want more energy then you need to make more energy available.

When total ENERGY DISSIPATED is increasing above and beyond the energy dissipated that you had to put into the system, you are INCREASING the amount of energy dissipated in the system, which is multiplying the amount of energy you had to dissipate in the system to get it leveraging free potential from the environment.

I'm not engaging in semantics - these are simple facts.

The bottom line is we have input and output in a system and it is irrelevant whether or not some of the input comes from the environment when we calculate what WE put in compared to total energy dissipated in the system.

If we have COP 5.0, then we have multiplied the amount of energy dissipated WE put into the system 5 times. This isn't semantics, this is a fact. Our input X (times) 5 = cop 5.0. That is multiplication.

That is the entire point to an open dissipative system - we dissipate energy into it by supplying potential that reduces by moving to a lower potential difference encountering resistance on the way and we are leveraging free environmental potential that can do more WORK OVER TIME by establishing new potential differences over and over, which is real energy dissipated and that is multiplying energy done in the system.

It is impossible to "add more energy" as you mention - you can only add more potential by establishing potential differences within the system, which will then become energetic when it (potential) is dissipated by moving from a high potential to a lower potential through whatever mechanism the system is designed for.

You are using energy as a noun, when in fact there is no such THING as energy - energy is the word to describe the dissipation of potential, which is an ACTION - that isn't a thing, that is a verb. The only noun in energy and potential is potential as potential is what is actually a "tangible" thing even though conventionally, potential is described as the intangible concept, which of course is a fallacy. The word energy is misleading because it is always used as a thing but dissipation of potential is an activity and not a thing.

The aether, virtual photons, gravitational potential, neutrinos, quantum flux, whatever you want to call it, that is the SOURCE of potential and that potential is the source of work and work over time only happens when it (potential) dissipates.

So we aren't enabling the environment to input more energy, we enable the environment to input more POTENTIAL (from the separation of potential differences), which can then become energetic (work over time) and therefore, we are absolutely increasing or multiplying the total amount of real ENERGY DISSIPATED compared to what we put in.

Not only can we have power gains, which is simply doing x work in less time (impulse), we also have energy gains. Just add up the energy dissipated (which has a time component to it). That is the whole point to a COP measurement, it isn't a power increase measurement, COP is an absolute direct indication of ENERGY DISSIPATED compared to what we put in - that is a fact intrinsic within the very existence of over 1.0 COP to begin with.

If there is no energy increase, then there is no such thing as over 1.0 COP.

So my refrigerator operating at a COP of about 2.5 is a direct measurement showing that the energy dissipated from the wall (watt hours - work x time) is being MULTIPLIED 2.5 times when you look at how much real Energy Dissipation is happening in that system as a whole. Energy in the system has MULTIPLIED.

You say to have more energy you have to make more available. What do you think happens each time a system "regauges" itself. You're establishing a new potential difference where potential comes in and this is what makes more "energy" available when that newly input potential starts to move to another potential through various resistances. That is how every non-equilibrium system works.

Look at Veljko's oscillator. Look at energy dissipated to lift the pendulum. Then calculate total energy dissipated just int he big hammer alone each time it goes up to each height, with each successive lift decreasing if you lift the pendulum just once. The calculated amount of energy dissipated in just the big hammer alone is multiplied above the energy dissipated by lifting the pendulum once - that is directly multiplying the input energy dissipated on the input. And that doesn't even include energy dissipated on the pivot, losses when it strikes the "anvil" and it doesn't even include further work done on the pendulum after the initial lift.

Every single over 1.0 COP system is multiplying energy in the system - it is the entire point.

[torpex]

Hi all

The inventor speaks of "multiply forces" without losing speed, is supposed to be an engineer, It may be a way to talk to who understands people, or he speaks about various forces in conjunction.
He says he can multiply Nx20, and again Nx20. One 1 hp engine becomes a 20 hp.

His wife speaks of energy production.

[Farmhand]

There is no such thing as conservation of energy.

Second, you say power is rate of energy in time but it is not. Power is energy dissipated divided by time so you take the time out of it to see what the power is. If you have 1 watt second or 1 joule over 1 second, that is the real energy dissipated. If you take 1 watt second and divide it by 1 second, you have 1 watt. 1 watt by itself is POWER - there is no time in a power reading so your statement that power is energy in time is incorrect.

Yes, energy and not just power CAN be multiplied by using environmental input (gravity for example) as a source of potential that can do work on each successive cycle. The free input from the environment delays the time the system comes into equilibrium so that the amount of ENERGY dissipated by our own input is MULTIPLIED bit by bit by bit.

It is not more out than in. It is more out that we put in - obviously implying there is other free input from somewhere else.

That's not multiplying the energy, that is just adding more. If you enable the
environment to input energy to your device then that input energy is a result
of your actions and therefore it's your input, just like with a solar panel. It's
all just word soup. But the reality is.

An amount of energy in itself cannot be increased or multiplied.

If you want more energy then you need to make more energy available.

[Aaron]

no conservation of energy

Hi! Best wishes to all. Whatever you do, you cannot increase power indefinitely, because power ist rate of energy in time. You can, as in an electrical condensor, store some energy and deliver it faster than it was originally received. But when the condensor is empty, the proccess stops and in the end the total amount of energy received by the condensor equals the energy delivered by the condensor (in an imaginary perfect condensor).
It is claimed everywhere that this device will solve the energy problems multiplicating energy, but that cannot be done. There is an Energy conservation law that cannot be avoided. You can multiply force, yes, it is well known since Aristotle and before that simple levers do that, or if you will gears, but energy and power (that is flow of energy) cannot be multiplied.

For more details you can send me a message to my e-mail

All the best to you all

There is no such thing as conservation of energy.

