Seven times more energy output than input: Power Multiplier Device

[Russell Lee]

Webby, I appreciate you comments.  As the PMD ascends it is consuming more energy, every second, it ascends, than one of the descending PMDs is generating, every second,as it descends. Keep in mind that, during every second this system is operating, there are six charges being generated into the battery, as the one draws energy out of the battery.  It draws out more than one descender puts in at any one second of time it is ascending, but not more than the energy two descenders are putting into the battery. Three descenders are putting in more energy than the one ascender is drawing out. It is like six small streams flowing into a common river bed.  An irrigation ditch is pulling out of the common river an amount of water that is greater than the amount of water one of the streams is putting in. Maybe even greater than what two are contributing. Even if it is equal to three of the streams, there are still three other streams worth of water passing the irrigation ditch for free use. It is about continuous energy generation. It is the same with the PMD system. Even if the ascending PMD, as it ascends, is consuming all of the energy three of the descending PMDs are putting into the battery (which it wouldn't be), there are still three descending PMDs, in this continually running system, charging into the battery above the energy needs of the ascending PMD.  You could say the three are running the one, with three left over-extra-everything is running all the time. -Russ

Russel Lee,

This is as a builder,, and I am not a professional,, just ask those on this forum who are

What I know from building, is that if I want something to go up 6 times faster than it comes down I must supply 6 times the input for 1\6 the time,, but if you are climbing a medium that is moving down then that would be 6 times plus the rate of the medium.

Your idea has merit,, but if it worked it would not prove practical in a commercial sense,, cost to output to life to maintenance etc,,,

[LibreEnergia]

  As the PMD ascends it is consuming more energy, every second, it ascends, than one of the descending PMDs is generating, every second,as it descends.

...Keep in mind that, during every second this system is operating, there are six charges being generated into the battery, as the one draws energy out of the battery...

...It draws out more than one descender puts in at any one second of time it is ascending, but not more than the energy two descenders are putting into the battery...

...Three descenders are putting in more energy than the one ascender is drawing out.... It is like six small streams flowing into a common river bed...

...Maybe even greater than what two are contributing. Even if it is equal to three of the streams, there are still three other streams worth of water passing the irrigation ditch for free use...

Rather than guessing how many descending generators are required to lift the ascending generator
(you don't seem to be sure if it is two or three or perhaps more),  why not calculate it exactly?
If you do, you will find that this device does not work.
I challenge you to refute the analysis given below that shows this to be so.

To make it easy to visualise consider evenly spaced generators connected to a belt or chain that travels in a triangular path.
The vertical ascent is 1 metre. The slope length of the incline is 6 metres.
1 generator is ascending 6 are descending.

In this arrangement generators would also need to be travelling horizontally back to the ascent point but since those are neither descending or ascending they neither generate nor consume energy (assuming no losses) and we can eliminate them from the analysis.

For convenience lets assume a generator weighs 10 kg and it ascends 1 metres vertically in one second.
On the descent we have 6 identical generators travelling the 6 metre slope length. A bit of trigonometry tells us the angle of the descent is 9.59 degrees.

To allow the machine to operate steadily without 'bunching up' the descending generators
must also the descend the ramp with a forward speed 1 meter per second.

The energy required to lift a single generator is mass * accel. due to gravity * distance => mgh => 10 kg * 9.81 * 1m  = 98.1 Nm or equivalently 98.1 joules.
it does this in one second thus the average POWER required to lift a single generator is 98.1 joules / second or 98.1 watts.

This input power requirement neglects any friction and the conversion efficiency of the electrical energy to movement.

The descending generators need to generate at least that amount of power for the machine to operate (plus enough to offset and frictional and generating losses.)

What is the force due to gravity exerted on a generator that can be used to generate power while it descends?

If it were coming down vertically all of it's weight could be used. If travelling horizontally none the weight could be used to generate power.

From trigonometry we know that the component of force available to be used for power generation in the direction of travel will equal the mass * accel due gravity * sin(angle of descent)

that being 10 kg * 9.81 * sin(9.59) = 16.34 Newton.

It is travelling at 1 metre per second. Since power is the product of force * velocity, the maximum power generated by a single generator is 16.34 watts. There are six of them on descent,  so  16.34 * 6  = 98.1 watts.

