Announcement

**admin** · 10-10-2012, 10:30 AM

Here is an image by Arto Heino that shows the sequences of events:

The way Fernando explains it with the vertical weight is that the system is like a weight that is in a continuous fall. If you follow the path in this diagram, you can see that is exactly what is happening.

Essentially, this system in the figure 8 movement violates the equal and opposite reaction. The reaction in this system does not oppose the forward movement of the system, but rather helps to reinforce the forward movement of the system just like what Veljko's 2 State Mechanical Oscillator does. It is just like martial arts where the reaction is used to continue work in the forward direction.

Since there are no input vs output claims from anyone other than the inventor himself, perhaps the input could be a bicycle wheel Bedini Energizer and the output could be a second bicycle wheel with some generator coils or in energizer format like the 1984 machine.

Anyway, this mechanism is too simple to not be able to replicate it as many others have already but we need to see if it really is over 1.0 COP and it appears on the surface that it is.

Here is a nice pic of what appears to be a Russian replication - you can see that instead of notching a shaft to off set it in a bearing, they just used big bearings and welded the shaft to the inside of the bearings. They look 180 off from each other - that is an obvious other way to build this.

Time will tell.

Attached Files

**admin** · 10-12-2012, 10:17 AM

Click image for larger version

Name: figure8.jpg
Views: 1
Size: 66.3 KB
ID: 44920

This image was updated at the very top to show that the wheel on the left is the input wheel and the one on the right is the output wheel.

The input wheel goes clockwise and the output wheel goes counter clockwise.

This can be clearly seen from 0:58 to 1:01 in this video:

As mentioned before, both wheels can turn in the same direction together in lock-step where the output wheel's work is directly related to the input wheel. This is the same as a locomotive train wheels mechanism.

When you can set one wheel so that they turn in opposite directions - and in this case, the output wheel's work is no longer directly proportionate or directly related to the input wheel as they turn at different speeds and in this manner, it is an open system where free gravitational input can contribute it's potential to do work.

If you trace the diagram (frame by frame), you can see as the input wheel turns, the vertical weight is such that when it is tipped, it is falling (using free gravitational potential) and this falling assists the input wheel in the same direction. And simultaneously, that falling also helps to move the output wheel in the same opposite direction to turn the generator. It does this twice per full rotation of the input wheel. Therefore, it is as if the weight is constantly falling without hitting a bottom.

The back and forth motion of the weight and connecting rod experiences quite a bit of reaction when it goes in the opposite direction, but this reaction doesn't buck the input - it assists it in the same direction as mentioned in previous posts, thus violating the third law of motion just like Veljko's mechanical oscillator.

**Aaron Murakami** · 10-13-2012, 01:11 PM

Force Multiplier System - Fernando Sixto Ramos Solano

Click image for larger version

Name: sequence.jpg
Views: 1
Size: 58.7 KB
ID: 44942

Credit goes to Arto Heino for originally posting his diagram of the sequence of events. I split it in half to see the whole thing in one screen shot with some notations.

Keep in mind the wheels are in motion so there is momentum carrying each wheel in the same direction they are already going.

Frame 1 – The vertical weight is greatly offsetting the balance of the connecting rod allowing the left side of the rod drop with free gravitational input, thus reducing work required from input source.

Frame 2 – The connecting rod is still falling towards the left still allowing free gravitational input to assist, thus reducing work required from input source.

Frame 3 – The weight has fallen to the bottom dead center and there is still momentum, thus reducing work required from input source.

Frame 4 – Momentum carries the rod’s connection to the left wheel upwards from bottom dead center, thus reducing work required from input source.

Frame 5 – To get to this position, the input source has to provide full work to lift the connecting rod with weight – however, notice the right side is going to fall for free pulling the rod in that direction assisting work in the forward direction without bucking the input.

Frame 6 – The input has to provide work to get the weight up to this point, but again, notice the right side falls for free and with the position of the weight, the center of gravity is already moving towards the right.

Frame 7 – The left side is at top dead center but since the vertical weight is offsetting the center of gravity to the right, most of the input is from free gravitational potential thus reducing input work requirement.

Frame 8 – The weight is falling for free as the left side is past top dead center so most input is from free gravitational potential thus reducing input work requirement.

