There is an interesting article on Peswiki News today about a Peruvian inventor and his claimed force multiplier. On the video the device looks fairly simple. The claim is that a one horsepower motor drives a generator which would normally need a 20 horsepower motor. No test figures are quoted, but it is claimed that his device won a bronze medal. Perhaps someone with greater skills than I, could provide a link for this .
Here is a link: http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Fernando_Sixto_Ramos_Solano:_Force_Multiplier_System (http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Fernando_Sixto_Ramos_Solano:_Force_Multiplier_System)
@Trusearch, many thanks for that.This is my assessment of the aparratus.
There are two parallel shafts, an input shaft and an output shaft.
The input shaft is driven by a one horsepower motor using Vee belts, with a slight step-up ratio.
The output shaft drives a large generator through an inline universal joint.
There are flwheels on each shaft
Each shaft has an eccentric at its centre.
Each eccentric carries an eccentric rod, projecting vertically and rigidly attached to a cross beam .
The cross beam is mounted on springs at four points.
Rising from the beam is a rigid vertical rod with a weight at the end of it.This rod is not at the beams centre.
If this is real, it will chance the world. Imagine this as a transmission on your bicycle.Pedal at `100 Kilometeres per hour. Or a small wind turbine giving 20 times its normal output. And it is claimed you can cascade these devices.
The devil is in the detail, measurements can be obtained by video analysis. Apart from the eccentric assemblies, it is all off the shelf components. The text is in the Peruvian language. {related to Spanish?}
Having looked at the video again, I have slightly changed my mind . I stated that the upper ends of the eccentric rods [let +
us call them connecting rods, as in a car engine] were rigidly attached to the cross beam. On the video, before the motor is switched on, he tuns the output shaft to put it in the "start" position. It turns independently of the input shaft.So at least one of the connecting rods must be pivoted at its upper end where it attaches to the beam.
I am quite surprised at the lack of interest that this device has caused, in view of its potential and simplicity. Ok, so the inventor spent at least a decade perfecting this device with a COP of 20 . But it is perhaps not so hard to achieve 10% of that initially, a cop of 2.
Where are the simulation wizards?
Sorry for the multiple posts, but was unable to modify my last post. Having watched the video many times, I have changed my mind again , and I do not think there are pivots where the connecting rods join the beam .In fact the connecting rods do not exist . So what we have is this . we have a thick disc of metal mounted on each shaft . But it is not concentric with the shaft, it is mounted off centre[ hence an eccentric]. Surrounding each disc is a bearing [bush or roller bearing] which fits inside a plummer block. The plummer block is solidly attached to the underside of the beam .
Further relevant facts.
The two shafts rotate in opposite directions.
The vertical rod which carries the weight is mounted above the input shaft, and is reinforced with a triangle of steel where it meets the beam.
With the machine in motion , each end of the beam moves in a circular path, one end clockwise, and the other anticlockwise.
contrary to what I said earlier the beam is not mounted on springs, its weight is bourne by the eccentrics only. The weight on the rod MAY be mounted on a springy diaphragm in a frame.
A similar torque amplifier / force multiplier example you can find here
http://jbpowersystems.weebly.com/index.html
with the maths !
Sincerely
CdL
Quote from: lancaIV on May 04, 2012, 04:42:19 PM
A similar torque amplifier / force multiplier example you can find here
http://jbpowersystems.weebly.com/index.html (http://jbpowersystems.weebly.com/index.html)
with the maths !
Sincerely
CdL
Surely the clever aplication of this one would be to put a gear rail beside the train track and use a huge gear on the generator instead of the prop and just use it to power the train while it went along thus negating the need for the power station ....hmmm thats right i remember now you cant do that or the railways would have been doing it from day one. And as far as this thread system goes the 1 horse motor would have had no problem turning the big generator if connected directly to the shaft since the only start load would be the energy needed to get the shaft in motion however it clearly had an issue starting and without the weight i bet it doesnt start at all. The weight is a counter balance that is required to get this past the coging point, but as it adds with gravety it also had to be lifted against gravety before it can add and where was the generator output ????
Where was the generator output. That is the one million dollar question. I am torn two ways on this. We are told that this guy won a bronze medal at the Geneva international inventions exhibition. We are told that he received help from the Peruvian government. Surely for these things to happen there would need to be clear and indisputable evidence of some very obvious energy gain. The video we see is 90% about the inventor speaking in an obscure language, and only 10% about the actual device. We see the drive motor, we see the transmission, and we see the generator. Output is neither shown nor mentioned. The most positive spin we can put on this, is that the reporter was not a technical person. Probably some blonde bimbo, who spent most of the time asking if it was available in pink.
neptune,
Mr.Ramos received the bronze medail,yes,
but you can read in some news articles that he got the prize without his invention functionality tested/approved !
Sincerely
CdL
@LankaIV. Do have link to this article, or any further information, preferably in English.
@ruin41. The use of a counterweight to overcome a stick spot is not necessarily a bad thing. The energy used to lift the weight will be given back as it falls, so net energy is zero. After all we use weights on the crankshaft of a car to balance the engine, and reduce vibration
I have pretty well got this mechanism analysed now, to the extent that I could copy it . Tuning it for optimum efficiency would be necessary of course .
The problem we face here is a classic overunity story. The possibilities are as follows.
The device works as claimed.
The inventor does not know how to measure input and output
The inventor is deluded
The media was one story short on the day.
The whole thing is further complicated in that 90% of people , including reporters, Have not the faintest understanding of concepts such as power, energy, and overunity.
The big question is, what do YOU think?
Latest thought. If this device really does what it says on the tin, we can forget motors and generators. Just couple the two shafts with a pair of gears, and give it a spin, and it will either run forever, or speed up to self destruction.
neptune, the link:
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ramos+%2C+force+multiplier&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CHQQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fworldwidegadget.blogspot.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fperu-blind-engineer-is-awarded-for-his.html&ei=sZOlT5e-AeiV0QXgxb2aBA&usg=AFQjCNH-XbSz7C9q7M3V3Ig05zInrUNNnQ&cad=rja (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=ramos+%2C+force+multiplier&source=web&cd=9&ved=0CHQQFjAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fworldwidegadget.blogspot.com%2F2012%2F04%2Fperu-blind-engineer-is-awarded-for-his.html&ei=sZOlT5e-AeiV0QXgxb2aBA&usg=AFQjCNH-XbSz7C9q7M3V3Ig05zInrUNNnQ&cad=rja)
" ... to late... for review.... " !!!
The 3rd.prize winner is not Mr. Ramos but his company !
another motor-gear-generator inventor : http://themarshallenergygroup.com (http://themarshallenergygroup.com)
Sincerely
CdL
ok so if you really want to waste time testing this you could easily make it using the crank from a rotary engine cut in half, but you only have to look at it from another angle to see that it doesnt work. If there is a multification of force in one direction then there must by default be a reduction in the other its simple science and so if you look at it from the generator end there is nothing different if the motor was there and the gen at the other end so there is nothing other than a different way of transmitting the power.
