Bedini RPX Sideband Generator

* NEW * BEDINI RPX BOOK & DVD SET: BEDINI RPX


2019 ESTC ALL SEATS SOLD OUT!
PRE-REGISTER FOR THE
2020 ENERGY CONFERENCE

Monero XMR

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 36

Thread: Fernando Sixto Ramos Solano's Force Multiplier System

  1. #21
    Here is another video by the same maker that has the mechanism stopped and some better shots with explanation (not english).
    But the close ups are quite helpful.

    I am going to build one of these.
    I have to see for myself.

  2. #22
    Hello! I have been working on a replica of the multiplier system of Fernando Sixto Ramos.

    Here you can see some test with my system:

    Replica Fernando Sixto Ramos:
    Replica Fernando Sixto Ramos - YouTube

    Sixto Ramos Replica - Load Test (fail)
    Sixto Ramos Replica - Load Test (fail) - YouTube

    Sixto Ramos Replica - technical details
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7f8344XDsM

    Thank you

  3. #23
    Networking Architect Aaron Murakami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    1,403
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by streamingindie View Post
    I found a very interesting video that shows a recreation of this that seems to be running a larger generator from a smaller motor.
    See for yourself.



    Very interesting!
    Thanks Streamingindie,

    I only just saw your posts. Is the input motor variac powered by that generator on the back end?
    It is difficult to see the exact wire path through that large extension cord spool to the generator outlet.
    Aaron Murakami





    You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

  4. #24
    Networking Architect Aaron Murakami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    1,403
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by nunocamelias View Post
    Hello! I have been working on a replica of the multiplier system of Fernando Sixto Ramos.

    Here you can see some test with my system:

    Replica Fernando Sixto Ramos:
    Replica Fernando Sixto Ramos - YouTube

    Sixto Ramos Replica - Load Test (fail)
    Sixto Ramos Replica - Load Test (fail) - YouTube

    Sixto Ramos Replica - technical details
    Sixto Ramos Replica - technical details - YouTube

    Thank you
    Thanks for posting that, but are you going to run the tests using the original method with the vertical "pendulum" instead of a horizontal bar? You're obviously skilled with your building and it should be easy for you to add that on.

    With a horizontal bar, the vibrations are supposed to be smoothed out. However, the gravitational potential available to the vertical pendulum/weight in reference to the center of gravity shift from the figure 8 movement of the weight has been taken out of the equation. I think for it to be a fair test, it has to be what Fernando actually showed.

    His little model without that pendulum weight is not for practical application, that is just to demonstrate the mechanism. For a real replication, I believe it needs that weight.

    Just analyze the shift of the center of gravity for that vertical weight in relation to the cross bar's connections to each wheel and you see that it is "constantly falling". That is concept is missing without the vertical weight and is therefore not replicating Fernando's claims.
    Aaron Murakami





    You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Aaron Murakami View Post
    Thanks for posting that, but are you going to run the tests using the original method with the vertical "pendulum" instead of a horizontal bar? You're obviously skilled with your building and it should be easy for you to add that on.

    With a horizontal bar, the vibrations are supposed to be smoothed out. However, the gravitational potential available to the vertical pendulum/weight in reference to the center of gravity shift from the figure 8 movement of the weight has been taken out of the equation. I think for it to be a fair test, it has to be what Fernando actually showed.

    His little model without that pendulum weight is not for practical application, that is just to demonstrate the mechanism. For a real replication, I believe it needs that weight.

    Just analyze the shift of the center of gravity for that vertical weight in relation to the cross bar's connections to each wheel and you see that it is "constantly falling". That is concept is missing without the vertical weight and is therefore not replicating Fernando's claims.
    Thanks for your post. With my model gives me chance to try whatever is necessary to prove the veracity of the invention.

    I will also experiment with the original method with the "pendulum" vertical
    Do you think it will be better if I use a flexible or rigid pendulum? I think it's better to be a rigid pendulum, so that the moment of the pendulum be absorbed by the system. but this it will create vibration problems!
    But I'll still take a week or two to do these experiments.

  6. #26
    any more updates here... anyone ...

  7. #27
    Networking Architect Aaron Murakami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    1,403
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by nunocamelias View Post
    Thanks for your post. With my model gives me chance to try whatever is necessary to prove the veracity of the invention.

    I will also experiment with the original method with the "pendulum" vertical
    Do you think it will be better if I use a flexible or rigid pendulum? I think it's better to be a rigid pendulum, so that the moment of the pendulum be absorbed by the system. but this it will create vibration problems!
    But I'll still take a week or two to do these experiments.
    I believe Fernando's was rigid, but would be worth testing both. If flexible, I would use something that is only very slightly flexible.
    Aaron Murakami





    You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

  8. #28
    Certainly, I would like to believe that force can be multiplied by a device invented by the blind Peruvian. The Peruvian's explain, in multiple ways, that with this device the weight appears to be continuously falling through a 360 degree rotation of the driving wheel. In fact, the weight is not always falling, as mechanically it is destined to drop and rise the same amount twice in each 360 degree rotation of the wheels.

    Therefore, unfortunately, what gravity contributes, it also taketh's away, regardless of the path.

