Awarded machine multiply force from a motor (free energy)

[Aaron]

FACTS + to make offset shaft in bearing

These appear to be the facts or claims based on Fernando's own words:

4 flywheels on 2 shafts offset on bearings so that the motion will be like a figure 8 as shown in the graphic.

The vertical lever with weight is the source of the multiplication and is needed to be placed over the axle connected to the INPUT wheel.

The output can be on a different OR SAME shaft as the input.

Wheels on the opposite shaft can counter-rotate - when the prototype is spun sometimes, the wheels can go in the same direction - so the axles are not locked to the bearing of course, you can move one and then force the other to spin so that they will move in the same direction - just get the bar in the right place and they will do the figure 8 configuration. That is the one needed for proper running.

Adding more parallel wheels can continue to increase the effect "exponentially".

The reaction of the lever does not counter the movement but assists in continued forwards movement.

Fernando improperly uses the term "force". He says gravity mass and distance when talking about the lever. Force is the mass times the acceleration. But the gravity x mass x distance is actual work dissipated or ENERGY.

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

On Eltimple's replication video - he says at 0:50 - "just cut a slot in the bar."

He is talking about the axle that goes through the bearing. So you push the rod through the axle and where the slot is, it will fall and go off centered, then tighten down the nuts on both sides and you then have the off centered bearing necessary to do this replication. Ok, that makes it easy.

At least that is my interpretation of what he is saying.

If so, then this "should be a piece of cake" to replicate.

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

I think I see now why this works - IF it works - when input shaft is rotated to where lever is slightly above level - the level is trying to tip towards the opposite axle using free gravitational potential to turn the opposite shaft. While it does that, it is simultaneously pulling on the input side relieving the work needed to turn the input section.

The skeptic can say it took work to lift it slightly above level to begin with on the input side, BUT while it is moving in that direction, the lever is tipped in the correct direction now so that free gravitational potential can do work on the rod to rotate it back up to the level or above level position.

So, I can see how Fernando is saying it appears to be always falling - it is completely apparent how he says this according to the drawing that Artoj did. This looks like it actually works at first glance based on what is now known.

When it is falling over the top to rotate the opposite shaft, it is simultaneously pulling on the input side in the SAME direction that it needs to go. When it is falling in the other direction, the same effect. No matter what, either direction helps to propel the axles in the "forward" direction either way so the reaction in the opposite direction is not happening here - all the reaction is in the forward direction - just like martial arts like what Fernando said.

[Farmhand]

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



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.

Numbers are a mental construct and are not real so can be multiplied.
eg. 2 x 4 = 8

Things are real and cannot be multiplied.

eg. How do you multiply 2 banana's by 4 bananas ? Answer you can't.

Take two bananas and try to multiply them using another 4 bananas and you
will still have only the total of the bananas you started with.

Things can be added.
eg. 2 bananas + 4 bananas = 6 bananas. If you take 2 bananas and add them
to 4 bananas you get 6 bananas. Adding things is possible.

Multiplying only works with numbers or representatives of values.

Take 6 bananas separate them into two groups, one group of 2 bananas and
one group of 4 bananas then tell me if you can get 8 bananas from them by
multiplication.

However they can be added back together, they can be separated and added
together, they wont disappear so they cannot be divided or subtracted.
either. You cannot divide 4 bananas by 2 bananas and end up with only 2
bananas.

So I say again with no disrespect to anyone only numbers can be multiplied.
Real material things cannot be multiplied.

When somebody demonstrates the multiplication of 4 bananas by 2 bananas
with the product of that being 8 bananas, then I will agree real material things
aside from numbers can be multiplied.

The effect of a given force or other such things can be increased by an
amount equal to a value which is the product of the multiplication of numbers
but the force itself cannot be multiplied. eg. the effect of the applied force in
the system may be two times as powerful. Before effect = 200 watts after
effect = 400 watts. In that case the multiplication of the value indicates the
amount of increase because the original amount was known. The value of the
power was doubled. It is correct that the same result can be got by adding
but multiplication is more efficient to do.

In the above example of watts the force itself was not multiplied, it's effect
was increased/magnified to a value of 2 times.