Garry
Personally I would not waste my time and money on this. It is a sad reflection on modern education that no one seems to have asked for proof of input and output. Next year I will enter my invention of a personal levitation machine that will fly for months on the power of one AAA battery. It is bound to win a bronze medal, as no one will ask to see it actually working.
neptune: we do not need to waste time or money !
You have to understand this notice like all the other notices from all over the world !
Mr.Ramos invested his time and some budget to realize his imagination to solve his financial problems and probably also the energy demand in future !
But it is his life and his apparature about we are reading and discussing and if somebody of us is interested to get such a gear-system we have to help Mr. Ramos and let him receive compensation for his long work !?
At first: if we enter the INDECOPI web-page and fill the search-field ( on the left side ) with the name of the inventor,
one response from 07-16-2011 show us that the priority date of his presentation and patent application is 05-10-2010 !
He has only national comercial rights (PE-...........) if he has not the ability to optimize technically his invention and to do a new patent request !
Sincerely
CdL
If this guy is serious about raising some funding for research and development, he needs to show us some evidence of overunity, however small. If he can not show that, then he has nothing to research and develop. If you disagree, please send me some money to develop my personal levitator that runs on one AAA battery. No I can not show it working yet, it needs further research and development.
If the Ramos family company Granados SAC members will be serious they will do it but not more Fernando Ramos for himself anymore !
But it will also depends from the help that they will receive !
And the solution - the ready to market gear-system- does not need to be ready yesterday but tomorrow and this can be 2014/2015/... !
I am not in hurry about it !
Sincerely
CdL
I do not think you understand my point. In my country we say "Great oaks from little acorns grow." That means a large tree grows from a small seed. So if you want money to help you grow a tree, first show me your seed.
neptune, I understand clearly your point or better your statement but I am not familiar with the Ramos family and I have not knowledge about their time schedule for the next time !
Since two weeks beginning with the end of the invention and inventors fair in Geneve there is the existence of this
hype in the news but only cause somebody is only pushing the copy paste button for the different news agencies in these several south american estates !
Now the wave came over the "green energy"-forums net-world-wide!
And there are to much gold-digger waiting for such an opportunity like this !
What we actually exactly know is that probably a functional prototype exists and can be tested and technically the overunity in-output effect could be approved !
The video shows us a motor-gear-generator in working modi and probably this is the gear-system tested by the INDECOPI org during their national X.competition 2011 !
the only seed actually is their publicated phone number to make questions and to receive answers !
995559464
or the Ramos Sixto Granados SAC company phone number : 4646694
Land: Peru 0051 or +51
in City: Callao
Street : Jr. Antonio Miro Quesada No.867
general manager: Mark Sebastian Ramos Solano
Sincerely
CdL
p.s.: " Archimedes" http://jerrytheinventor.com/?p=51 (http://jerrytheinventor.com/?p=51) = jbpowersystems ; from 2010
Here,from a 1001 days and nights genious, living in the Lebannon, Hanna Albert Awad :
www.patentauction.com/patent.php?nb=7862
Dream 2 reality 8) ?!
Sincerely
CdL
Power = torque * angular velocity.
The patent above is absurd and completely obvious as the concept is used in every day machines.
Do you need more torque? Just slow the turning speed and you have it ... but the power remains the same (actually a little less thanks to mechanical losses).
@bugler: this inventor,Hanna Albert Awad,publicated during several years different energy concepts and ideas.
In some of his patent/utility publications he wrote about prototype construction and testing.
Probably he built such a 3step-gear-converter and did the tests or he did not.
And do not forget: we are thinking about over-unity systems and not less !
Sincerely
CdL
I was talking about the patent in the message inmediatellyabove mine.
Hi All,
Here is the first run of my replication, no load, slow speed...
[/font][/size]http://youtu.be/lbUIyI1ufIQ (http://youtu.be/lbUIyI1ufIQ)[/color][/font]
Ron
Nice workshop, I'm jealous. I especially like the meter shelf, and the clips to hold the bags in the wastebaskets.
Is that a real Kennedy tool chest, or one of the cheap Harbor Freight knockoffs? (I have one of each; the Kennedy is nicer of course, as it ought to be, at four times the price.)
With the setup you've got it will be easy to do comparison testing. You can simply remove your connecting rod and short crankthrows from the backside and put 1-to-1 pulleys and a connecting belt between the wheels (brake disks?) on the front side, and then compare outputs of that simple control system, to the outputs of the full, con-rod connected system.
ETA: Are the short crankthrows the same length (radius, arm, whatever you want to call it) on both wheels? If they are the same, then a 1-1 pulley arrangement might be a good comparison test. If they are different, this makes the action different than a belt-and-pulley arrangement, because even though the speeds are different the wheels will still make 1-1 rotations, whereas with a belt and different sized pulleys they won't.
Quote from: i_ron on September 01, 2012, 02:53:14 PM
Hi All,
Here is the first run of my replication, no load, slow speed...
[/font][/size]http://youtu.be/lbUIyI1ufIQ (http://youtu.be/lbUIyI1ufIQ)[/color][/font]
Ron
@Ron:
Is it correct, you will connect a dynamo (generator) to the second yellow wheel ? And then one hopes that the generator produces more power than was used to drive the electric motor (connected to the first yellow wheel) ?
This is probably a pretty dumb question. I just want to be sure that I understand the whole concept correctly.
Any way, I am impressed by the size of the machine and the craftsmanship!
Greetings, Conrad
@TK and Ron: Another question concerning the (alleged) functioning of this device.
The device should have a greater output in case one puts some weights on the bars connecting the yellow wheels?
Greetings, Conrad
It's an interesting system. If the con rod throws are the same on both wheels, the torques and the rotation rates should be the same. But if the throws are different.... say the output wheel (the one that's not belt-driven) has a shorter crank throw. The rotation rates will still be the same, 1-for-1 ... but what happens to the torques?
Quote from: conradelektro on September 01, 2012, 03:51:33 PM
@TK and Ron: Another question concerning the (alleged) functioning of this device.
The device should have a greater output in case one puts some weights on the bars connecting the yellow wheels?
Greetings, Conrad
I dunno, I've just started thinking about this system, and I've confused myself already. Let me have another cup of coffee and see what percolates.
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 01, 2012, 03:40:18 PM
ETA: Are the short crankthrows the same length (radius, arm, whatever you want to call it) on both wheels? If they are the same, then a 1-1 pulley arrangement might be a good comparison test. If they are different, this makes the action different than a belt-and-pulley arrangement, because even though the speeds are different the wheels will still make 1-1 rotations, whereas with a belt and different sized pulleys they won't.
I think something will break in case the "the short crankthrows" have a different length, because the axles of the two yellow wheels are fixed.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 01, 2012, 03:40:18 PM
Nice workshop, I'm jealous. I especially like the meter shelf, and the clips to hold the bags in the wastebaskets.
Is that a real Kennedy tool chest, or one of the cheap Harbor Freight knockoffs? (I have one of each; the Kennedy is nicer of course, as it ought to be, at four times the price.)