Not surprisingly that is exactly the same amount of power that could be generated by the single descending generator.

The net power available that could be used to power an external load?  98.1  - 98.1 = 0 watts output.

Of course, All of the above analysis is more complex than it needs to be. We really need only consider the vertical components of any forces and distances travelled.

In that simplification m.g.h (up) == m.g.h (down) and the net energy generated = zero, but I thought I'd labour the point.

Now Mr Lee. Your job is to find fault in the above analysis. If you cannot, you will have to conclude that your machine cannot possibly work as you claim,

good luck.. Your time starts now.

[Russell Lee]

LibreEnergia/LibreCuba,  Yikes! I think you may not understand how this generator system works. First of all, when I said that there were seven PMD generators in the system, I meant that there are seven INDIVIDUAL PMD generators in the system. Each is running independently, on their own, not connected to the others; all generating energy into the common battery, and drawing energy out for their descent stages.  When I said they would be 30 seconds apart from each other, I meant that the first would be at the top/beginning of it's cycle, the second would be at the position on IT'S OWN chain at the point where it would have already descended for 30 seconds, the third on it's own chain at the one minute mark, 4th/1.5 minute mark, 5th/2 minute, 6th/2.5, seventh/3.0- at the end of it's descent cycle and beginning it's ascent on it's own chain.  So there are seven independently functioning PMD generators generating into, and drawing out of a common battery.  The only thing they have common with each other is that their cables all run to the same battery bank.  The seven PMDs are not all on the same chain. The statement that was made: "Not surprisingly that is exactly the same amount of power that could be generated by the single descending generator." is correct and is the case. Each independent PMD IS generating it's own full charge into the battery. As one is ascending and drawing energy out of the battery, the other six are descending and charging into that same battery their respective six charges at the same time. Six full charges going in, and the ascending amount of energy being drawn out. The energy needed for the ascent is certainly more that one PMD descent charge, less than two full PMD charges, not in any way equal to three full PMD descent charges.  Even if it were equal to three full PMD charges, there would still be the other three PMDs charging into the common battery whose energy would be in excess of what the system needs in order to function.  Keeping in mind that this is all happening at the same time, all six descent charges entering the battery while the ascent energy is drawn out, the flow of energy (if you would) going into the battery would be greater than the flow being drawn out.  This is all about continuous energy generation. If the amount of energy the ascending PMD uses in just ten seconds during it's ascending is less than the amount of energy the six independently functioning PMDs are putting into the battery during this same ten second period, there is a net gain in energy.

Rather than guessing how many descending generators are required to lift the ascending generator
(you don't seem to be sure if it is two or three or perhaps more),  why not calculate it exactly?
If you do, you will find that this device does not work.
I challenge you to refute the analysis given below that shows this to be so.

To make it easy to visualise consider evenly spaced generators connected to a belt or chain that travels in a triangular path.
The vertical ascent is 1 metre. The slope length of the incline is 6 metres.
1 generator is ascending 6 are descending.

In this arrangement generators would also need to be travelling horizontally back to the ascent point but since those are neither descending or ascending they neither generate nor consume energy (assuming no losses) and we can eliminate them from the analysis.

For convenience lets assume a generator weighs 10 kg and it ascends 1 metres vertically in one second.
On the descent we have 6 identical generators travelling the 6 metre slope length. A bit of trigonometry tells us the angle of the descent is 9.59 degrees.

To allow the machine to operate steadily without 'bunching up' the descending generators
must also the descend the ramp with a forward speed 1 meter per second.

The energy required to lift a single generator is mass * accel. due to gravity * distance => mgh => 10 kg * 9.81 * 1m  = 98.1 Nm or equivalently 98.1 joules.
it does this in one second thus the average POWER required to lift a single generator is 98.1 joules / second or 98.1 watts.

This input power requirement neglects any friction and the conversion efficiency of the electrical energy to movement.

The descending generators need to generate at least that amount of power for the machine to operate (plus enough to offset and frictional and generating losses.)

What is the force due to gravity exerted on a generator that can be used to generate power while it descends?

If it were coming down vertically all of it's weight could be used. If travelling horizontally none the weight could be used to generate power.