Frames 5 & 6 are where the input source has to work the hardest & the rest of the frames are primarily powered by free gravitational input and momentum. 5 & 6 of course has some momentum to reduce the input requirement but overall, about 75% of the input as a ballpark is from free gravitational potential while only 25% is coming from the input source.

This is similar to the Veljko Milkovic 2 Stage Mechanical Oscillator where measurements show that 80% of the input is from free gravitational potential and 20% is coming from the operator’s input.

There seems to be two impulse points in the sequence where the rod/weight combo is whipped in one direction and then back in the other. At these two points, more work is done in a smaller period of time - IMPULSE - and therefore represents a POWER increase. But when looking at the overall total dissipated energy input compared to output, the WORK done can also represent an ENERGY increase and not just a POWER increase.

Right after Frame 7, you have the input source working in conjunction with free gravitational input so you get a punch right after top dead center, through Frame 8 and then to frame 1.

Then, this is the transition point where you get the REACTION (reactive "power") to sling the weight in the opposite direction but look what happens - in Frames 2, 3 and 4, the REACTION (3rd law of motion) does not buck the input or slow the system down, it actually assists the input wheel to move in the SAME direction it is ALREADY MOVING in, thus violating equal and opposite and taking the reaction like a martial artist and using it to keep the system moving in the forward direction just like Veljko Milkovic's 2 State Mechanical Oscillator.

This is probably the most important and profound part of this Force Multiplier System's mechanism - the ability to take a reaction and help to propel it in the forward direction, which it obviously does.

Although Fernando Sixto Ramos Solano calls this a Force Multiplier System, which it does do that, there appears to be more work done in measurable joule seconds per second of dissipated energy than is required on the input thereby qualifying it as a legitimate over 1.0 COP or "overunity" system.

Fernando Sixto Ramos Solano did say it is like the weight is constantly falling and it is easy to see why.

I'll post a diagram of a proposed way to test the input/output on a small level for accuracy.

**Aaron Murakami** · 10-13-2012, 01:22 PM

Force Multiplier System with Bedini SG Pendulum

Here is a diagram of a proposed test that I want to try out myself when I can. My diagrams are not the best but at least you can see the point!

The left wheel has a bicycle freewheeling sprocket setup with a chain around it connected to a pendulum. When the pendulum swings to the left it rotates the wheel clockwise. When the pendulum swings to the right, the gears freewheel in that direction without disturbing the wheel rotation.

The pendulum is powered by a simple Bedini SG trifilar. The isolated winding charges a cap and that cap is fed back to the front in an isolated fashion so that the battery does not see it. This instantly reduces the battery draw by 50% because it will preferentially take potential from the cap instead of from the battery. With the circuit running, the Fernando mechanism should work fine, but fairly slow. Point is not to have it running fast, but just to see the input and output in small cross sections in time for comparison to see what is happening.

The right wheel has magnets around it and generator pick up coils, which send mechanical produced recovery to the same cap on the front end - remember the battery does not see it and the system is still open. The output wheel only needs to produce 50% of what the input battery normally uses without recovery and if that amount is sent to the front, it will self run without drawing anything from the battery.

That's the idea anyway.

I'll post another diagram of another idea to have the system mechanically self run without electrical input.

Attached Files

**Aaron Murakami** · 10-13-2012, 01:43 PM

Can the Force Multiplier System self run?

This is just an idea on how to make it self run by only mechanical means.

If a pendulum is connected to the point where the connecting rod is connected to the input wheel, it seems that it can be tuned with a long enough rod and a heavy enough weight that can slide up and down the rod with a set screw in order to tune it for resonance.

In Frame 7 when the point is at top dead center, the pendulum can be pulled 90 degrees or more to the right and let go, the pendulum is not just rotating around it's own pivot point but is pulling the whole wheel down in the forward direction.

When the input wheel is back to position Frame 5-6 or so, the pendulum would be all the way to the left and the input wheel would be moving slower since this is going up against gravity, it could give enough time for the pendulum to swing all the way back to the right by the time it is at top dead center again.

It just has to be tuned for resonance.

The Bedini SG concept in the last post could be applied here too and with this pendulum that has a rotating pivot point, the pendulum is at the lowest point when it is at bottom dead center as in Frame 3. That is when the pendulum would be swinging to the left and then gets a kick from the SG coil.

When the pendulum is swinging to the right, the pivot point is higher than in Frame 3 and therefore would be too high from the coil to induce a kick from it. So the SG circuit would only pulse the coil when the pendulum is swinging to the left.