With the setup you've got it will be easy to do comparison testing. You can simply remove your connecting rod and short crankthrows from the backside and put 1-to-1 pulleys and a connecting belt between the wheels (brake disks?) on the front side, and then compare outputs of that simple control system, to the outputs of the full, con-rod connected system.
ETA: Are the short crankthrows the same length (radius, arm, whatever you want to call it) on both wheels? If they are the same, then a 1-1 pulley arrangement might be a good comparison test. If they are different, this makes the action different than a belt-and-pulley arrangement, because even though the speeds are different the wheels will still make 1-1 rotations, whereas with a belt and different sized pulleys they won't.
Hi TK, good observations, lol,
yes, both crank throws are the same length.
And yes, lots of testing coming up
Yup, Genuine Kennedy kit, old style
Ron
Quote from: conradelektro on September 01, 2012, 03:46:55 PM
@Ron:
Is it correct, you will connect a dynamo (generator) to the second yellow wheel ? And then one hopes that the generator produces more power than was used to drive the electric motor (connected to the first yellow wheel) ?
This is probably a pretty dumb question. I just want to be sure that I understand the whole concept correctly.
Any way, I am impressed by the size of the machine and the craftsmanship!
Greetings, Conrad
Thank you Conrad! yes that is correct.
Ron
Quote from: conradelektro on September 01, 2012, 03:51:33 PM
@TK and Ron: Another question concerning the (alleged) functioning of this device.
The device should have a greater output in case one puts some weights on the bars connecting the yellow wheels?
Greetings, Conrad
Correct again, although this has yet to be proven out
Ron
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 01, 2012, 03:54:18 PM
I dunno, I've just started thinking about this system, and I've confused myself already. Let me have another cup of coffee and see what percolates.
TK
There is some information on another list by Arto that helps to understand this
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11282-awarded-machine-multiply-force-motor-free-energy-4.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11282-awarded-machine-multiply-force-motor-free-energy-4.html)
The page four graphics. I started to post over there and then the list went dead... but has come back with Arto's posts. However It is beyond my ability to post a picture over there so put them up here, glad you guys have found it already.
OK, this was just a run to see if it would run. I find out that I need more weight in my flywheels, so will look for a little heavier brake rotors, not a problem as they throw them out by the ton.
Ron
Heh... my brain is so numb these days that I had to build a small model to see what effects varying the throws and the conrod length would have. Of course the rotation rates are affected. I've even found one configuration where the drive wheel turns continuously and at constant speed in one direction and the driven wheel goes back and forth at varying speeds. But for smooth motion in the same direction the crank throws have to be equal.
Quote from: neptune on May 06, 2012, 11:03:04 AM
Personally I would not waste my time and money on this. It is a sad reflection on modern education that no one seems to have asked for proof of input and output. Next year I will enter my invention of a personal levitation machine that will fly for months on the power of one AAA battery. It is bound to win a bronze medal, as no one will ask to see it actually working.{/quote]
Not if i beat you to it:) And know know Science says the cave men built Puma Punka .With Copper Chisels and stone hammers.
Quote from: gadgetmall on September 01, 2012, 05:49:48 PMPersonally I would not waste my time and money on this. It is a sad reflection on modern education that no one seems to have asked for proof of input and output. Next year I will enter my invention of a personal levitation machine that will fly for months on the [/size][color=rgb(0, 0, 255) !important]power[/color][/size] of one AAA[/size][color=rgb(0, 0, 255) !important]battery[/color][/size]. It is bound to win a bronze medal, as no one will ask to see it actually working.[/size]
This is a work in progress, posted here for intelligent people to share and ponder.
Ron
Hello i-rom that is a nice machine you got there . It reminds me of another build that used magnets to couple the rotors from the prime mover .
Thanks and good luck. If this works then it might be a great addition to my solar and wind power system using a grid tie.
BTW.. that was not my quote: :it was neptunes
With permission from Arto, here are two JPG's which help to understand Fernando's multiplier:
Quote:
Here is a breakdown of what is really happening(refer diagram), as you can see the velocity increases and decreases as the 2nd wheel turns. [/size] snip The upward arm is an resonant device that allows the impulse force to be added to the 2nd wheel at the time when the velocity decreases thus maintaining an increase in the rotational momentum of the external flywheel. Adding more wheels will multiply this action many fold. This arm could be placed at different parts of the system, as long as it is functional as a resonator. snip Many thanks Regards Arto
Second jpg:
Here is another addition to the Sixto design, I would not build it as per my picture, it is the exaggeration of the offset that helps you see the real situation. I hope that my efforts will help to make the Sixtos machine a everyday reality. I like UFOPolitics efforts in showing the asymmetrical nature of motor design, the combination of both types of asymmetry could make some very interesting engineering. I have been working on similar lines in one of my chapters from my book. If you look at the impulse in the time domain, it is a 1/4 wave system. In the distance domain it is a impulse wave. I will be working on the complete transformations and equivalence to the electrical equations in the near future. Thank you very much for your support, Regards Arto
Hi all,
I am new here. My regards to i_ron for his great work on the multiplier. I am playing already sometime with a concept on similar theme to that of Fernado Sixto Ramos - so replication of his work is obviously of great importance to me.
I_ron, you've done great job in analyzing and building the unit. However, please do not underestimate the forces involved in the transfer of power from one wheel to another. The speed of both wheels fluctuates within constant % of their average speed. The speed fluctuation % is alternating between the wheels, it is proportional to the size of the crank (which has to be identical for both wheels) and it is inversely proportional to the distance between the wheels. The speed fluctuation % remains constant at any given speed. Therefore the energy transferred by the connecting arm (and the forces involved) are increasing exponentially to the average speed of rotation.
I_ron, after watching the video of your design I feel your connecting arm is the weakest point of your unit.
Also worth noting there is a Colombian inventor who produces units on similar theme. His name is Carlos Ucros and his design does much the same using different configuration only doing it slower and using greater masses. His English is much worse than mine but the pictures on his site tell the story. http://www.ucros-energy.es.tl/ENGLISH-.htm
He claims ~ 5 times power multiplication.
So from my contemplating of this revolving energy theme it appears that the multiplying factor will rise most with the speed. A design with higher speed, smaller masses, closer together, smaller crank, shorter and stronger arm and bearings is likely to deliver best performance, however also be technically most challenging and less durable.
Cheers
@Honza:
Fife times over unity (or even two times OU) would allow a closed loop operation. So, the only true test of such a "force multiplier" would be a free running system which is somehow looped back on itself. During start up one could use electricity from the 220V grid for a few minutes, and during run time I would accept a huge capacitor or a small battery for buffering.
Why are we not seeing such a looped back system? Neither Fernando nor Ucros show a closed loop system.
I hope that i_ron and you will one day show conclusive measurements on a real system.
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: Honza on September 04, 2012, 04:15:49 AM
Hi all,
I am new here. My regards to i_ron for his great work on the multiplier. I am playing already sometime with a concept on similar theme to that of Fernado Sixto Ramos - so replication of his work is obviously of great importance to me.
