Good video on examining the mechanics. This device utilizes reactive power and defeats the 3rd law of motion. It is very simple and I explained it at energyscienceforum com. The reaction that the connecting rod/weight experiences as it whips in the opposite direction contributes forward feedback (positive reinforcement) to the input wheel instead of bucking up against it. It is the same in the Veljko system. It is taking the reaction in the system and utilizing it to propel it forward.
Wrong. The design was invited to the Intelectual Property World Organization and it's accepted as a working idea... no perpetual motion or point 0 energy. No Hoax, just a system that uses Gravity, Mass and distance to multiply torque... just and advance in mechanical conversions (or you thought that everything that can be discovered it's already discovered?). If companies will use it or not, its more a political/bussines issue.
Great explanation. I believe the latest info is that the weight does not need to be perpendicular to the connecting arm and in one of his latest photos the arm is simply extended to provide the additional weight.
It is self evident in the sequence of events as both wheels rotate and is also evidenced by the fact that you can actually take the output from the same wheel as the input wheel. Why? Because everything is reflected back to the front wheel so it doesn't matter which wheel you take the output from.
I built a larger unit and found that any tolerance in berings or shaft are also amplified. Also, it becomes unstable at higher RPMs. Next step is to build a small unit with closer tolerances. Planning to do this in November.
Excellent analysis. I believe that the wheels pulse in their RPM. Are you familiar with the "Aspden Effect"? I believe that Fernando left the belts loose so that the axles could go into a free oscillation. I have a strobo-tach to check this out. Some of his vids show the gen belt driven and some show direct driven. In the direct-drive device, you can see that he added more weight to the primary axle but, not the secondary. I believe that he was trying to get the weights equalized. Please reply
Hello, I know you get a lot of negative comment, but this is not one of them! I believe this system does work and does multiply the force. But could you give some estimations about how much force on average does this system increase? For instance if I put 1000W of power, how much will I get on the other side? Thanks in advance
Where is the multiplication of force? All I see here is synchronized movement of the rods with rotation of each axis in the same direction and non-synchronized movement of the rods with rotation of each axis in opposite directions. The end result is the same in both cases. No gain!
The most obvious way to turn this into a perpetual motion machine is to have one end preferably the higher leverage end operated by a ball, with the ball supported by a separate fixed track during half of it's motion. Still sounds awkward but I appreciate the use of principles. The degree of rotation relative to the ball may pose a problem with periodic motion, which is one reason I have gravitated towards mostly-horizontal devices. Note the Fernando's Force Multiplier does not have the same advantages with a more horizontal device, as it basically implements opposite rotation, with all advantages coming from leverage, not coordination. My sense is the distance was measured badly and actually in this case the rotation of either side may have been the same, as the leverage apart from the added mass was identical. Revision: actually, the pins for the axis may be attached at slightly different distances towards the center, which could result in different amounts of rotation. It appears the right pin may be mounted slightly further from the center of it’s wheel, which will have the effect making lifting of the vertical weight easier, yet without an over-unity effect this time. My suggestion would be to mount the vertical lever towards the left side instead so that less work is necessary. However, perhaps Raymond has reasons to mount it on the right, or perhaps the principle is not yet used adequately. Perhaps using a depth dimension for the side lever thing may actually have unseen benefits. I would like to suggest mounting a weighted lever to right wheel in the depth dimension near the pin. I think you will see effects with this, if you think it is worth your time. The slightly wider pin already present on the right with have a pulley or lever effect on the left during its downward motion, and the depth-weighted pin on the left will add to momentum during its downward motion, thus there will be a principle of constant advantage, which may classify it as a so-called 'unity device' (an intermediate between ordinary objects and perpetual motion machines).
Raymond, i had the same experience as you. I scaled up and found that it wouldn't rotate. The non-matched angles resulted in non-matched center-to-center lengths. The device locks up. I have to admit that I don't know how others have achieved rotation. Strange.
First time I see this video and mi possibly innocent interpretation tells me that you should seek a way to extract the energy from both wells only at the point where they gain acceleration and disengage from it when the wheel is slowing down.
