the simplicity of electricity multiplication

[that_prophet]

that_prophet Re: ENERGY AMPLIFICATION
Quote from: that_prophet on May 04, 2015, 01:45:51 PM
FREE ENERGY IS SUPER SIMPLE,,,,
you put electricity into a DC motor that turns a large 100cm circumference pulley attached
then you run a belt to ten of one cm circumference mini-pulleys with AC motors attached
this gives you 100's or AC units of energy for each of the ten pulleys
you run this into a full wave bridge rectifier
which gives you more than enough DC electricity
to drive your large pulley DC motor
which only turned once
just a spark of electricity

http://free-energy.yolasite.com/

IT IS TRUELY THAT SIMPLE


FREE ENERGY IS SUPER SIMPLE,,,,

This technology has been skilfully side-stepped
By the evil forces in this world
As in, fallen angels + demons following Satan

You put DC electricity into a motor rotating a large 100cm pulley
+ you run a belt to one - ten mini-pulleys with AC motors attached
giving you 100's of units of AC electricity for every mini-pulley added
you run this AC electricity into a full wave bridge rectifier
which gives you more than enough DC electricity
to drive your large pulley DC motor
which only turned once
one rotation of 3 phase motor is just 3 sparks of electricity

So,,, you put in three sparks of DC electricity into the motor
With the 100cm circumference pulley attached
Strapped with a belt that turns 100 centimetres of belt
Past a 1cm circumference pulley with an AC motor attached
Rotating the ten AC motor that is connected to it 100 times,
Giving you 100 units of AC electricity for every mini-pulley
10 X 100 = 1000 units of AC electricity out of this system
while only putting 3 sparks of DC electricity

the math is obvious,,, 333 sparks of AC electricity out
for every DC spark in,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

http://free-energy.yolasite.com/

IT IS TRUELY THAT SIMPLE

This electricity multiplier is so simple
That it will hopefully disgust you into doing something,
About these Humanist religious beliefs
Being systematically taught to our children as FACT,
Where they are given as facts
that are indisputable and only common sense
There are textbooks of EVil-sOLUTION is being crammed down their throats
Not only is this done, but they don’t allow any other views be proposed
Such as Creation by a Good God in six days
The big bang is a creation by explosion
The universe is still expanding, faster +.faster
The moon, (God’s Creation hourglass)
= a very good place to measure time
From the point of Creation onward
As it has no atmospheres, to disturb the steady deposit
Of space dust that is throughout the universe

The moon, (God’s Creation Hourglass)
Has only a small amount of dust on the surface
Which is about 6 000 years worth of dust on it,
Not billions of years
Which would be hundreds of meters
Why is this purely logical factual knowledge not publicly known

[artoj]

It is simple

Hi Joe,

Yes it is simple, simple to show how this scheme of you machinations can not be negotiated with any confidence or even functioning in the real world. These are simple ideas used in gear trains in engineering. I have taken some time and given you a simple explanation. Please do not taken offense, but please take some time and study engineering, it would help you understand basic leverage and gear ratios. Regards Arto.

[pedroxime]

Yes its simple!!!!
Please build one, then make a video !!!!
Thanks

[Ernst]

FREE ENERGY IS SUPER SIMPLE,,,,

Yes, please do make a video to show the world!

And while you are at it, ...

The moon, (God’s Creation Hourglass)
Has only a small amount of dust on the surface
Which is about 6 000 years worth of dust on it,
Not billions of years
Which would be hundreds of meters
Why is this purely logical factual knowledge not publicly known

also make a video of you measuring the amount of dust on the moon and in interstellar space.



Ernst.

[wrtner]

... Which is about 6 000 years worth of dust on it,
Not billions of years
Which would be hundreds of meters
Why is this purely logical factual knowledge not publicly known

Because it is rubbish.

There is no correlation between the age of an object and the dust on its surface.

[bistander]

Hi Joe,

Yes it is simple, simple to show how this scheme of you machinations can not be negotiated with any confidence or even functioning in the real world. These are simple ideas used in gear trains in engineering. I have taken some time and given you a simple explanation. Please do not taken offense, but please take some time and study engineering, it would help you understand basic leverage and gear ratios. Regards Arto.