I_ron, you've done great job in analyzing and building the unit. However, please do not underestimate the forces involved in the transfer of power from one wheel to another. The speed of both wheels fluctuates within constant % of their average speed. The speed fluctuation % is alternating between the wheels, it is proportional to the size of the crank (which has to be identical for both wheels) and it is inversely proportional to the distance between the wheels. The speed fluctuation % remains constant at any given speed. Therefore the energy transferred by the connecting arm (and the forces involved) are increasing exponentially to the average speed of rotation.
I_ron, after watching the video of your design I feel your connecting arm is the weakest point of your unit.
Also worth noting there is a Colombian inventor who produces units on similar theme. His name is Carlos Ucros and his design does much the same using different configuration only doing it slower and using greater masses. His English is much worse than mine but the pictures on his site tell the story. http://www.ucros-energy.es.tl/ENGLISH-.htm (http://www.ucros-energy.es.tl/ENGLISH-.htm)
He claims ~ 5 times power multiplication.
So from my contemplating of this revolving energy theme it appears that the multiplying factor will rise most with the speed. A design with higher speed, smaller masses, closer together, smaller crank, shorter and stronger arm and bearings is likely to deliver best performance, however also be technically most challenging and less durable.
Cheers
Thank you Honza for the very interesting post. Yes, I am aware of the forces involved and my observations confirm what you say.
Thanks also for the Ucros link, very fascinating. I will study that more.
I come to this from work with Veljko Milkovic's pendulum and a study of Felix Wurth and George Constantinesco. There is much to learn. Please feel free to post lots more on this subject.
You are on the right track.
Yesterday I put another plate on the flywheels for additional weight and to day I will rework the link as the center to center distance must be very precise. It was 'close' but hammered at low speed. I will make it with a micrometer adjustment. My limitation on this build is my inability to cut keyways in the hubs so run time is of necessity rather short.
Thanks, Ron
QuoteWhy are we not seeing such a looped back system? Neither Fernando nor Ucros show a closed loop system.
Close loop is most likely not always possible. Bedini systems clearly prove overunity possible, but to make it work one needs two batteries - while one is charging the second powers the system.
Apart from this there can also be "political" reasons. Blatant proof could not only have the power to put in doubt the current western religion called "science" but also have the potential to destabilise worldwide economy and geopolitical system of power. After considering the recent historical record of bright inventors who had insufficient respected for the power-game, one may not be keen on sticking it up to the face of the current establishment. ;)
Quote from: Honza on September 04, 2012, 04:15:49 AM
Hi all,snip
Also worth noting there is a Colombian inventor who produces units on similar theme. His name is Carlos Ucros and his design does much the same using different configuration only doing it slower and using greater masses. His English is much worse than mine but the pictures on his site tell the story. http://www.ucros-energy.es.tl/ENGLISH-.htm (http://www.ucros-energy.es.tl/ENGLISH-.htm)
He claims ~ 5 times power multiplication.
Cheers
Honza,
Well I looked at his site but pretty well a dead loss with the poor drawings and tiny print. Nothing is given away as to what or how he is doing this, pity as there may be something worth while here. Seems much like he wanted to sell kits? But the weight would be prohibitive.
Have you seen one or have any further information?
Thanks, Ron
hi
i've found a video with the replication from Ukraine
http://www.magistrala.cz/freeenergy/2012/09/04/моÑ,ор-ÑкÑценÑ,рик-генераÑ,ор/
...two flywheels, but no pendulum (not yet?)
this video is very short -- screenshoots:
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152070486300652.892479.280450125651&type=1
best regards
--michael
Quote from: majkl on September 05, 2012, 07:53:11 PM
i've found a video with the replication from Ukraine
http://www.magistrala.cz/freeenergy/2012/09/04/ (http://www.magistrala.cz/freeenergy/2012/09/04/)моÑ,ор-ÑкÑценÑ,рик-генераÑ,ор/
...two flywheels, but no pendulum (not yet?)
this video is very short -- screenshoots:
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152070486300652.892479.280450125651&type=1 (http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10152070486300652.892479.280450125651&type=1)
Well, Michael, does the machine in the Ukraine put more power out than is put in?
Greetings, Conrad
Quote from: i_ron on September 01, 2012, 04:19:45 PM
TK
There is some information on another list by Arto that helps to understand this
http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11282-awarded-machine-multiply-force-motor-free-energy-4.html (http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/11282-awarded-machine-multiply-force-motor-free-energy-4.html)
The page four graphics. I started to post over there and then the list went dead... but has come back with Arto's posts. However It is beyond my ability to post a picture over there so put them up here, glad you guys have found it already.
OK, this was just a run to see if it would run. I find out that I need more weight in my flywheels, so will look for a little heavier brake rotors, not a problem as they throw them out by the ton.
Ron
Hi All,
Observations to date. The speed up and slow down forces are very intense. A freewheel clutch had been proposed but I don't think this is the answer. The answer has already been done by Terawatt with their 'oscillating coupling'
http://pesn.com/2010/07/14/9501672_Terawatt_Research_LLC_defies_free_energy_stereotypes/ (http://pesn.com/2010/07/14/9501672_Terawatt_Research_LLC_defies_free_energy_stereotypes/)
Here we have what amounts to an impulse drive with the output smoothed and enhanced with this coupling. The same thing could be done with Fernando Ramos's device that would turn it into a smooth runner.
(just guessing)
Ron
Edit: the coupling is magnetic with opposing poles, sort of like an automotive clutch plate with its little springs...
Quote from: TinselKoala on September 01, 2012, 04:59:03 PM
Heh... my brain is so numb these days that I had to build a small model to see what effects varying the throws and the conrod length would have. Of course the rotation rates are affected. I've even found one configuration where the drive wheel turns continuously and at constant speed in one direction and the driven wheel goes back and forth at varying speeds. But for smooth motion in the same direction the crank throws have to be equal.
Hi I-Ron and TK
I've been very interested in this device since it came out but have yet to find the time to build a test unit. So great one I-Ron on your replication.
Glad TK is thinking about this one.
Here's an interesting video (sorry if it's posted already): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fslf98aw7E&feature=related
I'll be keeping an eye on this topic for sure
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Hi Luc,
What a great and easy to understand explination and demonstration by Ray.
Good find.
Penno
Quote from: gotoluc on September 07, 2012, 03:42:16 PM
Hi I-Ron and TK
I've been very interested in this device since it came out but have yet to find the time to build a test unit. So great one I-Ron on your replication.
Glad TK is thinking about this one.
Here's an interesting video (sorry if it's posted already): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fslf98aw7E&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fslf98aw7E&feature=related)
I'll be keeping an eye on this topic for sure
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Thanks Luc. Just trying to keep up to the high standard you have set!
Incidentally here is one from Ukraine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8aQCfhGoCU&feature=plcp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8aQCfhGoCU&feature=plcp)
Ron
Hi Ron,
Excellent craftsmanship.
How much force vertically is that bar generating? or can hold?
