Fernando Sixto Ramos Solano's Force Multiplier System

[javamark]

I think you're missing the point that the REACTION in the system does not oppose the forward movement of the wheels, it ASSISTS the system in the SAME direction. That means it is using reactive power to produce forward positive work.

Then one should identify and/or quantify the "REACTION" net assisting force. Also the net additive force, if there, would not be labeled "REACTION", by definition. For the sake of observed results, let's say that there is a net assisting force, but rather unknown at the time...no problem...to call it unknown. Then some measures...as jonardaron suggests...may be employed to quantify.

This is all may be interesting, because true COP > 1 devices in reality are probably really benefitting from an unknown net additive force. Tesla, to my knowledge, never claimed COP >1, for example. He was a genius in his field and hypothesized about unknown net forces. For example, his device(s) that pick up energy from the cosmos, he thought, picked up not only solar radiation, but some other undefined particals from space (i.e., they worked at night). Since his time we have defined some of these.

It is interesting that many folks that are claiming COP > 1 are using magnetics. Certainly, magnetics is not completely understood, even today. This leaves open the possibilities that there are net positive forces acting upon a moving magnetic field. Why do I say "moving" magnetic field. Because movement is necessary, at least in our known universe. Or maybe more correctly, acceleration vs. movement. Even this force multiplier device (which is probably not really) uses an electric motor (Tesla designed) drive.

[Qamar]

Here is another video from Sixto Ramos ....

[Qamar]

Hi All !

I want to let you know that i am also working on the same thing from last few months as i came to know about Mr. Chas Campbell invention. To somehow i think that Mr. Fernando Sixto Ramos also doing the same technique. As Mr. Campbell drive the generator with 1hp motor, same is what Ramos is doing. Mr. Campbell in his letter mentioned that he used 80Kg Flywheel to generate 3KW from 1hp motor, i think that Ramos divided the same weight in 20 x 4 = 80 Kg to get an proper output.

I also made a model and tried to drive it in two steps. In 1st step I only put the 10Kg flywheel ( you will find campbell design in google images search) but in my case it is not succeeded and when i put the load on the 3Kw generator the RPM goes down and the Amperage of 1Hp electric motor start rising and it stopped.

Now i tried it with another flywheel of 20Kg that is driving 10Kg flywheel and then generator via V Belts, at the end i found that after this i was able to get some output. Like approx 300W and if i increase the load the RPM goes down. Upto 300W the generator was working quiet fine. What i assume is that we have to merge the Campbell and Ramos designs to get a proper output.

As i studied about these designs i really find very interesting points. Did anybody ever think that why Sixto Ramos used the horizontal shaft with eccentric bearings instead of V belts ? Because if we notice two cases of electricity generation 1. from water and 2nd from engine driven, it will take us back to Campbell's invention where he mentioned that electricity can only be taken out by PULSES. In his design he left the belt from Flywheel to Generator loose as much as possible to give pulse to the generator, that is i am sure no body noticed.

Same thing Mr. Sixto done by using eccentric bearings, that is , when the bearing reaches its far end rotation the other side bearing pull it back or push it forward and it is the case that generate pulse on every single rotation, so for example in my case my generator is moving at 1500Rpm so it is getting 1500 pulses in one minute. Pretty good result.

I will post the images soon as right now i dont have any source. As per my experience i think that it is quite possible but with a very proper and good engineering...

Here are some of the images i found on PESWIKI and other sites that people are doing. In India a company name Navratan Free Power Corporation is working as NFPC. Following green image is from that company.



This is the Russian Design working on Romos Technology



This is the Indian Company Design, and i think they also used the same 80Kg weight or more in this image ...



This is the well engineered design i found from some good company in Australia.

IF I POSTED IN WRONG FORUMS FORGIVE ME FOR THAT AS ITS MY FIRST TIME IN ANY ENERGY FORUM DISCUSSION.

[Qamar]

Dear Admin !

Hopes that this video will help alot to understand the system. In this video they did not use any pendulum type stuff.
have a look on this video.

[ralyn]

I have 4 bearings P 204, Inside diameter d= 19= mm, 2 shafts diameter d= 19 mm length500mm & 2 bearings 6307 Inside diameter d=35mm. it's very eccentricity. Length between shafts from centers is 304 mm. Look the images. Why would not full spin in the opposite direction to each other. Please help me.

[Bradley Malone]

I have been intrigued by this machine for a while now and finally got around to studying it. the first thing i did was break down the rotation into 45 degree steps to see the reaction of the linkages throughout rotation. The first thing that hit me was that this thing creates a "torque impulse". If you start like the pic i posted and think of the left wheel being the drive. at this position there is a maximum relationship between the drive and load...the ability of the drive to pull the load (since it is going clockwise) and the ability of the load to impede the drive are at maximum. if you proceed from 0 degrees to 90 going clockwise on the drive, because the force goes from tangential to perpendicular on the drive and load the torque or leverage on the linkage would fall and rise in an exponential fashion causing an impulse instead of a constant connection . If you mapped the torque from drive to load it would look like the second picture. As we have all learned with electricity impulses cause weird things to happen. along with the torque being an impulse...the low torque angles also allow the drive to speed up unimpeded adding the momentum to the flywheel then during the high torque angles transfers the flywheel momentum plus the torque impulse to the load.

The second thought was about all the wasted energy caused by the shaking. especially if you are supposed to add an inverted pendulum to assist the roation. the easiest way to stop the shaking would be to put a counterbalance of some sort. but instead of just putting a weight I came up with a way to put another linkage on the opposite side so that you could have two inverted pendulums that would assist rotation as desribed in the original invention but because they would move in opposite unison they would cancel out the shaking (if balanced equally). It will be tricky to mount the gears this way because a shaft would interfere with the linkages but i have two options i am working on to make it work.

realized the design i posted is technically wrong. the connecting bar would not be at 0 degrees on one wheel and 180 on the other...it is supposed to be long enough to go from one 0 on one wheel to 0 degrees on the other and when swapped the the counter roatation would be at different angles relative to there respective gears.