Hi Arto,

With no offense intended to you, that explanation of yours is loaded with errors. The big thing is that there is no "watts per second". Watt is a unit of power which is the rate of which work is done or the rate of energy and is equal to a Joule per second or J/s. A Watt per second would then be a J/s², or an acceleration of energy, which doesn't make any sense. Here is what answers-dot-com says about "watts per second":

"Watts per second" would be the same as "Joules per second per second". You'd use that monstrosity to describe how fast the rate of energy consumption or dissipation is growing or shrinking.

We really have to twist our arm behind our own back to come up with that, and in our practice of Electrical Engineering for the past 37 years, we've never seen that unit needed or used. It's probably safe to say that such a unit has no physical significance or practical application.

Also, Power = Torque * Angular Velocity. Units which apply are: Watts = (Newton meters) * (Radians / second). Nm not kgfm.

bi

[artoj]

Simple but correct

Hello Mr Bistander

I do not take offense, like anything that adds up and is correct I have no fears or misgivings for working out the intricacies of this design.

It is a little easy to be anonymous, dismissive, make assumptions and be a critic of a worked out sample, it take a lot of effort to be open to who you are and create the sample that can help others to see the poor understanding that mechanisms like the one presented in this thread. There are those who prefer to be educated by the internet, I chose to read books and apply knowledge and build physical reflections of my understanding

I am sorry you do not understand my simple outline, these figures use the term Power Transfer Rate, which must be used as Mr Joe is talking about getting something for nothing. I could have shown more traditional methodologies and nobody would have seen the logical errors hidden in Mr Joes assumptions. I have used this way to get past the mistaken understanding of Power/Watts/Energy, these are different aspects of the quantity of action with the metrics of time.

If you study my simple example you can find possible errors in my calculations, I left out the losses due to heat and friction etc, as then it would not be a simple example. I base my calculations on real world examples that I have applied in designs that function and are buildable, theory can be developed from test models, not the other way around. Power Transfer Rate(Joules) is the most unused and most practical way of determining the amount of energy that can be used or dissipated, I am sorry that you have been told otherwise, it seems my study of engineering has led me to a many answers that would have been ignored if I was "educated" by those with a narrower vision.

What you must truly understand is when you have a device that harnesses "Free" , sun, wind etc energy, it is the rate and volume of that energy accumulation is vital as your engineered structure, it must be able to have the capacity and be able channel the rate as to be useful. Talking in watts is not enough ,as you must clearly know your power bill is KWH = kilowatt hour and your change in power handling rate is kilowatts an hour which translates with a different metric as work per second, which is the Power Transfer Rate which is a constant in any machinery that is harnessing energy from a source, these refer to ramping and peak handling.

I thank you for helping others realize my example is best to be studied and understood. where the sad occurrence of dismissing practical calculations is why I have come to this forum, I work my samples and cross reference every equation at least 100 times before presenting them here. I am sure many who have bought my books and followed any of my work, know that any of my short comings are not in this area. Regards Arto.

[bistander]

It is little easy to be anonymous, dismissive, make assumptions and be a critic of a worked out sample, it take a lot of effort to be open to who you are and create the sample that can help others to see the poor understanding that mechanisms like the one presented in this thread.

Yes Arto, I prefer to be anonymous and interject some facts into these discussions where there appears to be a need. Such was your example, which I am sure you did put a lot of effort into formulating. And I would think you would want that example to be correct in detail. Perhaps you can learn from this as well as the OP. I was trying to help both of you.

Talking in watts is not enough ,as you must clearly know your power bill is KWH = kilowatt per hour, which translates with a different metric as watts per second, which is the Power Transfer Rate.

KWH does not equal kilowatt per hour. KWH = kilowatt hour. There is a big difference between kWh and kW/h.

[artoj]

Small edit

* edited my sentence, to read correctly*, I have only learned to read through my work 101 times, sorry my mistake.

[bistander]

* edited my sentence, to read correctly*, I have only learned to read through my work 101 times, sorry my mistake.

Yes Arto, I am glad you recognize the difference between kWh and kW/h.