The reason I ask is what if you mount a long linear moving gear track to the bar with weights at each end, run it at low speed so it doesn't blow apart and have a gen with a gear that is fixed to the same plane as the gear track. Use the oscillating motion to rock the gear track with added weights back and forth driving the geared generator. The speed would be determined by the length of track, angle and weight/load attached. Just an idea.
Hi Luc,
Thank you for Raymond's video. Now I can finally understand the push/pull effect. ;)
Quote from: DreamThinkBuild on September 07, 2012, 08:00:24 PM
Hi Ron,
Excellent craftsmanship.
How much force vertically is that bar generating? or can hold?
The reason I ask is what if you mount a long linear moving gear track to the bar with weights at each end, run it at low speed so it doesn't blow apart and have a gen with a gear that is fixed to the same plane as the gear track. Use the oscillating motion to rock the gear track with added weights back and forth driving the geared generator. The speed would be determined by the length of track, angle and weight/load attached. Just an idea.
Thank you!
However I think the idea would be rather hard to implement...not only that, maybe even the wrong place to try to get work out?
Ron
Quote from: i_ron on September 07, 2012, 07:01:40 PM
Thanks Luc. Just trying to keep up to the high standard you have set!
Incidentally here is one from Ukraine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8aQCfhGoCU&feature=plcp (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8aQCfhGoCU&feature=plcp)
Ron
Hi Ron,
thanks for your reply and positive comment
I did see that Ukraine video but could not find any other details as far as if they were able to see an effect
Looking forward in your research results
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on September 10, 2012, 01:31:35 PM
Hi Ron,
Looking forward in your research results
Luc
Hi Luc,
Well I was being quiet as I didn't find the holy grail. So I am on hold in hopes someone gets a positive result.
I thought the difference between having both shafts turning CW and the shafts turning CW/CCW
would be a proof of gain. Not found, With a 300mm proof bar and a spring scale indicating 1 Kg in each case, the CW case drew 2 amps while the shafts rotating in opposite directions drew 2.32 amps. This is with the shafts 280mm apart and an eccentric of 12mm, (1 inch total) and 290mm, 4.35 Kg flywheels.
Perhaps weights and dimensions are critical?
Regards, Ron
Quote from: i_ron on September 10, 2012, 07:32:46 PM
Hi Luc,
Well I was being quiet as I didn't find the holy grail. So I am on hold in hopes someone gets a positive result.
I thought the difference between having both shafts turning CW and the shafts turning CW/CCW
would be a proof of gain. Not found, With a 300mm proof bar and a spring scale indicating 1 Kg in each case, the CW case drew 2 amps while the shafts rotating in opposite directions drew 2.32 amps. This is with the shafts 280mm apart and an eccentric of 12mm, (1 inch total) and 290mm, 4.35 Kg flywheels.
Perhaps weights and dimensions are critical?
Regards, Ron
Hi Ron,
thanks for the reply and update.
I looked at all the videos in slow motion and I'm quite sure that both flywheels turn in the same direction. However, there is a start where the generator flywheel started turning in the opposite direction but they soon shut it down. So for sure they are able to turn in opposite directions. There's also footage where they line up the flywheels before they start the prime mover and I guess it so they can go in the right direction.
Question: when you turn by hand do your flywheels each alternate the faster motion for a portion of the turn like Raymond's video demo I posted above?
Perhaps there's a specific RPM for each build where Resonance may kick in?
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Quote from: Mr g on September 11, 2012, 11:38:12 AM
Ron what about the lever? did you try a lever?
Did you mean the "inverted pendulum"? or "flag" as I call it...yes I did, merely increased the draw
Ron
Quote from: gotoluc on September 12, 2012, 03:09:20 PM
Hi Ron,
thanks for the reply and update.
I looked at all the videos in slow motion and I'm quite sure that both flywheels turn in the same direction. However, there is a start where the generator flywheel started turning in the opposite direction but they soon shut it down. So for sure they are able to turn in opposite directions. There's also footage where they line up the flywheels before they start the prime mover and I guess it so they can go in the right direction.
Question: when you turn by hand do your flywheels each alternate the faster motion for a portion of the turn like Raymond's video demo I posted above?
Perhaps there's a specific RPM for each build where Resonance may kick in?
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Hi Luc,
You only get the bobbing action if the flywheels are turning in opposite directions. If you watch the flag in the videos you see it rising and falling as in Arto's graphics.
In the video you posted he has the eccentric radius very exaggerated, so it is easier to see than at a small radius...but it is there. Trouble is it hammers and beats itself to death.
Ron
Thanks for the reply and information Ron.
Do you have a way to vary the speed of the prime mover to observe if any changes occur with that variable?
Thanks for your time and sharing your experiment results
Luc
Quote from: gotoluc on September 12, 2012, 09:55:43 PM
Thanks for the reply and information Ron.
Do you have a way to vary the speed of the prime mover to observe if any changes occur with that variable?
Thanks for your time and sharing your experiment results
Luc
G'day Luc,
Funny you should mention that as Honza brought that to my attention this AM... he says if you look at the Terawatt chart you will see that this is very much RPM dependent ...all too true as I was running way too slow at 380 RPM. Unfortunately my build was too punny and literally destroyed itself on its last run. Anyway Fernando was probably running a 1600 RPM (50 Hz?) motor. belted up to 2000 RPM?
Ron
Edit: just for interests sake... note that with the generator direct coupled it is also acting as part of the flywheel for the second shaft. In the JPG of Fernando behind the machine you cab see the second flywheel is smaller than the first one, note also the extensions to the link on each side
UL Terawatt data for comparison:
G'day Luc,
Funny you should mention that as Honza brought that to my attention this AM... he says if you look at the Terawatt chart you will see that this is very much RPM dependent ...all too true as I was running way too slow at 380 RPM. Unfortunately my build was too punny and literally destroyed itself on its last run. Anyway Fernando was probably running a 1600 RPM (50 Hz?) motor. belted up to 2000 RPM?
Ron
Edit: just for interests sake... note that with the generator direct coupled it is also acting as part of the flywheel for the second shaft. In the JPG of Fernando behind the machine you cab see the second flywheel is smaller than the first one, note also the extensions to the link on each side
edit 3: sorry the smaller flywheels on shaft two are better seen in this jpg
edit 4 sorry for the double post! brain not in gear
UL Terawatt data for comparison:
Hi i_ron, thanks for your replication efforts.
You said no OU so far.
But how about this theory:
due to the CW/CCW rotaton the output shaft contantly speeds up and down, mechanically there is probably no OU but since the generator is directly attached
it gets slowed up and down constantly and this could trigger some strange electromagnetic effect and lead to OU ?
Could someone expert in electromagnetics chime in here ( UFOPolitics etc).
The output current (if alternate) is probably a sine wave with varying frequency so in order to be usable I assume you have to convert it into DC and then back to AC using an inverter.
Ron, do you have the possibility to attach a generator to your output shaft and then attach some load to it and measure what the input to output power ratios are?
Another idea if my theory is correct, that OU takes place in the generator and not at mechanical level:
I did not do the math but perhaps one could replace the crank with oval sprockets and a chain and obtain a similar speed curve and it would be probably more robust and not destroy itself easily like
the version with the crank.. Putting a counterweight to the oval sprockets should keep the eccentricity of the wheels at a minimum.