Show me how to multiply 2 bananas by 4 bananas and end up with 8 bananas.
2 can be multiplied by 4 to get 8. But 2 bananas cannot be multiplied by
4 bananas to get 8 bananas.

[Aaron]

energy gain as a reality

So I say again with no disrespect to anyone only numbers can be multiplied.
Real material things cannot be multiplied.

That still does not mean there is no energy gain.

Your example makes sense but it still semantics and philosophy.

Whether there is an energy gain or not is simply proven with simple calculation.

Add up all the force X distance and you have the answer.

What you call it is up to you but dissipated energy in the system compared to what we put in is increasing. Energy is amplified, increased, multiplied, accumulated, added, etc... doesn't matter - there is more energy out than in and it is an energy gain - not just power gain or increases in force, which was your original claim that there is not an energy gain.

Mathematically, the energy in is multiplied in the positive when you look at the output in total joules of energy dissipated and proven to be dissipated by all the force x distance added up, multipled, etc... If you take the output full dissipation and divide it by the input, if it is more than 1, then mathematically, there is absolutely a multiplication of energy in the system.

[Farmhand]

That still does not mean there is no energy gain.

Your example makes sense but it still semantics and philosophy.

Whether there is an energy gain or not is simply proven with simple calculation.

Add up all the force X distance and you have the answer.

What you call it is up to you but dissipated energy in the system compared to what we put in is increasing. Energy is amplified, increased, multiplied, accumulated, added, etc... doesn't matter - there is more energy out than in and it is an energy gain - not just power gain or increases in force, which was your original claim that there is not an energy gain.

Mathematically, the energy in is multiplied in the positive when you look at the output in total joules of energy dissipated and proven to be dissipated by all the force x distance added up, multipled, etc... If you take the output full dissipation and divide it by the input, if it is more than 1, then mathematically, there is absolutely a multiplication of energy in the system.

Calculations alone can be misleading and have no use for doing actual work.
I never rule out the possibility of a gain in energy.

For us to realize any proven energy gain it must be demonstrated, by a third
party, as work done (output) compared to work input.

I'm choosing to ignore for now the fact that the machine looks like it would
shake itself to self destruction in short time anyway, so repairs/maintenance
costs would be prohibitive anyway.

I am amazed how people can be so impressed by such a dodgy device. But
each to their own I guess. If one could be run even for 24 hours as shown I
would be very surprised. If a setup cannot run 24/7 for long time spans it is
not very good. I've been around, built and maintained machines almost all my
life both in industry and recreation. That setup thrashing around like that is
kinda ridiculous. Someone check it out if they want, show what it can do in
controlled conditions, give the guy his award, people can do whatever.

But the speculation is beside the point without demonstrative proof of desired
function and viability.

If it can collect some free energy all well and good, but a machine that
collects some free energy is of no use to me if I must duck for cover when it
flies to pieces, then look for the parts and see if I can repair and rebuild it.
To even be able to check it's safety one must have some experience or knowledge of the materials used and their limits.

To me it looks like it would come apart in time or at least try to come apart.
That tells me there is a lot of force being wasted in the wear and tear.

I think there is a measurement error, calculation error or something is not being
considered in the calculations or something. But I reserve the right to be
wrong. Of course.

If I were checking it out (with help) I would first check it's safety ( likelyhood
of injuring or killing me) then run it to check it's safety in operation, if it
looked safe enough then I would test it for function, ie. can it actually do
anything useful, like actually run a generator that is powering a load.

Then I would test power in / power out using DC measurement methods.
convert all input / output to DC and measure in real time over time.

If it can produce 200 watts DC output through a load with a DC input of 200
watts or less I would be very surprised.

The only real proof is a real time test with reliable and valid measurements.

I'm not a measurement expert, but I can't be fooled easily either.

Is there a working replication powering something ?

Cheers

[scratchrobot]

Nature can multiply bananas ,the energy comes from the air and the ground

[eltimple]

Hi all , heard you talking about me so thought i would come and see what the fuss was about

That animation someone did earlier is right on the button ( Can i post it on my Ramos blog please?)

It is interesting to note that the device will rotate in phase or out of phase, or to put it another way , wheels or flywheels can all rotate in the same direction in which case the connecting rod just moves up and down as the crank in a steam locomotive might. Or, Out of phase as per animation, with the connecting rod tracing a figure of 8.