Now, the root of the problem. Your use of Power Transfer Rate makes no sense whatsoever. Power is already a transfer rate. Power is the rate of energy. Power is the rate at which work is done. Power is the rate at which energy is converted. Power is the rate at which energy is transferred. Power has the unit of the Watt. A Watt = Joule per second. A Watt is a rate. There is no need to divide a Watt by a time unit. A Watt/second is a nonsensical unit. It has no practical application. Using Watt/second in calculations only introduces error. Power (Watts) is independent of time. It is an instantaneous value, like speed (meters/second), or current (Coulombs/second), or flow (liters/second).

[artoj]

Simple as Power

As I have already stated, I am sorry you do not understand, repeating myself will not help.

As clearly written on my diagram, I have purposely use many names here.

PTR = Constant of power transfer = Power Transfer Rate = Work per second = wps = Watt x second

**all above is the "RATE OF DOING WORK" **

A careful study of the calculations will reveal why I chose these terms, most people mix the term Power and Watts, I chose simply not to call it this, squabbling over semantics is not engineering. If my calculations are correct then maybe you have learned something about my methods of getting a blind public to do something to make an understanding of simple concepts such as Power engineering. This is where the results are determined by building what the customer requires to complete a task, and getting paid for results, Finale Arto.

[OrthoParameter]

As I have already stated, I am sorry you do not understand, repeating myself will not help.

As clearly written on my diagram, I have purposely use many names here.

PTR = Constant of power transfer = Power Transfer Rate = Watts per second = wps = Power = Watt/ second

**all above is the "RATE OF DOING WORK" **

****All of the above is WRONG****
A rate of power transfer would include time. Joules per Second takes care of that requirement. Joules per Second also equals Watts. Watts is a term used for Power. NOT Watts per second which would equate to Joules per second per second.

A careful study of the calculations will reveal why I chose these terms, most people mix the term Power and Watts, I chose simply not to call it this, squabbling over semantics is not engineering.

This issue is not about semantics, we are talking about widely understood terms.


If my calculations are correct then maybe you have learned something about my methods of teaching a blind public by using subterfuge to make an understanding of simple concepts such as Power engineering.

You use subterfuge to teach a blind public? How simply magnanimous of you.
The blind leading the blind perhaps?

This is where the results are determined by building what the customer requires to complete a task, and getting paid for results, something that I have no trouble in accomplishing. Finale Arto.

Just because you have a talent for making money doesn't make the terminology you use acceptable or correct.

[myenergetic]

Flywheel Motor Generator that doesn't work

Artoj

As usual a perfect analyses, even though most of the time you leave some minor details for others to speculate, for layman the answer is convincing. Some of the basic (Typo) fallouts in the drawing are
A, In the Solution for mechanical Section the radius of R2 to R5 should read 75mm not .75mm(Typo)
B, The IMA calculation should read IMA1 = Arc2/Arc1 which is 6.667 and equal to R1/R2 derived earlier.
C, Since your WPT* is constant and it is 48 the Constant Transfer Ratio equations should read e.g. (RPM1/W1 = 720/900 = .8)
D, Based on the above minor typo corrections Power available @ each pulley W1 to W5 either calculated as the constant ration of transfer i.e. for W1=RPM1*.8=900*.8=720 or Calculated by
W1= WPT* x (RPM1/60) = 48*(900/60) = 720 are in close agreement of the total power available by the system that is W*=48W regardless of any configuration.

The rest is none relevant to repeat, those interested in power calculations please do.

Else for those who think that the established science require rediscovery please help this Gentleman who spent his lifetime saving on the attached Flywheel Motor Generator machine that does not work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmXBebQzMyQ

Hope it helps

jj

[aljhoa]

Else for those who think that the established science require rediscovery please help this Gentleman who spent his lifetime saving on the attached Flywheel Motor Generator machine that does not work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmXBebQzMyQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2gjIMVVnuE

Al

[MorningStar]

Artoj


Else for those who think that the established science require rediscovery please help this Gentleman who spent his lifetime saving on the attached Flywheel Motor Generator machine that does not work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmXBebQzMyQ


jj

The belts should be left slack to induce impulse power (open system) not properly tensioned (closed system). See Patrick Kelly's Chapter 4, Gravity Powered Systems, page 4-5.

Link: http://www.free-energy-info.tuks.nl/Chapter4.pdf