Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2231722 times)

tagor · « **Reply #1260 on:** October 29, 2009, 05:08:18 PM »

Quote from: Merg on October 29, 2009, 04:03:41 PM

So, because paths passed by the weight and path passed by the fingers were almost the same and because the weight was 80 pounds and force of the fingers was less than 20 pounds, it should be obvious that output energy was 4 times bigger than input energy."

it is not science !
it is ridiculous !

the less you can do is , measuring the works done by the finger
when a real work is done ... for example lifting 80 pounds not up and down
but lifting 80 pounds UP : 1 meter ?
can you think to do this real work ?

rlortie · « **Reply #1261 on:** October 29, 2009, 05:41:42 PM »

@ tagor

I do not post here often but I do keep up with the thread.

To make science out of it, I think the obvious approach would be more in line with the following.

Measure actual input force (torque) in foot pounds from pendulum pivot to point of hand position X time applied. Measure the raising of the 80 pound weight X distance X time. From this a mathematician can derive horsepower in and horse power out!

Now whereas the weight has been allowed to fall back deduct what you just allegedly gained.

The fact that a boy can lift 80 pounds by applying 20 pounds
without measuring the other factors is not an objective conclusion, therefore I agree, it is not science.

Ralph Lortie

rlortie · « **Reply #1262 on:** October 29, 2009, 06:18:52 PM »

An 'after thought'
Lets say our 80 pound weight is a square 10 X10" resting on a bellow of the same dimension compressed 2", calculate the psi. The bellows are spring loaded to allow raising as the weight is lifted, They are pneumatically connected to a pulse or slave cylinder. Upon opening (up stroke of main weight) the spring action not only opens the master bellows but pulls the slave cylinder back to its start position.

How many psi using the above factors would be created in a slave (pulse) cylinder of say 1=1/2" in diameter with a 10 cm or 4" stroke?

The spring loaded bellows could be attached to the bottom of the 80 lbs.weight, and the spring removed allowing even less resistance to fall and compression.

Ralph Lortie

Nabo00o · « **Reply #1263 on:** October 30, 2009, 05:06:59 PM »

tagor be honest here, when you lift an 80 pound weight up and then let it fall down again, you have done real work! I cannot understand how it could be otherwise. If he had collected the energy from the weight's height, by oscillating it back into the pendulum somehow and making it land slowly, yes then it would not have been real work, but as you can both see and hear, he let if fall straight down....

Are you arguing against this scenario or is there something else behind you accusations?

Julian

tagor · « **Reply #1264 on:** October 30, 2009, 06:43:11 PM »

Quote from: Nabo00o on October 30, 2009, 05:06:59 PM

tagor be honest here, when you lift an 80 pound weight up and then let it fall down again,

you are totally wrong
it is not real work => it is equilibrium , there is no work , COP=0

Nabo00o · « **Reply #1265 on:** October 30, 2009, 11:39:59 PM »

Quote from: tagor on October 30, 2009, 06:43:11 PM

you are totally wrong
it is not real work => it is equilibrium , there is no work , COP=0

Okey tagor (or whatever your name is), I don't want to be rude here, but if you don't get this then you should return to school (or use the free courses on mechanics which MIT hosts on youtube).

There is actually a reason to why it is heavy to lift a big weight. You are doing real work.
But for a human it is of course not so easy to return that energy from the height.
But for this machine that could have been possible, haven't it been for the fact that most of the kinetic energy inside the weight is used up when it strikes the ground at full speed.

Had Raymond placed a spring underneath the weight, or anything else which could store and conserve that energy input then yes, the figures from Jovan Marjanovic would really be false, but since that is not the case at all your assumption falls short of explaining the energy going in versus the energy going out.

Please, don't consider this a personal challenge of arguments, but consider the facts as they are and be true to yourself about them.

Julian

Nabo00o · « **Reply #1266 on:** October 30, 2009, 11:50:50 PM »

Anyway this is olds news for a lot of people.

When Raymond finally shows his video of a self-sustained oscillator, would you agree to it then?
Or would you just claim that he is cheating us all just to get popular or scam us for money?
That, at least, seems to be standard for a large amount of people, and it is not about evidence (it never were), it was about their state of mind, and how much they allow their view of the world to see.

Also after raymond gives us a peek at his machine we can move on to the next stage of this machine, which will eliminate the small parametric losses completely.

Julian

Bulbz · « **Reply #1267 on:** October 31, 2009, 01:52:11 AM »

Quote from: Nabo00o on October 30, 2009, 11:50:50 PM

Anyway this is olds news for a lot of people.

When Raymond finally shows his video of a self-sustained oscillator, would you agree to it then?
Or would you just claim that he is cheating us all just to get popular or scam us for money?
That, at least, seems to be standard for a large amount of people, and it is not about evidence (it never were), it was about their state of mind, and how much they allow their view of the world to see.

Also after raymond gives us a peek at his machine we can move on to the next stage of this machine, which will eliminate the small parametric losses completely.

Julian

Hey Julian. Who exactly is Raymond, is he a member on this board ?. More to the point, have you got a link to any pages that show Raymond's work ?. I'm very interested in seeing it.

Nabo00o · « **Reply #1268 on:** October 31, 2009, 03:11:03 AM »

Quote from: Bulbz on October 31, 2009, 01:52:11 AM

Hey Julian. Who exactly is Raymond, is he a member on this board ?. More to the point, have you got a link to any pages that show Raymond's work ?. I'm very interested in seeing it.

He goes by the name Rhead100 on this forum, and he has built the largest 2-stage mechanical oscillator as far as I know of. At this time he has been working on the finishing of a large grandfather clock mechanism which will send back energy and most important, keep the timing right.

