Seven times more energy output than input: Power Multiplier Device

[lightend]

we are all trying to change the world, lets hope some day one of us can manage it 
I had to throw my 2 cents in as (like on most threads) it gets off topic and turns into a group of people unwilling to budge from their stance and that destroys progress.

(people start screwing at each other and before long rather than working together or offering suggestions on how to possibly change a fault, people just argue, im kind of sick of every threat going along those lines)

[johnny874]

 lightend,
When I get to a computer, I will explain in some detail how a rotating wheel is different than a ramp.
Also, using a motor and a generator is different than using leverage.
With a generator being powered by torque, the weight being hoisted by the motor could move slower.

  Jim

[johnny874]

   @All,
this is the diagram I was talking about. If a weight is lifted 10 cm's from the axle and the weight on the lever
is 70 cm's from the axle, we have a ratio of 7 to 1. As an arm would rotate, the leveraged force would increase
to a ratio of 10 to 1 becoming even more efficient.
If you consider gearing something like this at a 7 to 1 ratio, then any distance beyond 70 cm's that the motive
weight happens to be should be extra energy. And with electricity as this design supports, the weight moving
upward (being lifted) is travelling requires a lesser velocity than the the force generating energy. This is where
f = ma comes into play. A weight moving at 1.57 m/s will generate more energy that a weight moving the same
vertical height moving at 1.414 m/s. Math does support an approximate 10% net gain.

                                                                                                                                    Jim

[johnny874]

  @All,
While it's a simple diagram, the weight moving around the radius will have a minimal amount of torque.
The weight moving vertically will require less energy to be lifted. And with using a motor and generator,
not sure why it wouldn't work.

                                                                                                      Jim

edited to add, at a 7 to 1 ratio, the weights would be in equalibrium.

[lightend]

hey Jim.
right just to make sure this is clear in my mind.

let me break it down, for every 1cm up, there is 7 cm down at an angle right?

so you could make a small demo machine that uses the same principle, a triangle in the middle then an outer frame, connect 8 balls together with string and put them at different points so that 1 is about the clime the stright up and the other 7 are positioned at equal pints around the down side starting right at the top of the incline and finishing 7cm away from the either ball that is about to climb the 7cm vertical rise.
if this design works then the balls in the machine would start by them selves and keep going until all the ballls hd baan up the vertical slope and the eight ball was just about to ascend.

It would be an easy experiment to test your theory however the downward angle would act as gearing that would make them 7 times less effective than the ball going up, so in short, ball bumber8 wouldnt go anywhere.

try it, its using the same principal as a wheel and motor but would be cheap to build and test.
if iv got it wrong then i apologize.
If in doubt, build the machine and see. after all if motors and alternators are being used, you should be able to increase the amount of weights /ball to make the machine a self runner.