Anyway, just an idea.

Attached Files

**Aaron Murakami** · 10-13-2012, 01:49 PM

Emile, were you going to post about this particular system? The other posts were removed to keep this thread clean.

**Aemilius** · 10-13-2012, 05:01 PM

Aaron "Emile, were you going to post about this particular system?"

Yes, just a bit busy at the moment.

**Aemilius** · 10-13-2012, 07:08 PM

Hey Aaron....

Over the last thirty years I've actually experimented with similar arrangements to this.... I'm afraid I see nothing more than an ordinary well known mechanical linkage here whether they turn in the same or opposite directions, similar to the kind steam locomotives once employed (as you mentioned earlier).

The fact that it shakes so violently signifies huge energy losses and also immediately dooms it for use in any practical sense.... add to that the fact that pendulous back and forth motion will invariably act to limit the working speed of a mechanism whether it's inverted or not and the whole proposition becomes unworkable. For instance, it's not likely you'll run into a mechanism any time soon that employs a pendulum that moves back and forth (besides mine) that can rotate anywhere near 200 revolutions per minute or more.

I think the simplest explanation for why no reliable efficiency reports have surfaced as a result of the replications (Hasn't it been several years?) must be that in reality it does't work as intended. If it really did work as intended and even one person proved it, nothing on the planet could have stopped it from immediately going into production. In other words, if countries like China or India got wind of a device that could actually live up to the claims associated with this one they would be all over it by now.

With electronics and even internal combustion engines the analysis and measurement of the forces acting on the system can be somewhat complex, but when it comes to something as simple as this arrangement even carrying out a cursory mental vector analysis reveals (to me anyway) that no mechanical advantage is afforded by the arrangement as a whole. I predict there will be no forthcoming reliable confirmation of any efficiency claims.

But let's just assume I'm completely wrong for a moment.... even if it works as claimed, to generate real power you've got to have speed. The elepahant in the room that this arrangement shares with the Milkovic arrangement is that it's both inherently slow and can't be sized up.... the back and forth motion of the inverted pendulum will prevent it from speeding up without it shaking itself to pieces, and in this case if any attempt is made to force it to speed up it will just get worse, shaking even more violently.... sizing it up will only magnify the difficulties.

Not trying to sound negative but that's how I see it, looking forward to your opinion.... Emile

**Aaron Murakami** · 10-14-2012, 02:17 AM

This mechanism is far from ordinary. There actually is a difference in them moving the same way or in opposite directions. If this was an ordinary mechanism, the output wheel would be in lockstep with the input wheel in the figure 8 direction and it is not. Also, the output wheel's production would be directly proportional to what the input wheel is doing. The wheels turn at different speeds during different parts of the rotation.

What this tells us is that free gravitational potential can contribute more than an equal amount compared to the input. Instead, it appears to contribute around 3/4 to 4/5 - that is phenomenal if true.

In an ordinary system, such as a locomotive mechanism, any reaction would simply buck up against the input (equal and opposite). So if you put in 1 unit of work, then the most potential gravity could put in is the equal 1 part. Instead, the reaction is a positive feedback or positive reinforcement to the input motor and assists the input wheel to continue to move in the opposite direction. An ordinary system would react to the reaction in a way that pushes back against the input trying to make it move in the opposite direction. That is no different than what Lenz's law describes in a coil. You cannot get around this with common mechanisms.

My description in post #4 here gives the step by step showing how the reaction or kickback from the vertical pendulum assists the system in the forward direction. It is completely self-evident by the sequence of the steps that the wheels and rod/pendulum show.

There have been tests that have simply created a longer connecting rod that extends out past the wheel for that extra weight and has relieved the shaking. All those issues are just details that need to be worked out. The underlying principle is profound to be able to use reaction to assist it in the forward direction. Anything that does that needs to be seriously examined by anyone interested in "free energy."

I think it is premature to dismiss it as workable until you build one yourself and test it. It is a fairly new invention that has made it to the discussion groups. Time will tell - there will inevitably be more replications and people will start to test the input and output. And whether it is workable or not, a small motor ran the input wheel and the generator was running a higher wattage generator. There are several independent groups that have verified the claims. Regardless, I'll verify it myself anyway, but this is far from workable - it already is - or so the claims go and that is what we usually have to go on anyway - claims, it all starts somewhere.

