Electric Motor Geenerator/alternator looped

[e2matrix]

Hi People.

I have been a long time lurker on this site and others.  I have extensive background in electrical/mechanical engineering and hold 9 patents in this field,  so i am not some over excited child.  I spend much of my time in my fully equipped shop building, tinkering, looking for the next big thing.  I fully understand the laws and workings when it comes to this type of thing.  It does not work!  can not work!  That being said...

For some reason there are many recent videos and news articles popping up from all over this planet talking about looped motor generator combinations functioning with power to spare.  Many of these are from legitimate inventors or companies.  many with no battery.  This is not like the usual YouTube video of a magnet motor or some other junk followed by hype, replications and failure.  There are too many separate occurrence,  this feels different.  Is it possible that maybe a certain alignment of phase angles or some other anomaly could unlock something so simple that we have just never looked at it?  All of the sciences have been wrong from time to time.  This one has too many legit people and is too spread out to be like the other 99.999% of impossible claims...

Anyone around here spend any time looking at this?  [size=-3]

Exactly my feeling for some time.   You said it almost exactly the way I would describe it.   It's been going on for quite a long while too.   

[lumen]

Just thinking this out.

I see that if the arms were straight out and "B" offered no resistance and the system were brought up to speed, then I would need to apply a force into "B" to rotate the arms back 90 degrees, and it is this force you are talking of.

You are correct, this force will be equal to the centrifugal force required to retract the weighted arms due to the rotation of "A"

When I think about that, what I see is a force of pull on the belt\chain from "B" to "C" and that force is not through the center-line of the axle for "A" to the center-line axle for "C" and as such represents a force in the opposite direction of rotation to "A" and will slow down "A".

This is not correct! the force is only from the center of "B" to the center of "C". If the sprockets are the same size then the line of force is directly inline with the centers. Different size sprockets can cause an angle to the force vector.  Disk "A" cannot see the pulling on the chain, only the compression between centers because neither "B" or "C" has a torque connected to "A"

Likewise I see that if I tried to apply the force on "B" to rotate the arms on "C" the other way, advance them, then that force would try and accelerate "A".

This is the mystical question, because if "A" was rotating, then applying a forward torque on "B" would still rotate the arms back in which would increase the RPM on "A" this would cause the arms to want to move back out where they would pull in again further increasing the RPM on "A". The question is, is it really driving it. Suppose you apply 500 HP to sprocket "B" while I hold disk "A" stationary with my hands! Oh yes sprocket "C" will rotate with the weights, but is it driving "A"?

I just stepped over the change in angular velocity and momentum and stuff and went straight to the constant state conditions,, of course when you first retard the weights that reduction in radius will impart a force of acceleration against the axle of "C" but that stops when the new constant state is reached.

So what I see is that there are more than one lever, the offset from axle of the gears\pulleys to the chain\belt creates the other levers and you are always pulling backwards on the new one on "C" from "B".


What value of resistance that makes I am not sure of, maybe someone with a better understanding and knowledge could point that piece out.

So work is being done on and by "B" using the input from "C" created by a rotating "A"

I could be wrong,, I usually am.

This setup contains some illusionary properties so the final result should be considered the worst case and deemed that it doesn't work until shown otherwise.

I do plan to build a test device to define the final results, but for now, on to the next design that is less entwined in doubt.

[lumen]

The chain is pulling on the sprocket, that has a distance from pivot.  The weight is pulling on the end of the arm, that has a distance from pivot.  The chain going to "B" is pulling on the mid area of an arm, that then has the lever action being applied between the weight and the pivot\axle for "C" with the chain as the fulcrum point, so the lever is trying to push the axle of "C" back in while the weight is trying to fling outward while a mid-point on the lever is being restrained by the chain.

Clear as mud

I bet this is not so clear as you perceive it is.
Let me make a sketch to change your view.

[lumen]

So we can have sprocket "B" as a solid stationary block, which it is when it cannot rotate.

Then disk "A" can be viewed as a solid bar with pivot points on each end.

The chain is still just a chain and can only provide a pulling action.

As you can see, disk "A" can only feel the compression forces from the center of "C" to the center of "B".
The chain can exert no pull on disk "A" because it's never connected to "A".

If there was any force angle vector then "A" would rotate from the weight and in effect raise the weight doing work for free.

[lumen]

Well lets move on to the next design and see if we can find the reason why it cannot work.

Suppose the two disks marked "A" are connected with some notch belt or chain drive and rotate together.

There are two rotating platforms mounted on each disk "A" with a connecting rod "B" that keeps them from rotating. (see animation)
The generators "C" are mounted on these platforms that remain stationary and each has a weight "D" to rotate the shaft of the generator from the centrifugal force generated by rotating "A"

If the generator did not turn, then the weight simply would appear to be just another part of the connecting arm "B" and follow the arm around the wheel.