Second, you say power is rate of energy in time but it is not. Power is energy dissipated divided by time so you take the time out of it to see what the power is. If you have 1 watt second or 1 joule over 1 second, that is the real energy dissipated. If you take 1 watt second and divide it by 1 second, you have 1 watt. 1 watt by itself is POWER - there is no time in a power reading so your statement that power is energy in time is incorrect.

Yes, energy and not just power CAN be multiplied by using environmental input (gravity for example) as a source of potential that can do work on each successive cycle. The free input from the environment delays the time the system comes into equilibrium so that the amount of ENERGY dissipated by our own input is MULTIPLIED bit by bit by bit.

It is not more out than in. It is more out that we put in - obviously implying there is other free input from somewhere else.

[MarioSandez]

Power cannot be increased

Hi! Best wishes to all. Whatever you do, you cannot increase power indefinitely, because power ist rate of energy in time. You can, as in an electrical condensor, store some energy and deliver it faster than it was originally received. But when the condensor is empty, the proccess stops and in the end the total amount of energy received by the condensor equals the energy delivered by the condensor (in an imaginary perfect condensor).
It is claimed everywhere that this device will solve the energy problems multiplicating energy, but that cannot be done. There is an Energy conservation law that cannot be avoided. You can multiply force, yes, it is well known since Aristotle and before that simple levers do that, or if you will gears, but energy and power (that is flow of energy) cannot be multiplied.

For more details you can send me a message to my e-mail

All the best to you all

[alvarohn]

invention

Hi all!!

I will try to find something in Spanish since I am from Uruguay and my nature language is Spanish.

at the end of the video the man answers the question of how does it work and he said: "The free fall of the bodies, all bodies that change their gravity center... fall"

about the car engine running a boat he said that, "a car engine can run a truck, and a truck engine can run a boat".

He also said that he can apply his force multiplier with another one in series to multiply even more the force.

I will see if I can get something more.

best,

Alvaro H

[torpex]

Hi all,

Other information:
http://www.cacharreo.com.es/foro/dow...=147&mode=view

In a TV interview said that since the institution (Indecopi) were to expedite processing of the patent. Seems that this has been.

Some extra info in Spanish:
Cacharreo • Ver Tema - Sixto Ramos inventa un Sistema Multiplicador de Fuerza

[Apolopy]

News on the Peruvian Invention

Apriciate Peter and Friends:

The only, but intresting info that I have is this link

CONSULTAS PUBLICAS DE EXPEDIENTES - INDECOPI

it shows the path that the patent aplication has follow in the Patent ofice in Peru (INDECOPI), in the last record just 30 may 2012 it say "Resolution" "Granted" in spanish of corse, this 99% confirms that ther have granted the patent to Fernando Sixto, and in some point it have to appear in international index, I hope so.


Peter, only some one in Peru can give us more data.


Apolopy

[Peter Lindemann]

Any More News

Friends:

The reason because I post this is that, the man got the first prize for his invention in an official goverment contest in Peru, that means that it was check, and cause he present himself in front of the market in swiss, none of this could be done so easy if this was a hoax.

In Sudameric the way information is available is much less that in english speaking contrys or Europe.

And is so often that here you can find inventors that have no money at all.

So poverty and lack of info is every day coin here.

In other circunstanse I would never post this, but I repeat, his goverment awarded his claims, up in the posts you can see the translated web site of the contest he won, and by the media (also in english) en Diploma from the invention exposition.

And also I thing that only with someone in Peru we can find the complete truth about this.

Dear Apolopy,

Anymore news of this invention? I remain extremely interested in this technology and if possible, would like to know how it works!

Peter

[student8195]

Variant of the Milkovic 2 stage pendulum?

See the ltseung888 bench on the Milkovic 2-stage pendulum improvement.
United Nations Seminar/Workshop


In particular, look at the design page of the attached xls file.

This device is more clever. But gravitational energy was led-out in both cases.

The new proposed design with two unbalanced wheels at the ends of the lever may be even simpler and better.

[Mad Scientist]

Do you think it does increase power for part of the cycle and
reduce for another part ? Like magnifying the power or concentrating it ?

Maybe the power is increased but also reduced. So the total energy of the system
remains the same including losses over time. 1=1

Oh well maybe it has it's uses.

Cheers

That would be my guess although I did not try to prove it. My goal was to first observe its actual movement and then go from there.
But upon finding these oscillation unless your intention is to build a mechanical oscillator I don't see any value in this. As over time these oscillation will probably cause it or what it is driving to self destruct.

[Farmhand]

Hi Mad Scientist, Do you think it does increase power for part of the cycle and
reduce for another part ? Like magnifying the power or concentrating it ?

Because that was my impression as well, I just couldn't tell how by the video.

Maybe the power is increased but also reduced. So the total energy of the system
remains the same including losses over time. 1=1

Not sure where I heard this but I think when we jump in the air it moves both
the jumper and the Earth, the Earth only moves a minute amount. Makes sense.

Oh well maybe it has it's uses.

Cheers

[Mad Scientist]

I found the idea that a "wiggly weight" could increase torque interesting. However it is hard to visualize just what that weight is going aside from causing the entire unit to shake violently. So I made up a simple model to observe the movement of the weight, the path it takes is not what you might expect.

I noted the purpose of the flywheel on the output was to allow the crank to get past dead center. I then though what if the flywheels could be eliminated by adding a second set of cranks and connecting rod but 90 degree offset from the first one. That way one would always be in the center of its “power stroke” when the other was at dead center.

This seemed like a good idea but it totally locked up the system and it would not turn.
The reason for this is that the output does not turn at a constant speed. For each revolution the speed of the output will increase and then decrease in relation to the input while maintaining a 1:1 ratio between them.

This oscillation will undoubtedly put an undesirable strain on whatever is being driven.