Big try at gravity wheel

[minnie]

Hi,
   for Grimer and those with similar thoughts I'm sure that you'll find that the Koala
will be one of the first to endorse the machine if it's proven to work. He'll make one
in his laboratory and show the video for all to see.
    Just look at the effort that went into the Tinselzed which was inspired by Wayne
Travis, and to proving Ainslie's circuit.
   Steve Weir and Poynt99 also tried hard with the Ainslie thing. One thing that did
transpire was that Steve Weir knew more about the Ainslie circuit that did either
Rose herself or her partner!
                   John

[Grimer]

"They will....".... so you admit there is no proof then!!
like you said, you either have proof or you dont.. and you just admited you don't.. so case closed until "they will"!

I have proof, the same kind of proof Euclid had - but someone who can't instantly see the answer to the water and wine problem will be incapable of appreciating it.
I can spell, too.

[Grimer]

Hi,
   For Grimer and those with similar thoughts I'm sure that you'll find that the Koala
will be one of the first to endorse the machine if it's proven to work. He'll make one
in his laboratory and show the video for all to see.
   
It's called climbing on the bandwagon.

[Red_Sunset]

You guys like to bitch like a bunch of OU (xxxx)!

We all can have an opinion, but that is not equal to fact. Neither does a view necessarily paint the whole picture.

If you did figure out the workings and found the forces not capable enough for the system to do as said,  a specific finding does not nail the door shut,  it only gives an indication that it is not exactly easy to open by just turning the handle. Knowing something is not necessary ALL the knowledge there is to know. 

I am not trying to make everybody believe that I got all the answers or would state that the RAR system shown works as stated. What matters more is the principle behind this system that could open the door to other design approaches. 
My intrigue is "why does an experienced designer/inventor thinks this can work".  If the principle is sound, then working or not working is just a matter of engineering ability and available technology.

It is clear for this category type of OU design, we have a process that descends/drops a potential energy and then we expect (due to a process alteration) for the energy to be more during descend than what is required for ascent (one or a combination of both).
What Ribeiro is trying to achieve here is clearly follows a similar thought pattern, using a mechanical leverage alteration in the drop cycle to refocusing force vectors onto the same hardware (a hardware setup that did not expect that under normal con-rod conditions).  This results in a greater force than expected for a given energy drop distance. Resulting in more energy out that was held by the weight drop distance.

What Ribeiro's design is doing, is manipulating the forces transmitted towards the crankshaft through the con-rod.  For a given gravity down force, he adds a similar value lateral force. The cost of this value verses the benefit to be had is critical.
In a standard con-rod driven wheel, the transmission of force is a trig sin/cos function for the gravity down force. Now we introduce a selective applied lateral force to the crank that is 90dgr out of phase.
In regular crank/con-rod, with a 1:1 ratio, the weight drop height is equal to the crank wheel diameter. We know that the actual path of the con-rod attachment is more than that distance by ~1.5 since it follows the circumference.  If we now supposedly can keep the force vector at full force for that distance, we introduce an additional total torque energy of 1.5 times the drop energy.
Renato is aiming to apply this force for somewhat more that 90 dgr but at double the force (the result vector).  To supplement this, using connection locks in the system that can be engaged at specific times, in the region where the force is in-line with rotation, the down force is increased without sacrificing stored lateral potential energy, by engaging an extended lever force.  Cost saving is achieved by using weight balancing during the triangular tilt storage increase process to minimize overhead. 

The theoretical gain is limited, so any additional advantage by optimization would improve the energy balance and I believe that being the reason for diverse weight manipulation models seen.  Although the patent application gives a fair account of the working process, it sure is not the whole story and neither would we expect this to be the whole story.

What Ribeiro is trying to achieve here is in many principle aspects similar to the principle behind Wayne Travis zed described in a previous tread in this forum.  The basic difference is that Wayne uses an hydraulic leverage and Renato uses mechanical leverage.
Both principles use effectively a differentiation process between the down & up strokes with the result of an altered (increased) force over the same distance.  The differentiation is in how the properties of the same physical device are used, so that the use of a different property impacts and alters the energy balance
The result is a net energy gain.

Any constructive input is appreciated
Regards,  Red_Sunset

[Poit]

An opinion is worthless... pointing out a fact is priceless..

and the FACT is no one has proven over unity!

Want to argue with that? then you are really stupid! the ONLY counter to that argument is provide actual proof of over unity!

Write your reply, I don't care... you can write and write and write.. doesn't change the fact that YOU HAVE NOTHING!!! NO PROOF!! NOTHING!! so go ahead and try and write and write until your hearts content, its all meangingless drivel!