Seven times more energy output than input: Power Multiplier Device

[Russell Lee]

When the weights descend, pulling the chain that drives the generator, the battery experiences X amount of charge from the generator. When the weights ascend, the generator's charge is now directed towards the operation of the small motor raising the weights to the top of the chain, except for the small amount of power needed that the generator cannot supply. This small amount of power is taken from the battery, let's say 10% of the charge the generator would be putting into the battery on the descent cycle, for 30 seconds.  On the descent the full charge is going into the battery, with only 10% being taken out on the ascent, the rest is being supplied by the functioning generator.    This is simple to understand. The small motor has at is disposal two energy sources, the charged battery, and the generator. The generator is supplying 90% of what it needs, the battery 10%- for 30 seconds only. Then the battery gets all the energy from the generator for 3 minutes. Six gallons of water into the tub, then 1/2 gallon out, six in, 1/2 out.  Petro-minions will attack everything that threatens their masters.  One does not qualify as an engineer simply by watching every Star Trek movie ever made.  Profanity and name calling always come from the side that has lost the debate. 
It is  important to also keep in mind the ability of academia to navigate outside of realite with it's equations. Example: Coin flip probabilities with it's 5,000 to one against another heads (when the have been numerous heads in a row), and at the same time a 50-50 chance for another heads.?  Both cannot be correct at the same time. Also the purposefully false positions academia takes to support agendas: Mankind and dinosaurs living millions of years apart from eachother when in Glen Rose, Texas there is a limestone rock with both fossil footprints in it, overlapping eachother. Academia is not always interested in real knowledge, it's purpose is to assimilate the individual into the monetarist system, not create a society of independent thinkers. 
  The PMD works simply because 5 times more (+-) energy is stored into the battery than is needed to be drawn out for the motor's use-every cycle.

I only wish my accountant was able to get away with such creative accounting. I'd be a rich man by just doing nothing..

This explanation is of course just egregious bullshit. Give up now before you make yourself look stupid, even by free energy standards.

Learn the difference between power and energy as a starting point. Specifically learn that expending the same amount of energy in different amounts of time does not give rise to any excess.

[johnny874]

  I feel I hould again explain the aspect of this Power Multiplier Device that allows it to produce excess energy.
  When the weights are being brought up the chain by the small motor, these weights, hanging on the bracket, are still producing the 500+ pound pull on the chain as they ascend.
  This means that the generator is still producing the fulll charge, it is just that this charge is being used by the small motor on the bracket. Since, will the entropy involved, the generator is not producing enough power to supply all of the motor's needs, a small amount of 'entropy' power is drawn from the battery, for 30 seconds.  Then when the weights reach the top, the motor shuts off, ending the small entropy power drain on the battery.  Now the weights descend for 3 minutes charging a full charge into the battery for the full 3 minutes.  So the focus is on the battery.  At first it experiences 30 seconds of a small amout of entropy power drain, then 3 minutes of a full charge.  One amount of time for a small charge decrease, and six times that amount of time for a full charge increase=excess "free" energy.

  Just a quick question. If a 1 kg. weight is lifted 5 cm's from the middle of the rotor, it takes less energy to lift it than it generates as it rotates around the radius of the height it is lifted and then dropped.
Kind of like PIR^2/2 - 2R ?

thought I'd add a pic. It is an interesting concept. Lifting to the top would be highly inefficient though.
From 45 dgrees above and below the level of the axle of the wheel would be best. And if you look at drop vs. length of path,
they're close. PiR^2//8 for a 1 Meter radius is 6.28/8 =  1.57 meters. The vertical drop would be 1.414 meters.
For the extra torque, not sure. Still, it would be interesting to see if the extra torque could be converted into enough juice to lift
the same weight as what is being dropped. With torque, 1 kg at 1 meter is 9.8 n-m's. At 10 cm's, it should only take .98 n-m's.
He might be onto something but I really don't know enough about this stuff to say, sorry guys. And if you do a search, you can find
converters to have an idea baout this like this one.
http://www.magtrol.com/support/motorpower_calc.html

Then all you need to do is find another calculator to find out how much energy it takes to lift it. And with lifting, it will be m/s,
maybe something like this, http://www.convertunits.com/from/watt/to/kg-m/s

  Then, if science is to be believed, you should be able to have an answer before even building a demo.
But am taking a break from this.
                                                                                                                                                      Jim           

doubt it would be 7 times more power, after all, it's free energy. But if the lift is 1.414 meters and the radius is 1.57 meters,
then the calculation of 1 kg or 9.8 n-m's at .16 m/s  would give a basic idea of how much energy per kg/s might be possible.
And since gravity requires 9.8 meters of free fall to do it in one second.
I did a quick calculation as if he had one extra weight dropping and it rotated at 30 rpm, came up with 30 watts.
Still, if it worked, it'd be a first for something electrically driven by gravity.

[lightend]

johnny, nice and constructive at the end.
but that would have the same affect as gearing it and so take it back to negative energy output.

anyhow,
why not look at when a child swings on a swing.
the child uses little force to gain momentum.
if a very small motor could move a weight (similar to the work a childs feet do in a swing) that has a bigger weight above it that gains momentum through the tiny movement and off balancing of the much larger weight, and thus create momentum, could it be possible to change that momentum into electricity some how?

just something to make you all think rather than fight.

[lightend]

really? i would have thought using a small force to put a much larger weight off balance is what most over unity devices attempt to create.

[johnny874]

No, this won't work. The child on a swing (or any pendulum) stores energy by alternately converting gravitational potential to kinetic energy as it moves. The energy gain  of the 'small force' expended over part of the swing is stored up by the pendulum. This energy store can then be 'drained' to drive an external load. There is however no excess energy gained from this process.

  seamus and lightend,
I had considered the gearing angle but have also considered that the slightly longer path along with torque might allow the weight powering the generator to develop more energy than the motor would need.

                                                                                                Jim