Let me know what you guys think about my theories.
I think if it's real, then Fernando just discovered the effect accidentally by trial and error and does not really know what's going on inside the machine.
Quote from: i_ron on September 10, 2012, 07:32:46 PM
I thought the difference between having both shafts turning CW and the shafts turning CW/CCW
would be a proof of gain. Not found, With a 300mm proof bar and a spring scale indicating 1 Kg in each case, the CW case drew 2 amps while the shafts rotating in opposite directions drew 2.32 amps. This is with the shafts 280mm apart and an eccentric of 12mm, (1 inch total) and 290mm, 4.35 Kg flywheels.
Perhaps weights and dimensions are critical?
Regards, Ron
Hi Marcuc and all others
Quoteif my theory is correct, that OU takes place in the generator and not at mechanical level
From all I have researched about Ramos multiplier (and Ucros multiplier) points towards the overunity been generated on mechanical level. In one of his interviews Ramos stated that he produced the unit initially without a generator and disguised it as a hydraulic powerpack and other engineers from his work could not understand how it can work when he disclose it to them / pulled it apart.
Both Ramos and Ucros describe the movement of energy in their units as" recycling". Ramos gives the analogy of Kungfu - where instead of resisting the energy of attacker one adds to it and merely changes the direction.
In Ramos unit a part of inertia of the mechanical system is during each revolution transferred forward from one wheel to other and from there back to the first wheel in a figure 8 motion. The speed fluctuation is needed to create the inertia transfer.
In Ucros unit there is no need for speed changes because there the recycled energy is not inertial - he recycles torque. During each cycle part of the torque generated by gravity is transferred forward and returned back again.
In Terawatt system they appear to achieve much the same as in Ramos unit (only softer) by magnetic oscillations on mechanical level. They don't even have any generator on the output.
Ramos unit is construction-wise very challenging as it deals with tremendous forces. What could help is some sort of mechanical softening of the peaks.
What could be worth trying is bearings pressed into in rubber bushes. This should help to get it going but it would add to the durability issues.
Alternatively the design can be modified by separating the cranks from the flywheel & shaft assemblies, and having the cranks mounted on it flexibly (via springs ?). This would be a durable solution for smoothing the peaks but could reduce the multiplication effect.
Ramos unit will never be easy to build but the reported multiplication factor is so great that it is definitely worth the effort.
cheers
Hi Honza,
Thank you for showing the Ucros device.
Seems to work like a seesaw. It has a balanced beam, with balanced weights but as one weight is pushing one crank down it is aiding pulling the other weighted crank up. A balanced beam takes very little energy to move back and forth.
The only thing I'm unsure of is the power take off is it constant or only on the weight of the down stroke? Also is the drive motor turned off during the pull up phase and driven during the push up phase? It's very hard to see the pictures and writing on them.
Quote from: markusbraunfe on September 13, 2012, 02:43:23 PM
Hi i_ron, thanks for your replication efforts.
You said no OU so far.
But how about this theory:
due to the CW/CCW rotaton the output shaft contantly speeds up and down, mechanically there is probably no OU but since the generator is directly attached
it gets slowed up and down constantly and this could trigger some strange electromagnetic effect and lead to OU ?
Could someone expert in electromagnetics chime in here ( UFOPolitics etc).
The output current (if alternate) is probably a sine wave with varying frequency so in order to be usable I assume you have to convert it into DC and then back to AC using an inverter.
Ron, do you have the possibility to attach a generator to your output shaft and then attach some load to it and measure what the input to output power ratios are?
Another idea if my theory is correct, that OU takes place in the generator and not at mechanical level:
I did not do the math but perhaps one could replace the crank with oval sprockets and a chain and obtain a similar speed curve and it would be probably more robust and not destroy itself easily like
the version with the crank.. Putting a counterweight to the oval sprockets should keep the eccentricity of the wheels at a minimum.
Let me know what you guys think about my theories.
I think if it's real, then Fernando just discovered the effect accidentally by trial and error and does not really know what's going on inside the machine.
Some good theories...some not so. The flywheel and generator together are not going to experience any speed fluctuations. The lighter driven flywheel, with its belt drive, will do the attempted speed variation.
My machine is kaput, so no generator trials possible
Ron
QuoteI'm unsure of is the power take off is it constant or only on the weight of the down stroke? Also is the drive motor turned off during the pull up phase and driven during the push up phase?
I don't have a clear answer to this, although I suspect (based on the Ramos and Terawatt units that the power output is continuous even for Ucros unit, provided there is a sufficient inertia on the output shaft.
As Ron pointed out in the above post - in the Ramos unit there is a sizeable inertia on the output shaft supplied by the rotor of the deployed generator running at 1500RPM or so.
By default the input motor on Ramos unit will be on and off, despite been hooked on all time. This is because of the steep torque characteristic of asynchronous ac motors (comparable to diesel engines). When the revs drop down the motor puts in heaps of torque, and when the shaft speeds up the motor stops supplying torque.
If the shaft overspeeds the synchronous speed of the motor the motor actually becomes a brake and starts to pump power into grid. Usually at < 10% of overspeed the motor pumps full nameplate power back to grid.
In Ucros unit the speed is steady - so the input motor is capable to supply steady input at @ steady torque. The same applies to the output.
If this is actually utilized by the inventor remains unanswered and needs to be tested during a replication attempt. There could be some further tricks involved in timing the input / output because we know that Ucros claims he has managed to electrically close the loop and achieve self-sustained performance.
My evaluation is that the electrical smartness should not be a prerequisite for achieving over unity (but of course I can be wrong).
One thing is sure - the Ucros unit is less challenging to build but must be many times heavier for comparable power output of Ramos unit because it can only run at small speed. This would aper to make it unsuitable for deployment it in transport sector.
Fernando's Force Multiplier System = Veljko Milkovic's Patent YU 545 MP?
There were some remarks in discussions that this appeared to be related to the basics behind Veljko Milkovic's two stage mechanical pump.
It seems it is similar to the Veljko Milkovic's patent filled in 2002 and granted in 2003:
Hammer with an electric motor drive and rotating eccentric masses - YU 545 MP - MP-122/02
Abstract
A hammer driven by an electromotor with eccentric rotating masses, consists of the base (2) to which are attached: anvil (4), stand (20) to which is attached electromotor (17), stand (3) for the hammer with shaft (7) around which the rod (6) keeps rocking, and stand (1) of the chain with shaft (14) around which two-armed lever (9) is rocking. Above anvil (4) is mounted the head of the hammer (5) attached to the handle (6) while the opposite end of handle (6) is connected to lever (9) through the use of connecting plates (8. On both sides of lever (9) are mounted two pairs of eccentric masses (10) with shafts (11). One mass on each side has grooves around its circumference. Shaft (14) has bearing (13) and it serves to attach a wheel (15) which drives chain (16). Wheel (15) is firmly attached to shaft (18) of electromotor (17) by a forked coupling (19). Wheel (15) and eccentric masses (10) are connected by chain (16), where eccentric masses (10) are turned in such a way that the center of their masses are on the opposite sides of the lever (9) i.e. they are shifted for 180 degrees. On the two-armed lever (9) are also mounted idlers (12) which serve to control chain (16).