This motion of a figure of 8 is not natural to this device, you have to force it into rotating like that,. when you do The device has front and back axles spin in different directions. Adding a weight , along with all 4 flywheels helps the device to get over top dead center, which means basically that the connecting rod reaches a position on each axle that hinders rotation. Having heavy fly wheels ensures that it sails through top dead center. Then the inverted pendulum is reported to add a falling force to the contraption

[thedude]

Hi all , heard you talking about me so thought i would come and see what the fuss was about

That animation someone did earlier is right on the button ( Can i post it on my Ramos blog please?)

Hi eltimple. Arto did the drawing and I animated the gif and flash. I can't imagine Arto has any problem with you posting on your Ramos blog, and i certainly do not. The gif can be downloaded or linked to from my host.

Thanks for yours, and everyone's, efforts to try and figure this one out.

This one is like a rollercoaster for me. One moment i think I see it and then next i'm struggling. I do get how one or the other side will be falling all the time, and perhaps it is possible for more of the lever mass to be gaining more inertial energy in a downward direction. Its tricky and I think only a physical model will really explain it. I can't spare much time right now, but would be excited to see someone replicate for us.

Hypothetically Farmhand, would it not be possible to set up bearing guides to help support the mass atop the lever in some way to help prevent stress levels and instability from causing damage? Even to help regulate just enough to keep it from moving out of its proper range of motion. Not talking about adding a lot of excess resistance, just enough to keep it from causing harm to its self via isolation?

[Aaron]

replication

Hi all , heard you talking about me so thought i would come and see what the fuss was about

That animation someone did earlier is right on the button ( Can i post it on my Ramos blog please?)

It is interesting to note that the device will rotate in phase or out of phase, or to put it another way , wheels or flywheels can all rotate in the same direction in which case the connecting rod just moves up and down as the crank in a steam locomotive might. Or, Out of phase as per animation, with the connecting rod tracing a figure of 8.

This motion of a figure of 8 is not natural to this device, you have to force it into rotating like that,. when you do The device has front and back axles spin in different directions. Adding a weight , along with all 4 flywheels helps the device to get over top dead center, which means basically that the connecting rod reaches a position on each axle that hinders rotation. Having heavy fly wheels ensures that it sails through top dead center. Then the inverted pendulum is reported to add a falling force to the contraption

Welcome Eltimple,

Thanks for posting your replication video.

Your statement about putting a slot in the axle to offset it is exactly what I needed to know to replicate this. That was probably obvious to people like Jetijs but it made it simple for me

Do you know anyone else that has replicated it? You seem to be the first.

[Aaron]

safety and smooth running

Farmhand,

I agree safety is an issue and so is the practicality of a machine to even hold together.

However, to me, the answer is obvious - for tuning.

Of course this is just my opinion but the answer is to have a weight that can slide up and down on the vertical rod and lock in place. The reason for this is because ideally, this is a resonant mechanical oscillator like the Veljko oscillator.

For this device, there is a certain weight at a certain height for the operation with everything taken into account that will have the most effect for the least amount of loss. I'm sure there are complex calculations to determine this taking everything into account. But for simple experimentation, it can be done by trial and error.

For a certain speed of the input generator, simply slide the weight up and down until it is at a point where the machine is in synchronicity (resonance) with the smoothest operation. It will be producing the most for the least loss at that point and would be as simple as unscrewing a set screw and sliding it up and down in mm or cm increments to see where the ideal place is for that particular weight.

For smaller scale replications, the only concern I see is if a slot is machined into the axle to offset it in the bearing, a nut on both side may not hold it there too well and it could shake loose. So, with the slot cut in the axle and nuts on both sides, there will obviously be some open space in the hole of the bearing, something needs to be put into there...maybe as simple as a much smaller thread stock with bolt on both side so that there is no way for the main shaft to jar loose from its offset position. It will have to be the diameter of the slot if the original axle was the same diameter as the diameter of the hole in the bearing.

[artoj]

A picture paints a 1000 words.

Hi all, please feel free to use my diagrams and thanks to thedude for the animation. Regards

[thedude]

Thank you for the drawings.