Do you plan on developing this further? Can you show whether there is in fact additional energy developed in the output stage? Perhaps something similar to your gravity arm video?
so when you rotate one wheel with motor how are you going to force the other wheel to go on opposite direction and not sync with the driving wheel, so you can achieve advantage.
parece las ruedas de los trenes antiguos. raro yo vi que original tenia 2 ejes paralelos en la ruedas y un perpendicular donde se realizaba la transmision del movimiento el cual no entendia, salvo q los ejes paralelos solo esten hasta la mitad por q sino chocarian con el perpedicular, si estoy errado corrijanme please
If you hung 1 Kg. in one side, you can move it at the other side the srong is 5 times, so if you are strong to move 1Kg but not 5 this machine can do it.
I'm sorry but me and every 16 year old physics student can sit down and do the math proof of conservation of energy.Its just undeniable , maybe some day they will rip energy from the fabric of space time or some other fancy sci-fi type of solution but the laws of thermodynamics are not going to be laid low or circumvented by two spinning wheels and a fancy coupling .I wish people would spend less time chasing the impossible and more time getting humanity off this stupid rock i want my space ship
Mr Ron if you send me the R.P.M. YOUR PRODUCT AND ENGINE TORQUE INPUT AND OUTPUT TORQUE MOTOR I give you the perfect operation KEY NOTE THAT THIS MOTOR is 1,700 RPM O ME equiboco know this system and are the revolutions in the input are in the output if ME sends that data will tell you what you MUST DO THAT WHICH HAS INBERCION GREETINGS ECHA.
![[UA] Eternal Fire проти NAVI | EPL Season 20 Malta](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/chvlsDygrZM/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks for simplifying this process and braking it into slow speed everyone could understand. Well, at least those who could see how it works.
Cheers!
Good video on examining the mechanics. This device utilizes reactive power and defeats the 3rd law of motion. It is very simple and I explained it at energyscienceforum com. The reaction that the connecting rod/weight experiences as it whips in the opposite direction contributes forward feedback (positive reinforcement) to the input wheel instead of bucking up against it. It is the same in the Veljko system. It is taking the reaction in the system and utilizing it to propel it forward.
Wrong. The design was invited to the Intelectual Property World Organization and it's accepted as a working idea... no perpetual motion or point 0 energy. No Hoax, just a system that uses Gravity, Mass and distance to multiply torque... just and advance in mechanical conversions (or you thought that everything that can be discovered it's already discovered?). If companies will use it or not, its more a political/bussines issue.
Nice explanation Ray, I agree with you entirely. Mr Ramos has exposed a area in engineering that has been poorly explored. Regards Arto
Great explanation. I believe the latest info is that the weight does not need to be perpendicular to the connecting arm and in one of his latest photos the arm is simply extended to provide the additional weight.
The movement is perfectly symmetrical in both cases. What exactly do you want to show us?
It is self evident in the sequence of events as both wheels rotate and is also evidenced by the fact that you can actually take the output from the same wheel as the input wheel. Why? Because everything is reflected back to the front wheel so it doesn't matter which wheel you take the output from.
I built a larger unit and found that any tolerance in berings or shaft are also amplified. Also, it becomes unstable at higher RPMs. Next step is to build a small unit with closer tolerances. Planning to do this in November.
Excellent analysis. I believe that the wheels pulse in their RPM. Are you familiar with the "Aspden Effect"? I believe that Fernando left the belts loose so that the axles could go into a free oscillation. I have a strobo-tach to check this out. Some of his vids show the gen belt driven and some show direct driven. In the direct-drive device, you can see that he added more weight to the primary axle but, not the secondary. I believe that he was trying to get the weights equalized. Please reply
Hello,
I know you get a lot of negative comment, but this is not one of them! I believe this system does work and does multiply the force. But could you give some estimations about how much force on average does this system increase? For instance if I put 1000W of power, how much will I get on the other side?
Thanks in advance
Where is the multiplication of force? All I see here is synchronized movement of the rods with rotation of each axis in the same direction and non-synchronized movement of the rods with rotation of each axis in opposite directions. The end result is the same in both cases. No gain!
