1939 Gravity Power - multiply power by 1200%

[noonespecial]

Hello noonespecial,

do you have a link to the Website you got these pictures from ?
Or can you please provide better quality ( bigger size, not compressed ) of these pictures.
This device is very interesting however I see a possible flaw therefore a better quality would be
helpful

Regards
Kator01

These were borrowed from Jeff Otto's website:
http://bwt.jeffotto.com/bwt_catalogue/electricity.htm

[noonespecial]

If you grab the output, you should be able to do so and the input can still spin without locking up and visa versa - lock up the input and the bottom weight can still free spin around the axis. We're dealing with open dissipative systems that are out of equilibrium. If the input and output are directly related to each other, then forget about it - no gains.


Aaron

Jim Murray agrees with you. This is taken from Jim Murray's Mechanical Amplifier video which I assume most here have seen and Jim makes the following observation:
"The reason why power is conserved in an ordinary transmission is because of where we choose to place the prime mover. If the prime mover is placed on the axis of symmetry, I don't care what arrangement you have, any power gained as part of the system will be destroyed when the output is brought back to the center."

[qiman]

I think it lacks a degree of freedom in this model.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJDCgmtITRs
On the sequence that I selected https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rxIRaJlTD4Y#t=29
in the link can be seen that the longer the long cylinder can rotate about its axis independently with respect to the smaller cylinder.
I think see the angle between the small cylinder and the long cylinder not fixed.

What do you mean it lacks a degree of freedom?

The lower heavier weight rotates around a fixed axis at the bottom. At the top of that shaft connected to the lower weight, it moves in an oval shape. The graph paper diagrams at the end of my video show you 100% the mechanism to translate back and forth oscillating motion to circular motion that causes the top of the shaft to move in an elliptical orbit. The back and forth kicks the upper weight back and forth while the momentum of the upper weight moves in a general circular orbit. As the upper weight moves that "translation" plate (i find it funny someone used that same word here as I do) - that pulls the top of the upper shaft around to FOLLOW the path of the upper weight. The lower weight follows the upper weight.

Again, that diagram I show at the end is the sequence of the mechanism and you can replicate the entire thing by understanding that in addition to knowing how to keep the lower weight shaft moving independently and not in lock step with the input section. With those two thing, you can replicate the entire machine.

[qiman]

Jim Murray agrees with you. This is taken from Jim Murray's Mechanical Amplifier video which I assume most here have seen and Jim makes the following observation:
"The reason why power is conserved in an ordinary transmission is because of where we choose to place the prime mover. If the prime mover is placed on the axis of symmetry, I don't care what arrangement you have, any power gained as part of the system will be destroyed when the output is brought back to the center."

Here is an excerpt we put out about mechanical amplifiers - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xNeLgqrXJiw that was filmed at some event put out by Greer - he mentions that in this recent interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhaAxQjyeC0

Yes, that is the concept that many people have a hard time wrapping their heads around.

For example, another legitimate "ou" mechanical amplifier is the Veljko 2 State Oscillator:

http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/OscilacijeEng.html



As it is rocking, if you hold the large hammer down on the "anvil" end and prevent it from moving - the input pendulum at the right side will continue to rock back and forth until it stops. It is not in lockstep with the output. They must be indirectly connected so the output is not proportional to the input. Otherwise, gravitational potential energy cannot enter the system and add to the work being done. But in the Veljko arrangement, it can as well as in the Skinner machine. Later, I'll show a clip showing how I separate them - it's pretty easy. The same principle applies to the Bedini SG, Jim Murray's SERPS device and every single legitimate Over 1.0 COP device - not just mechanical over 1.0 COP machines.

Otherwise, it is a closed loop system that will wind down to equilibrium (dead stop) and can't put external gravitational potential to use.

For example, some people look at Veljko's device and compare it to a grasshopper oil well pump because they refuse to acknowledge non-equilibrium principles.



If you stop the output pumping section and lock it up, it is directly connected to the input and will lock up the whole machine. The input will not be able to move at all. And likewise, if you lock up the input section, the output section will not continue to move until it dies down, it will simply instantly stop since it is in lockstep. This machine is a closed loop machine where there it cannot make use of free gravitational potential input. Huge difference from the open looped Vejlko machine and the Skinner machine.

[gotoluc]

Hi everyone,

I find this invention very interesting. Thanks to all for sharing.

I made a clean looped video of the top of the device to better observe the top mechanical movement. I'm quite sure it moves in a circular motion.

Hope the video upload works. If you also select loop in your media player it will keep starting over.

Luc