It is only a guess that a concept like this can't go fast for a practical lengthy time. I think it can and we're only going to know by actually doing it. Just remember that no matter how slow, if we're getting some torque as claimed, it can always be geared to a pulley to spin a generator at whatever speed we want.

You say "reliable" efficiency reports. What I questioned was the very existence of them from replicators - not reliability of the tests. And I think it is also premature to assume nobody is reporting measurements because it "must not work". It's new so what is available right now is exactly what is expected. That is how all of these things progress. I've seen it over and over.

I said there really aren't any except for those independent groups that measured the machine and gave a thumbs up on the validity. That is one of the reasons he won the price in Switzerland. That is a very promising start for something like this. This is so new, only a few people are building it just to make the mechanism work. Progress obviously takes time and it is a matter of time until people start doing comparisons. Unfortunately, most people that will build it really don't know how to accurately take input/output measurements. We'll see.

There are plenty of powerful special interest groups that can stop about anything they want. They know that people's acceptance of different things takes time and that is on their side. Look at the refrigerator, any study about early adapters shows that it doesn't matter what you have, it isn't going to suddenly be embraced by everyone suddenly even if it is the greatest thing in the world.

Look at Veljko's oscillator. It absolutely works and does as claimed. With air or magnetic assist on the pendulum, you can pump water automatically for cheap. And, at a fraction of what a conventional pump draws. That can save money and lives. It is a practical solution for water pumping - a good use for a relatively slow system. Again, the COP claims are legit and the whole world isn't beating a path to their door.

It is possible there is no gain in anything here but the only way you're going to know that is by actually building it and testing it. It doesn't matter how much thought analysis you put into it. Because this system defeats the reaction as an opposing force like the Veljko system, that alone justifies serious investigation. And it is obvious also that gravitational potential contributes more than an equal part. That alone also justifies serious investigation into it. The basic parameters that define a non-equilibrium system that could be over 1.0 COP are satisfied. Just because something is an open dissipative system doesn't mean it will be over 1.0 COP, but it does mean that it is possible since it isn't a closed system.

There are some things that are obviously a waste of time to even consider but if anyone doesn't see the value in the fact that reaction is a forward benefit in this system instead of a counter, I would say they are not qualified to analyze it.

As I mentioned, with enough torque, it can be geared to a pulley that spins a generator at whatever speed we size the pulley for. Speed is not an issue with enough torque. And scaling up can be done for both of these. For this being a force amplifier, this could be scaled up to the size of a house and if the pendulum moved back and forth once every 10 seconds, you are talking about monster torque that would bend a crowbar like a pine needle. That could be geared to turn some really serious generators. Whether it is more than the input is a completely different story but I fail to see size or speed as an issue. The bigger this is, it would obviously have to go slower just because of material strength as a practical reason.

If you search, there are some really large Veljko systems people are experimenting with including pendulums that weight hundreds of pounds. They work just fine. And being a gravity powered pendulum on the Veljko oscillator, it is intrinsically slow because nature/gravity is intrinsically slow. It will always be working at the PERFECT speed automatically. If you can speed up gravity, then we have a reason to make the Veljko oscillator faster, which it would automatically be faster if gravity was faster.

This thread is to encourage the understanding of it and to encourage building it to see what it is. I'm drafting out my own build based on tools that I already have.

You obviously don't see benefit to this and you do a comparison of yours and Veljko's showing why you think yours is better.

This isn't a competition - your and his serve completely different purposes. Before you claim Veljko's can't be scaled up, go search it out. There are some monster ones that are very heavy and they work exactly as desired.

There is a difference between yours and his. There are multiple replications and it is proven to be over 1.0 COP. Yours is only based on your claims and nobody can replicate it because you have no plans to give out. If you want to advance your own developments and give others the ability to verify what you are claiming, you should break down your model and make plans for people to replicate it. Otherwise, there isn't much point in a teaser if you're the only one who can see it.

There is one thing we agree on if I'm reading your posts correctly, you seem to admit that gravity does contribute potential energy to your mechanism. Conventional thinkers are programmed to believe that it cannot contribute to anything and that any spinning of your mechanism is only from stored potential that you put into it by turning a part of mechanism against gravity so that it is in between one of four points of equilibrium, etc...