The most obvious way to turn this into a perpetual motion machine is to have one end preferably the higher leverage end operated by a ball, with the ball supported by a separate fixed track during half of it's motion. Still sounds awkward but I appreciate the use of principles. The degree of rotation relative to the ball may pose a problem with periodic motion, which is one reason I have gravitated towards mostly-horizontal devices. Note the Fernando's Force Multiplier does not have the same advantages with a more horizontal device, as it basically implements opposite rotation, with all advantages coming from leverage, not coordination. My sense is the distance was measured badly and actually in this case the rotation of either side may have been the same, as the leverage apart from the added mass was identical. Revision: actually, the pins for the axis may be attached at slightly different distances towards the center, which could result in different amounts of rotation. It appears the right pin may be mounted slightly further from the center of it’s wheel, which will have the effect making lifting of the vertical weight easier, yet without an over-unity effect this time. My suggestion would be to mount the vertical lever towards the left side instead so that less work is necessary. However, perhaps Raymond has reasons to mount it on the right, or perhaps the principle is not yet used adequately. Perhaps using a depth dimension for the side lever thing may actually have unseen benefits. I would like to suggest mounting a weighted lever to right wheel in the depth dimension near the pin. I think you will see effects with this, if you think it is worth your time. The slightly wider pin already present on the right with have a pulley or lever effect on the left during its downward motion, and the depth-weighted pin on the left will add to momentum during its downward motion, thus there will be a principle of constant advantage, which may classify it as a so-called 'unity device' (an intermediate between ordinary objects and perpetual motion machines).
@re45 1dee 'Blindness accelerated'? Do explain.
@re45 1dee Are you him?
Raymond, i had the same experience as you. I scaled up and found that it wouldn't rotate. The non-matched angles resulted in non-matched center-to-center lengths. The device locks up. I have to admit that I don't know how others have achieved rotation. Strange.
First time I see this video and mi possibly innocent interpretation tells me that you should seek a way to extract the energy from both wells only at the point where they gain acceleration and disengage from it when the wheel is slowing down.
very good explain .an invention that was nice hides.. now she will work for me.. thanks
Do you plan on developing this further? Can you show whether there is in fact additional energy developed in the output stage? Perhaps something similar to your gravity arm video?
Friend If the table moves is why this squandering inertia force ...
That pendulum is doubled to vibrate or move there too loses inertia force ...
What kind of vibrations would this system generate? seems excessive to last more than
a few minutes - bearings will probably fail under load?
so when you rotate one wheel with motor how are you going to force the other wheel to go on opposite direction and not sync with the driving wheel, so you can achieve advantage.
Nice deception video, the rotation is 1:1 where is the gain?
parece las ruedas de los trenes antiguos. raro yo vi que original tenia 2 ejes paralelos en la ruedas y un perpendicular donde se realizaba la transmision del movimiento el cual no entendia, salvo q los ejes paralelos solo esten hasta la mitad por q sino chocarian con el perpedicular, si estoy errado corrijanme please
CUAL ES LA DIFERENCIA CON LOS EJES DE UN TREN?
If you hung 1 Kg. in one side, you can move it at the other side the srong is 5 times, so if you are strong to move 1Kg but not 5 this machine can do it.
Josep Farrarons Clotas is envious
If at least we could get some gravity control, it will be real easy.
Invento peruano
traduccion?? gracias
I have not developed it to that point yet. Sorry.
Si pudieras multiplicar la fuerza ya no serían necesarios caballos de fuerza para mover un vehículo, con un ratón de fuerza basta y sobra:)
I'm sorry but me and every 16 year old physics student can sit down and do the math proof of conservation of energy.Its just undeniable , maybe some day they will rip energy from the fabric of space time or some other fancy sci-fi type of solution but the laws of thermodynamics are not going to be laid low or circumvented by two spinning wheels and a fancy coupling .I wish people would spend less time chasing the impossible and more time getting humanity off this stupid rock i want my space ship
Не совсем понятное видео
Просто кое кто, его продукцию рекламируя, - бабло списывают немерено!
no senses
Mr Ron if you send me the R.P.M. YOUR PRODUCT AND ENGINE TORQUE INPUT AND OUTPUT TORQUE MOTOR I give you the perfect operation KEY NOTE THAT THIS MOTOR is 1,700 RPM O ME equiboco know this system and are the revolutions in the input are in the output if ME sends that data will tell you what you MUST DO THAT WHICH HAS INBERCION GREETINGS ECHA.
useless non working things are not used , that is a business politics .
Бред какой-то мужик вообще не понимает о чем говорит.
this system can do nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!
es sencillo si entendieran que G-+M/V --- E pero no es así por lo tanto no funciona
is useless is a stupid machine
Josep Farrarons Clotas is envious