From trigonometry we know that the component of force available to be used for power generation in the direction of travel will equal the mass * accel due gravity * sin(angle of descent)

that being 10 kg * 9.81 * sin(9.59) = 16.34 Newton.

It is travelling at 1 metre per second. Since power is the product of force * velocity, the maximum power generated by a single generator is 16.34 watts. There are six of them on descent,  so  16.34 * 6  = 98.1 watts.

Not surprisingly that is exactly the same amount of power that could be generated by the single descending generator.

The net power available that could be used to power an external load?  98.1  - 98.1 = 0 watts output.

Of course, All of the above analysis is more complex than it needs to be. We really need only consider the vertical components of any forces and distances travelled.

In that simplification m.g.h (up) == m.g.h (down) and the net energy generated = zero, but I thought I'd labour the point.

Now Mr Lee. Your job is to find fault in the above analysis. If you cannot, you will have to conclude that your machine cannot possibly work as you claim,

good luck.. Your time starts now.

[LibreEnergia]

Yikes! I think you may not understand how this generator system works. First of all, when I said that there were seven PMD generators in the system, I meant that there are seven INDIVIDUAL PMD generators in the system. Each is running independently, on their own, not connected to the others; all generating energy into the common battery, and drawing energy out for their descent stages.  When I said they would be 30 seconds apart from each other, I meant that the first would be at the top/beginning of it's cycle, the second would be at the position on IT'S OWN chain at the point where it would have already descended for 30 seconds, the third on it's own chain at the one minute mark, 4th/1.5 minute mark, 5th/2 minute, 6th/2.5, seventh/3.0- at the end of it's descent cycle and beginning it's ascent on it's own chain.  So there are seven independently functioning PMD generators generating into, and drawing out of a common battery.  The only thing they have common with each other is that their cables all run to the same battery bank.  The seven PMDs are not all on the same chain. The statement that was made: "Not surprisingly that is exactly the same amount of power that could be generated by the single descending generator." is correct and is the case. Each independent PMD IS generating it's own full charge into the battery. As one is ascending and drawing energy out of the battery, the other six are descending and charging into that same battery their respective six charges at the same time. Six full charges going in, and the ascending amount of energy being drawn out. The energy needed for the ascent is certainly more that one PMD descent charge, less than two full PMD charges, not in any way equal to three full PMD descent charges.  Even if it were equal to three full PMD charges, there would still be the other three PMDs charging into the common battery whose energy would be in excess of what the system needs in order to function.  Keeping in mind that this is all happening at the same time, all six descent charges entering the battery while the ascent energy is drawn out, the flow of energy (if you would) going into the battery would be greater than the flow being drawn out.  This is all about continuous energy generation. If the amount of energy the ascending PMD uses in just ten seconds during it's ascending is less than the amount of energy the six independently functioning PMDs are putting into the battery during this same ten second period, there is a net gain in energy.

Each generator only generates enough change to return ITSELF back to the starting point...

There is no excess energy to draw off. You try to confuse matters by implying the timing of when these independent generators descend is somehow important to creating an excess of charge. It is not.

You seem to be employing the same 'creative accounting' that Wayne Travis uses to conjure up an apparent energy excess when in reality there is none.

[Russell Lee]

 No. Because of the entropy factor, each generator DOES NOT generate enough charge to return itself back to the starting point. You have thrown out misdirection/confusion rhetoric to cover your lack of having an authentic challenge with "implying the timing of when these independent generators descend is 'somehow' important to creating an excess of charge." It isn't 'important, it is the KEY to the generation of free energy-this is why you focused your attack on this single point. It's like saying "You act as though the spinal chord has an important role in how we use our hands!" This is how petro-minions identify themselves, slight-of-hand, misdirection methods of operating. Your first sentence was wrong, your reasoning was fallacious-You're busted!
I'm finished with dispersing the PMD system design into the diaspora, what happens with it happens, it's time to turn the page and leave the internet (and it's minions) in the past.-Peace out.

Each generator only generates enough change to return ITSELF back to the starting point...

There is no excess energy to draw off. You try to confuse matters by implying the timing of when these independent generators descend is somehow important to creating an excess of charge. It is not.

You seem to be employing the same 'creative accounting' that Wayne Travis uses to conjure up an apparent energy excess when in reality there is none.