Hi all, please feel free to use my diagrams and thanks to thedude for the animation. Regards

Thank you for the drawings Artoj! I saw that string of images and the novice graphic artist inside me just could not resist! :P Nice to have you contributing here Artoj. Would be more than happy to collaborate again in the future if you'd like something animated quickly. Way easy with your drawings! I'm guessing your more than capable.

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

As far as understanding this device, i'm still not completely sold yet, it seems that there must be something to it though. If the weighted lever is purposed to assist in increasing the momentum of the shaft when it reaches completely horizontal ( a point where there is no additional gravitational bias or tilt) on either side of the axle bearings, and each bearing is isolated to within the others rotational range of movement at all times, I do get how there will be some kind of a natural breaking point in where the two bearings will seem to resist each other. If the lever weight is tied into the equation to get past this breaking point, are we being naturally rewarded with extra gained momentum as a result? Kinda like a speed bump with a longer drop on the other side? Doesn't seem like that should be possible.

<off topic> Was great to hear your voice on the phone the other day Peter. Sorry for the unexpected phone call. Definitely gonna order up a 40Amp Tesla Tracker III very soon. Currently I"m buying 2 - 315w kyocera 27v panels now. I guess the prices dropped like a rock on now all of a sudden, and the glass i used on the one i built turned out to be not temperature resistant enough. Learning experience.
</off topic end>

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 reference to pendulum]
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?

Hi Aaron. It seems like the natural bind point in the 2 rotational bearings being tied together is cleared by the weighted lever? Are you thinking that a flywheel timed properly with this event might serve to balance the acceleration that would occur when the shaft connecting the two rotational bearings reaches straight horizontal and no longer has a pitched or tilted gravitational bias? I think i get where your going with being able to find a harmonic point with the weight. Wondering if it could be balanced in other ways as well. I agree with Farmhand that running the way it appears in the news video that it could take a toll on longevity.

I really want to try and replicate but i don't have the best machine shop available yet. I can see this being a real fabricators project. Everything is possible though.

[thedude]

Hi all , heard you talking about me so thought i would come and see what the fuss was about

That animation someone did earlier is right on the button ( Can i post it on my Ramos blog please?)

It is interesting to note that the device will rotate in phase or out of phase, or to put it another way , wheels or flywheels can all rotate in the same direction in which case the connecting rod just moves up and down as the crank in a steam locomotive might. Or, Out of phase as per animation, with the connecting rod tracing a figure of 8.

This motion of a figure of 8 is not natural to this device, you have to force it into rotating like that,. when you do The device has front and back axles spin in different directions. Adding a weight , along with all 4 flywheels helps the device to get over top dead center, which means basically that the connecting rod reaches a position on each axle that hinders rotation. Having heavy fly wheels ensures that it sails through top dead center. Then the inverted pendulum is reported to add a falling force to the contraption

Hi eltimple. How is your replication coming along? Could you link your blog for us to check out? I've seen your video but would like to stay tuned.

Edit - Is this it here? Thanks for sharing.

[Aaron]

replication

Hi Aaron. It seems like the natural bind point in the 2 rotational bearings being tied together is cleared by the weighted lever? Are you thinking that a flywheel timed properly with this event might serve to balance the acceleration that would occur when the shaft connecting the two rotational bearings reaches straight horizontal and no longer has a pitched or tilted gravitational bias?

I really want to try and replicate but i don't have the best machine shop available yet. I can see this being a real fabricators project. Everything is possible though.

I think if the flywheels weigh enough, they will carry it over whether there is a weight over the input shaft or not. I'll know for sure when I build one. lol

Will have to wait until after the conference.

There are definitely plenty of mechanical engineers here with the tools to build this really nice.

[Apolopy]

New Pic and patent number



Friends, here a new picture of the inventor with his invention.

His Peruvian Patent number is "6454" 2012. and the international patent clasification code is "F03G 7/08"



Best Regards





Apolopy-From Paraguay

[Aaron]

new pic

Apolopy,

Thanks for the pic.

See those giant wheels being worked on in the background, are they making a really big one?

Also, is it only me or does the weight on Fernando's machine seem to be right between both axles instead of over the input shaft?

Maybe that is adjustable so that it can slide back and forth for tuning.