Anyway, your thread is about your mechanism, and these two are about these.

If you do see enough promise in this system to build a replicate for testing, feel free to post your results here.

**Aaron Murakami** · 10-14-2012, 06:49 PM

I was reminded today of something really telling about this system today that I totally forgot about.

If you put the input source on the input wheel shaft, you can also take the output from the SAME wheel. That is because it doesn't really matter. All reflection in the system reinforces the input wheel direction anyway so it goes back to the front anyway.

I don't believe anyone can show a common mechanism that does this.

Also Mr. Solano described how these can be chained in series to keep increasing the output. The output wheel of one can drive the input of another pair of wheels and the output of that wheel can drive the input of another and so on. So you can keep amplifying the amplification through however many stages you want.

**Aaron Murakami** · 10-14-2012, 09:03 PM

Here is another replication of this system - it has a motor and a generator, but no description.

Title is Eccentric Motor Generator. I messaged him through youtube in English - will see if he responds.

**Aaron Murakami** · 10-15-2012, 05:12 PM

Fernando Sixto Ramos Solano's patent/app:
SISTEMA MULTIPLICADOR DE FUERZA (Force Multiplier System)

PE05342011 (A1) - SISTEMA MULTIPLICADOR DE FUERZA

RAMOS SOLANO FERNANDO SIXTO [PE] +

SIXTO RAMOS GRANADOS S A C [PE] +

F16H1/22

PE20100048920 20100805

Abstract of PE05342011 (A1)

QUE COMPRENDE DOS DISCOS PARALELOS UNIDOS POR UN EJE, EN EL INTERMEDIO DE ESOS DISCOS HAY UN RODAJE QUE PRESENTA UNA EXTRINCIDAD, EN LA PROLONGACION DE LOS EJES TIENEN COLOCADOS DOS RODAJES AXIALES UNIDOS POR UN SOPORTE, A SU VEZ ESTA CONECTADO POR LA FUNDA DEL RODAJE INTERIOR A UNA PIEZA IGUAL Y SIMETRICA A UNA DISTANCIA CONVENIENTE

--------------

Google translate:

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.

**Aemilius** · 10-17-2012, 11:03 PM

You make some good points Aaron, but I guess what really mystifies me is why no universally acceptable form of mathematical analysis is being carried out that could immediately confirm to the satisfaction of all the observations of both the inventors and replicators. It's not rocket science, simple non-numeric vector analysis is well suited to describe the motion, magnitude and direction of all the various forces at play in gravity driven mechanisms of all sorts.... So why isn't it being employed?

**Aaron Murakami** · 10-18-2012, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by Aemilius View Post

You make some good points Aaron, but I guess what really mystifies me is why no universally acceptable form of mathematical analysis is being carried out that could immediately confirm to the satisfaction of all the observations of both the inventors and replicators. It's not rocket science, simple non-numeric vector analysis is well suited to describe the motion, magnitude and direction of all the various forces at play in gravity driven mechanisms of all sorts.... So why isn't it being employed?

To see the electrical comparison, we actually need to measure it.

For the input motor, use a current sensing resistor on the input line and then use a DSO to simply record dc mean or rms depending on if the input is dc or ac for x amount of time. That data can be dumped to a spreadsheet for a detailed integrated power analysis. Using the word power in a generic sense there because I'd be measuring work and not just a power measurement. That can tell exactly what was drawn from the input source. This is way more accurate that just looking at meters. That will automatically factor in any possible pulsing and other irregularities in the system.

For the output, we basically do the same thing for whatever load the generator is powering and measure it simultaneously with the front.

Since the input motor and output generator are electrically isolated from each other, any 2 channel DSO should work fine.

That is easy enough for anyone to test with this machine. I sure wouldn't just go by what the motor and generator are rated at and assume that is the input draw and generator output.

Whatever the results are don't even include mechanical work being done. That can me measured old school style with a spring loaded scale, leather strap on a 1 foot circumference wheel, etc... to see exactly how much mechanical work is done. So we have both electrical and mechanical measurements.

Why nobody is doing this? I think it goes back to what I said about it taking time. These replications have only come out in the last 2 month or so and that is about it. And seeing that nobody is really posting measurements at this time is exactly what should be expected.

Announcement

Fernando Sixto Ramos Solano's Force Multiplier System

Fernando Sixto Ramos Solano's Force Multiplier System

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment