Fernando Sixto Ramos Solano's Force Multiplier System

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

Here is another video from Sixto Ramos ....

[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.

[jonardaron]

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").

[Aaron Murakami]

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.

[javamark]

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

[Aaron Murakami]

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.

[coolweby]

any more updates here... anyone ...

[nunocamelias]

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.

[Aaron Murakami]

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]

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.

[nunocamelias]

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