You obvious don't believe in the exhortation DYOR.


Still, seeing that you are possibly capable of understanding I'll take pity on you.


This paper by Hans van Lieden is a good place to start.

http://www.zen111904.zen.co.uk/THE%20ROAD%20TO%20PERPETUAL%20MOTION.htm

So now you're being insulting and patronising... And I thought we were friends...

You claimed to have a proof of an OU device, all I asked for was details. In response you tell me I don't do my own research.

The device you link to has never been shown to work. Just because someone built it, and claimed it worked, means nothing. As I said before: Have you not noticed the large number of frauds in the field of OU?

Perhaps you think there is some benefit in just believing in things? Perhaps you think that by believing in things, it makes it more likely they'll work?

Belief is the opposite of knowing. It's worthless.

So you have nothing.

I was being sarcastic with the 'friends' remark FYI.

So you have nothing.

...

Nothing for the "old and cynical".

I have shared it. You haven't understood it.

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

Don't you find it strange that in 10/19/2013 - Official Photo # 49 the outboard weights comes to rest on the ground during part of their cycles - the same event that takes place with the Milkovic and the Keenie. At this point the weight disappears as far as the rest of the mechanism is concerned since its weight is lost to its lever and the rest of the RAR mechanism.


The inboard weights on the other hand never go walkabout, never get a rest.


Don't you find it strange that the amplitude of the outboard weights is much less than that of the inboard weights, as is also the case with the Milkovic where the amplitude of the counterweight is less than that of the pendulum.


The Milkovic pendulum also loses and gains weight as a result of the interaction between Ersatz and Newtonian gravity. For example, for an arc of 120 degrees, sixty degrees on either side of the nadir, a pendulum will weigh nothing at the top of its swing and weigh twice its static weight at the bottom. A similar effect will occur with the inboard weights of the RAR, the magnitude depending on the speed of oscillation.

look.. its simple, post a PDF file of instructions (a lot like the tutorials on Instructables.com). Can't do that? then you have nothing useful what so ever! obviously in regards to over unity. Sure you can post details to make a super awesome paper weight, but this forum is OBVIOUSLY about over unity, hence the domain name overunity.com

You clearly seem to think there is a debate going on... there really isn't.

Let me put it another way, you either have it or you don't. let me give you an example of having it.

For this example, "HOW TO MAKE A JOULE THEIF"
http://www.instructables.com/id/HOW-TO-MAKE-A-JOULE-THEIF-CAPACITOR-CHARGER/

Step 1: PARTS
R1-1K
Q1-D882 or any npn transistor
D1-1n4007 or any diode above 5v
toroid-you will get one from an old cfl
C1-3300uF or any other cap to be charged

Step 2: WIND THE TOROID
wind both wires togather and connect the resistor to the begining of one wire and the ending of the other wire.

Step 3: MAKE THE CIRCUIT

Step 4: FINISHED

See how there is a begining and an end... and the end is the finish product. in this case its a joule theif in the case of an over unity device it would be over unity!

IS THERE SUCH INSTRUCTIONS NO!!! SO SHUT THE FUCK UP UNTIL YOU DO!

"I can state categorically that you were definitively not talking on my behalf." so you have these instructions then? enough talk, post it! let me make it clear to you that you are saying to me that you have detailed instructions on building an over unity device...... because if you do not then you "categorically" ARE included in the 7+ billion people comment idiot!

"I do realize that this forum cannot be a 1 to 1 classroom to explain everything from a-z" do you realize that you don't need to technically understand something to build it? in the joule thief example, do I need to understand how transistor functions in order to build a joule thief? NO!! so what gives? your an idiot!

"Sure we all WANT,  a solution answer to all our questions with blueprints to build our fabulous home OU power generator, tested & proven before we begin building.  Be aware that there are many steps in between, many wrong paths and turns." The point is that Grimer and others claim to have these blueprints, and it clearly bull shit! i'll eat my words if Grimers next post is these elusive blueprints he talks of!

If he and others do NOT have blueprints.. state it now and i'll shut up..

....................................................................
Let me put it another way, you either have it or you don't. let me give you an example of having it.

For this example, "HOW TO MAKE A JOULE THEIF"
http://www.instructables.com/id/HOW-TO-MAKE-A-JOULE-THEIF-CAPACITOR-CHARGER/
.............................................
...........................................
If he and others do NOT have blueprints.. state it now and i'll shut up..

Peace my friend,  lets not step into the new-year on the wrong foot.

It looks we are talking cross-wired,  your expectation and objective is very different to what other people (like Grimer & me) are aiming for.

You see it purely from a "Construction viewpoint",  when other see it from a "Theoretical working" viewpoint, this might include "hypothetical assumptions" that might lead to a construction viewpoint after all in's and out's have been well brain washed.

A construction 'to do list' with a 'parts list' makes for an easy package.  The theory might assume quite a different shape.
Can you refer to the exact workings of the Joule thief that describes how and why it saves energy. Do remember also that the joule thief is supported by standard accepted science.

Shall we try a scifi Joule Thief to complicate the parts list.
Lets not over-react in 2014

Red_sunset