Full patent document with the patent drawings (in Serbian)
http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Patenti/Veljko_Milkovic's_patent_Hammer_with_an_electro_motor_drive_and_rotating_eccentric_masses.pdf (http://www.veljkomilkovic.com/Images/Patenti/Veljko_Milkovic's_patent_Hammer_with_an_electro_motor_drive_and_rotating_eccentric_masses.pdf)
hagan una pasada por este foro sobre este inventor
http://foro.redjedievolution.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=3397
Quote from: caccr2000 on September 17, 2012, 02:11:44 PM
hagan una pasada por este foro sobre este inventor
http://foro.redjedievolution.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=3397 (http://foro.redjedievolution.com/viewtopic.php?f=43&t=3397)
Thank you caccr, however the patent seems to lose something in translation
http://aplicaciones.indecopi.gob.pe/por (http://aplicaciones.indecopi.gob.pe/por) ... lowing = 2010
Registry Data Patent
Title: FORCE MULTIPLIER SYSTEM
Date of Award: 30/05/2012 Maturity Date: 05/08/2030
Rating: F03G 7/08
N ° Title: 6454 Publication Date: 16/07/2011
Priorities:
Summary: Comprising two parallel disks joined by a shaft, IN THE MIDDLE OF A BREAK THESE DISCS ARE PRESENTING A EXTRINCIDAD, in prolonging SHAFTS HAVE PLACED TWO STATES BY SHOOTING AXIAL SUPPORT, in turn is connected by BREAK COVER LIKE A PIECE INTERIOR symmetrical within convenient
Ron
Edit: sorry the full link didn't highlight, please cut and paste
Hi all,
Here is a picture showing input and output on the same shaft. note the considerable weight
on the "flag", center mounted low, and the channel iron link extensions painted blue.
Note both motor and generator belt driven
Ron
Edit: Now what is surely puzzling to me is for the 'flag' --- if the big disc is about 8 inches dia of 1/2 inch plate and the small discs are about 5 inches of 3/4 inch plate the total weight is say 13 pounds. !3 pounds on a 18mm rod would last about 5 minutes at 1600 RPM before being flung across the room???
Quote from: i_ron on September 17, 2012, 09:29:49 PM
Edit: Now what is surely puzzling to me is for the 'flag' --- if the big disc is about 8 inches dia of 1/2 inch plate and the small discs are about 5 inches of 3/4 inch plate the total weight is say 13 pounds. !3 pounds on a 18mm rod would last about 5 minutes at 1600 RPM before being flung across the room???
Hi Ron,
I would agree that in normal circumstances the weight would fly off that size of shaft. However, maybe once all hits Resonance the destructive force transfers to the flywheels somehow?
Thanks for sharing
Luc
Referring to the JPG, filecdn above --- note the recycling of items as this progresses.
Use of the four original big flywheels (silver colored) comprised of a smaller disc with a larger ring disc tack welded to it in four places and in an attempt to balance the forces of the two probably alloy pulleys on the input/output shaft, the small blue flywheel(s) has been recycled and added to the second shaft.
Ron
http://www.4shared.com/rar/1QJOxzS6/multiplicador_fuerza.html
imagenes de lo primero presentado a indecopi clave del archivo lo encontraras en el foro viejo de redjedie
Quote from: caccr2000 on September 18, 2012, 11:49:47 AM
http://www.4shared.com/rar/1QJOxzS6/multiplicador_fuerza.html (http://www.4shared.com/rar/1QJOxzS6/multiplicador_fuerza.html)
imagenes de lo primero presentado a indecopi clave del archivo lo encontraras en el foro viejo de redjedie
caccr,
Cuál es la contraseña por favor?
Ron
Quote from: i_ron on September 18, 2012, 05:02:07 PM
caccr,
Cuál es la contraseña por favor?
Ron
clave por este medio no las doy este documento es privado la clave las envio al interesado por via mensaje privado este documento es para no publicarlo es para uso de estudio y verificacion de si funciona o no.
ya te envie el link y la pagina en donde encontraras la clave
Quote from: caccr2000 on September 18, 2012, 06:22:11 PM
clave por este medio no las doy este documento es privado la clave las envio al interesado por via mensaje privado este documento es para no publicarlo es para uso de estudio y verificacion de si funciona o no.
ya te envie el link y la pagina en donde encontraras la clave
Thank you caccr, I understand why this must be
Gracias caccr, entiendo por qué esto debe ser
Ron
QuoteNow what is surely puzzling to me is for the 'flag' --- if the big disc is about 8 inches dia of 1/2 inch plate and the small discs are about 5 inches of 3/4 inch plate the total weight is say 13 pounds. !3 pounds on a 18mm rod would last about 5 minutes at 1600 RPM before being flung across the room???
This may be a counter-intuitive issue. When you think more about it - for a disk/weight of a given mass more flimsy the rod/shaft - less movement is transferred into the disk/weight due to the ease of deflection. So paradoxically reducing the stiffness of the rod should lead to a situation in which the disk weight would hardly move at all (at a given speed), while effectively opposing the oscillating forces produced by the moving link/arm.
And looking at it from a different angle - for a rod/shaft of a given stiffness one can achieve the same by increasing the mass of the disk/weight.
This could take quite a bit of experimenting to achieve, unless somebody knows how to calculate it (I don't)
I_ron
If you still have your Force multiplier and it can be repaired I suggest you try a higher rpm motor or a variable speed one. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
While I was working on a different project I cobbled together a small version of the multiplier. I am using a small dc motor,
with 8 and 10 inch cast iron sheaves for drive and flywheels. The shafts are just 3/4 inch shafting and the offset on the cam drive is 3/4 inch. When I first started it , it would vibrate and shake badly, however after it got past resonance it smoothed out like it wasn't even there. The picture I took below has the motor spinning at 2300 rpm and the secondary flywheel at 1300 rpm. Like yourself I do not claim there is or is not any advantage to the system . Need to test a few things. I did not mount any pendulum on it as my tie rod is quite short. I may make a larger version if this thing pulls any kind of load.
Vince
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHk74ufdW7g&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU2x8kREf0M&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tq4Jc-YLbYc&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiZ-Pmk4sXM&feature=player_embedded
Quote from: vince on October 01, 2012, 04:35:55 PM
I_ron
If you still have your Force multiplier and it can be repaired I suggest you try a higher rpm motor or a variable speed one. I think you will be pleasantly surprised.
While I was working on a different project I cobbled together a small version of the multiplier. I am using a small dc motor,
with 8 and 10 inch cast iron sheaves for drive and flywheels. The shafts are just 3/4 inch shafting and the offset on the cam drive is 3/4 inch. When I first started it , it would vibrate and shake badly, however after it got past resonance it smoothed out like it wasn't even there. The picture I took below has the motor spinning at 2300 rpm and the secondary flywheel at 1300 rpm. Like yourself I do not claim there is or is not any advantage to the system . Need to test a few things. I did not mount any pendulum on it as my tie rod is quite short. I may make a larger version if this thing pulls any kind of load.
Vince
Good work Vince, I like it. I will keep this on the burner still, nice build. When you say 3/4 of an inch is that 3/4 total with 3/8 offset?
Ron
@ i_ron
Thanks.
No, the shafts are 3/4 dia. and the offset from the centerline of the shaft to the centerline of the cam pin (SHAFT) is 3/4"
In my opinion from watching this thing run it seems that basically it is a way of ( pumping) the secondary shaft and flywheel weight via the the cam and link. To me it seems that the gain comes from the flywheel effect after it reaches its rpm range. I tried different flywheel sizes and it definitely needs the weight to operate. It would just jam up if no flywheel is on it. When you turn off the power to the motor the things runs on and on because of this effect from the secondary shaft. Once it gets to it's smooth operating range you can reduce power to the motor and the machine continues at the set speed. Looking at the chart with that picture of Fernando's multiplier it seems that gain is most prominent at high rpm, much as a flywheel would do.
Going to try and put some load on it to see if it helps to have the multiplier attached.
Vince
Hi all,
It is great to sea more replication attempts of this promising sytem. I have a friend who understands Russian language so I will ask him for the essence of the cometary in the most recent replication attempt videos (and will post it here).
After bit more thinking about the Ramos multiplier I wish to share what I can now see more clearly.
The energy gain of this system comes from force impulses created by the conflict of angular speed changes of the two axles / flywheels.
During the rotation of flywheels in opposing direction the geometry of the cranks and the connecting member forces one wheel to slow down while accelerating the other (and vice versa).
The overall power gain is thus proportional to the magnitude of these force impulses and the speed of rotation (which increases the number of impulses in a given time).
For a given distance between the two axles and a given speed the magnitude of the force impulses is directly proportional to the size of crank offsets (causing the speed changes) and to the mass of the flywheels (greater the mass, greater the inertial conflicts and greater the force impulses generated at a given speed).
Therefor the power gain is rising exponentially with increase in angular speed. The higher speed is also required to get the system past the critical speed point (hammering and no power gain) and keep it well above this point. So the speed appears to be the single most important factor of the system.
Thus reducing the mass of the flywheels and reducing the crank offsets should make it much easier to pass through the critical point of speed, while not sacrificing anything of importance.
Further increase in the speed of the system should deliver and exceed (with ease) the power gain sacrificed by reducing the flywheel mass and the crank offsets.
Because reducing the crank offsets increases the forces on bearings and shafts and makes the construction more challenging and thus undesirable one can instead of it increase the distance between axes (which is inversely proportional to the magnitude of speed changes between flywheels).
Hope it helps
@ Honza
I will be very interested in reading what your friend interprets from Russian video.
Keep us posted.
Vince
Attempt for translating videos of the most recent replication.
My friend told me that this is not Russian language. It is apparently Bulgarian.
As there are some similarities between these languages my friend could extract the essence as:
The motor runs on 380V and he used capacitors to get it started and run on 220V. The generator he used is “REGRETABLY†3.5kw modified from a petrol driven unit.
The maximum voltage achieved is only 170 -180V. If the pulley is swapped for a larger one the force becomes too much for the unit to get started / operate.
Then he describes mechanical and structural details of the set up / how it was put together which are are apparent from the video coverage.
Honza
Thanks
What your friend extracted from that video confirms what I found today. A small or large pulley will start the unit when it is unloaded, although if the position of the cams are wrong it could jam on starting and you have to turn it by hand first. Fernando had to do this in one video as well. If you put a load on the output secondary shaft it will only start if the motor pulley is smaller than the driven input. Using larger motor pulley only stalls the motor. If you load the system on the input shaft as opposed to the output shaft as Fernando does in the last picture i_ron posted then you get better results but start up is still a problem because not only are you loading the motor with the device's load but also the generator load.
In one of the videos posted by Fernando you can see the machine struggle at start up. To me it seems that gain is only achieved after operating rpm is reached. At that point the flywheel effect takes over and you see considerable power in the system. Look at the power chart posted and it confirms this. At start up my tests show that it is no better than trying to start the generator with just the motor.
Vince
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=nsv-A9IU2rs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A36Kzw_kXNw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9A2XS11zmM&feature=player_embedded
do not waste your for this... analyze first and make a simulation properly.
Is there any more recent discussion of this force multiplier stuff. I am working
on a simulation that has promise and hope to embody it next week.
I plan to drive it with a weight and string turning the axle so there are no
measurement arguments then compare what it can lift out the output side.
I see this as the Milkovic pendulum then enhanced by the bicycle wheel
weight as per here
measurements by magnaromo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRrtJg6dkSo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRrtJg6dkSo)
That bicycle wheel has variable leverage as it rotates which enhances the
up and down force.
In my case I use a crank and wheel off balanced to represent the weight...
which I call magnaromo upgraded.
Norman
In the photo below the left wheel rotates clockwise causing the right wheel to rotate
and go up and down.
Quote from: caccr2000 on September 18, 2012, 11:49:47 AM
http://www.4shared.com/rar/1QJOxzS6/multiplicador_fuerza.html
imagenes de lo primero presentado a indecopi clave del archivo lo encontraras en el foro viejo de redjedie
Que tal:
Soy profesor de una universidad de mexico, y estoy interesado en conocer mas sobre este mecanismo.
Me gustaria ver las imagenes, pero tienen contraseña. Me pudiesen compartir la contraseña para ver la imagen.
De antemano agradezco la atencion, mi correo cesar_maza@hotmail.com
Quote from: cesamav on August 07, 2013, 12:45:20 PM
Que tal:
Soy profesor de una universidad de mexico, y estoy interesado en conocer mas sobre este mecanismo.
Me gustaria ver las imagenes, pero tienen contraseña. Me pudiesen compartir la contraseña para ver la imagen.
De antemano agradezco la atencion, mi correo cesar_maza@hotmail.com
http://sixtoramosgranados.blogspot.pt/ (http://sixtoramosgranados.blogspot.pt/)
Quote from: lancaIV on August 08, 2013, 10:28:37 AM
http://sixtoramosgranados.blogspot.pt/ (http://sixtoramosgranados.blogspot.pt/)
Te agradezco la informacion... hice un analisis sobre el mecanismo, revisando las aceleraciones en las masas inerciales y el pendulo.
Los datos arrojan el incremento de la aceleracion
Saludos cordiales
I was able to construct this Sixto jig with Lego and it works well.
I want to test its mechanical power efficiency.
I declined using electric measurement since the movement is not pure sine wave and therefore requires computerized oscilloscope (signal analyzer). In order to compute the energy per time unit we need to Intergal[(I*V)dt] over time unit.
So I am thinking of a mechanical power measurement, using pump or elevator.
Please suggest mechanical power measurement for input and output, that is not heat measurement.
Thanks
Joy and happiness
PathWalker