Fernando`s Force multiplier

[neptune]

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 .

[truesearch]

Here is a link: http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:_Fernando_Sixto_Ramos_Solano:_Force_Multiplier_System

[neptune]

@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?}
   

[neptune]

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?

[neptune]

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.