Here's a link to his youtube videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/RHEAD100

Julian

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1269 on:** October 31, 2009, 03:08:17 PM »

Quote from: Nabo00o on October 30, 2009, 05:06:59 PM

tagor be honest here, when you lift an 80 pound weight up and then let it fall down again, you have done real work! I cannot understand how it could be otherwise. If he had collected the energy from the weight's height, by oscillating it back into the pendulum somehow and making it land slowly, yes then it would not have been real work, but as you can both see and hear, he let if fall straight down....

Are you arguing against this scenario or is there something else behind you accusations?

Julian

My current understanding:

If you break it up, 1 the lift and 2 the drop...
Does the lift require the subsequent drop? I think yes. Preventing it to drop will kill the oscillations in similar fashion to taking out energy from the lift.
If it's true 100% work being done on the lift, it should be possible to place the lightweight pendulum and 2nd stage "crane" next to a conveyor, and do the lift for seperate weights, setting them all on a higher shelf so to say.
The 2SO can do it for sure, but not after each pendulum swing, or hand-tap. It needs to be "charged" first. Energy being stored mostly in the vertical oscillation, I suppose.
And after the energy is all taken by putting a weight on a shelf, it's not all done yet. The mass of the next weight needs to be transferred to the 2nd stage before it can be charged back up. Perhaps trivial, but the way I see it, the while pendulum + fulcrum need to be lifted for that.

Raymond will hopefully be able to take off enough weight to be useful, yet not too much to unload the cross bar or upset the pendulum swing. That'd be awesome, but I'm not holding my breath.

Bulbz · « **Reply #1270 on:** October 31, 2009, 03:34:37 PM »

Quote from: Nabo00o on October 31, 2009, 03:11:03 AM

He goes by the name Rhead100 on this forum, and he has built the largest 2-stage mechanical oscillator as far as I know of. At this time he has been working on the finishing of a large grandfather clock mechanism which will send back energy and most important, keep the timing right.

Here's a link to his youtube videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/RHEAD100

Julian

Cheers Bud

Mayo · « **Reply #1271 on:** November 05, 2009, 09:11:53 PM »

Quote from: rlortie on October 29, 2009, 05:41:42 PM

Measure actual input force (torque) in foot pounds from pendulum pivot to point of hand position X time applied. Measure the raising of the 80 pound weight X distance X time. From this a mathematician can derive horsepower in and horse power out!

Now whereas the weight has been allowed to fall back deduct what you just allegedly gained.

The fact that a boy can lift 80 pounds by applying 20 pounds
without measuring the other factors is not an objective conclusion, therefore I agree, it is not science.

Ralph Lortie

The thing is NOT to measure total force from pendulum pivot to point of hand position, but to measure ONLY energy added by the hand.

Because energy is FORCE x DISTANCE (in the same direction as acting force), it is not necessary to measure the time, unless you are interesting in power. This is true because the frequency of the lever is exactly two times the frequency of the pendulum and for one hand input there are two raisings of the weight and both were counted.

I DO agree that "the fact that a boy can lift 80 pounds by applying 20 pounds without measuring the other factors is not an objective conclusion",
and most important other factors are the DISTANCES the hand and the weight moved without any other influences, and they were counted.

I do not understand the point of this statement:
"Now whereas the weight has been allowed to fall back deduct what you just allegedly gained."

What is the problem in allowing the weight to fall back ?

Jovan

Cloxxki · « **Reply #1272 on:** November 05, 2009, 09:29:33 PM »

Quote

What is the problem in allowing the weight to fall back ?

Jovan

Hi Jovan,
The way I humble see it, you have not cashed in a gain, until you've cashed it. Much like my trade bank's balance as I see it now (after trade closed). It looks OK, but I failed to cash in, so it's just waiting for the next cycle (day) to hope for greatness.

If you place a weight on a high shelf, rather than recycling it vertically on a complicated wheel of sorts, what work has really been done?
Show me X amount of work, and I'll show you -X amount of work.
If consecutive heavier-than-pendulum weights would each be picked up at height zero and deposited at height 1, work is being done. And at a cheap rate, too! The pendulum after all, will remain most of its swing, and mere tapping will get it into full capacity? Capacitance, that is what we're seeing... Max being the sum of pendulum and 2nd stage weights at full harmonious oscillation.

Hope this was sufficiently to the point for you.

J

Nabo00o · « **Reply #1273 on:** November 05, 2009, 09:45:43 PM »

But are we forgetting that work is done each and every time the weight (in Ray's example) strikes the ground, generating heat, vibrations (both mechanical and acoustic) ?
Yes, it is not useful work (yet), but it is real work, and it is in addition to any negative work which is added back to the pendulum cycle. Right Cloxxki?

Nabo00o · « **Reply #1274 on:** November 05, 2009, 09:50:52 PM »

Sorry everyone for double post, just wanted to make on point clear.
I know for a fact that if Ray had placed a powerful enough spring under the weight, allowing it to be "charged" and "discharged" every time, it will reduce the small losses almost completely.
So that would have been a completely different scenario than what is happening here.

Julian

News:

User Menu

Author Topic: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system ! (Read 2231722 times)

tagor

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

rlortie

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

rlortie

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Nabo00o

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

tagor

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Nabo00o

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Nabo00o

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Bulbz

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Nabo00o

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Cloxxki

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Bulbz

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Mayo

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Cloxxki

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Nabo00o

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !

Nabo00o

Re: 12 times more output than input, dual mechanical oscillation system !