    It is interesting to to add flywheel's which store some of the energy. Where does this energy come from. There is the force of the motor and, already discussed the gravity. Unfortunately, again, momentum of the fly wheel(s) can not contribute to a net gain in the system.

    Therefore, if the device actually does provide a gain in power or force, the reasons stated by the inventor and associates are unlikely to be the cause. Either false or misinterpreted cause and affect (or is it effect, English is not my strong suit).

    Also, one might ask the question, if this is indeed a force multiplier, gaining some advantage from gravitational force, due to some counter-rotational wheels, then why do you even need the electrical motor or generator? All one would need to do is give the wheels a sufficient push and the they would turn an extraordinary amount of revolutions. All because an ingenious method of moving a weight between the wheels.

    Cheers

  9. #29
    Networking Architect Aaron Murakami's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Spokane, Washington
    Posts
    1,403
    Blog Entries
    1
    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.
    Aaron Murakami





    You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete. ― Richard Buckminster Fuller

  10. #30

    Change in strategy for real open source?

    First of all, great work & never give up hope !

    I think I can see some of the knots in thinking I also faced:

    The problem is that we always look at 1 point of the "8" (movement of this point). Then it looks as if the weight's assist doubles. Now what happens if we look at the exact opposite point simultaneously. (this was the point when most of my free energy designs failed so far :/).
    The weights fall from the top to the bottom in assist phase, right? So how could they be in high position in the next 8-cycle if not by lifting (what involves energy consumption). The problem will always be the load. To see a giant generator driven by a tiny motor is not enough as the big generator can be easily driven by a smaller one IF no load is connected. (oh well, couldn't we just hook up a battery at least - just an idea)
    => 2 steps for validation of this force multiplier in power multiplier configuration:
    • + self-sustained mode (feed output power to the input, preferably DC because of fluctuations unless you use freewheel in one direction of the flywheels to decouple the speed of shaft 1 of the one of shaft 2 - how this shall work with the 1-shaft solution don't know)
    • + if previous point successful, connect a battery charger that regulates the charge current to as low as possible, then charge a big battery pack - let's say 100Ah, C(harge/discharge)-rate of 3 => 3*100 = 300A @ 12VDC => 12*300W = 3.6kW => 3600W/230V = 16A immediate max.load => time to battery empty = 100Ah / 16Aimmediately = 6.25h, quite a huge time - enough to reload a bit) and you should be fine.


    Keep going anyway! And don't bother of how much you get out of your system. For non-mobile loads it still would be suited if you consider that you could charge a let's say Lithium-Air-Battery (once they exist and are rigid) or fuel cells (via electrolysis, a pure chemical process unlike LENR/cold fusion) huge enough to give plenty time to recharge & think of other energy sources (perhaps collecting as much rain and as high as possible, then let it fall in a valley, there turbine, and we have it, just could be happy if raining too, another benefit haha ).
    These batteries could be stored in times of few load and then be discharged for peak demand.

    We also could put the small COP > 1 devices in series (what surely is possible as nuclear energy or even those coal mines show where output has to be higher as input for heating of coal for example as otherwise they could not supply us with power). It's just the problem we don't have any such working OPEN SOURCE variant available. And that's what we should change. We have to look for a candidate & thus try to tidy up a bit the mess (like Keshe generator what looks rather like cold fusion but people get too few information on used materials or this 3-4 kW generators which get more and more delayed and where no closed-loop system was presented; the "power amplifier", if such fine device exists, should as already mentioned be able to produce voltage/current => feed that back to power the drive motor and there is the loop.).


    Should we perhaps write out a contest:
    We pay to those who deliver as open source technology as well as give live evidence of a working energy harvesting system? (Tesla as my favorite, which also involves vortex by the way - another point of confusion if the new extensions to current Maxwell/Lagrange EM mathematical models are correct).

    We could raise some money for payment via kickstarter. We definitely would get a good deal for inventors (perhaps Yildiz) to really start open sourcing and taking apart in their designs in live (just like John Bedini does, tell me if I'm wrong).

    And we should stop abuse as e.g. the Tesla Tower is not rebuilt (and the kickstarter thousands of $ collected therefore just oozing away - the reason is the museum can't be built on the original place because of the soil being polluted).
    People give half drawings, PES gets washy images - patents are provided plenty - never is mentioned if accepted or not. Furthermore most descriptions given are somewhat contradictory - promises given easily and broken even more thelike. (excuse my distracting vocabulary).


    What do you think? Efforts are plenty, but reverse engineering in such complex replications (partly involving unknown phenomena) is difficult (isn't that the reason John Bedini & Richard state for requiring replicator to build the exact copy as to their instructions -- Tesla mentioned tuning of his systems according to frequencies of longitudinal waves - and this can prove difficult, waves, harmonics involve complex number, hence it's not really intuitive is it?).

    We should do this funding project to give a motivation for the "total" open source. (just like http://opensourceecology.org/ does!! splendid Marcin Jakubowski & fellowship - we should join there too [they also plan a fuel cell and different open source battery designs as well as aluminium extractor and many more - really fascinating ])

    Thanks again for your endless efforts! (all theses drawings, wow, must be a - if just the "claimers" could be that detailed in explanation or "teaching").
    Last edited by jonardaron; 04-15-2013 at 09:27 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •