Another claim to a working device...

[Tarsier79]

Sorry Grimer, I cant restrain myself. You do not know how the Bessler, or the Buzzsaw worked, as there is no working replication.

Since you understand the RAR, perhaps you could point to the principle of energy creation. Dont say the path either.

[Grimer]

Sorry Grimer, I can't restrain myself. You do not know how the Bessler, or the Keenie worked, as there is no working replication.

Since you understand the RAR, perhaps you could point to the principle of energy creation. Dont say the path either.

I have pointed out the principle.

The 2nd order energy of gravity is partitioned into two third order packets, one which is retained within the mechanism and turns it, a wheel in the case of the Bessler and Keenie, the crankshaft in the RAR.

I don't need to count the number of primes to know that it is infinite, do I. :-)

[eccentrically1]

free falling mass doesn't jerk. gravity just accelerates mass per second per second, not per second per second per second.
if we can add some other form of energy to 9.8 m/sec^2, to replace the positive acceleration lost to friction, (especially in this beast, lol), then it will "jerk" itself over the top.

[Andyb]

Hi rolling weights in the lower cradle as i have already said, but still it will not move due to the friction and the negative toque weight i hope i am wrong but my gut says, look again guys there could be a way to crack it this way ,but first get rid of masses of mass, get light get real ,and i think there could be something there worth working with,IMHO of course i hope you all have a good year and some how we solve this problem soon ,good luck to you all. Andyb

[Grimer]

free falling mass doesn't jerk...

Absolutely correct. And that is why one needs a mechanism such as the RAR, Bessler, Keenie to transduce the second order energy of gravity into the third order energy of jerk.

Rumford's cannon borer is a well know example of an energy transducer. It converts low derivative mechanical energy into high derivative heat energy.

[eccentrically1]

a cannon borer is an example of a cannon borer.
Levers multipy force. Acceleration gained on one side is lost on the other side.

[Grimer]

a cannon borer is an example of a cannon borer. ...

LOL - I have to agree with you there. ;-)

OK - If you don't like the cannon borer as an example, how about Joule's apparatus for demonstrating the mechanical equivalent of heat?



Or are you going to say "Joule's apparatus is an example of Joule's apparatus"?

[eccentrically1]

the cannon borer converted horse muscle energy into mechanical energy to drill out the cannon. he purposely dulled the bit on the borer to create more heat to more easily show that some energy wasn't being converted to mechanical energy, i.e., that heat isn't a thing like metal, or wood, or whatever. it isn't a substance composed of smaller bits.

http://www.eoht.info/page/Cannon+boring+experiment

http://www.eoht.info/page/An+Inquiry+Co ... y+Friction

http://www.eoht.info/page/caloric

joule's apparatus is the same principle, but it took it a step further, it actually measured it, rather than just boiling water.

any interaction between two bodies, or particles, no matter how small or large, involves transduction of energy, and inevitably, irreversible heat losses.

[Grimer]

the cannon borer converted horse muscle energy into mechanical energy to drill out the cannon. he purposely dulled the bit on the borer to create more heat to more easily show that some energy wasn't being converted to mechanical energy, i.e., that heat isn't a thing like metal, or wood, or whatever. it isn't a substance composed of smaller bits.

http://www.eoht.info/page/Cannon+boring+experiment

http://www.eoht.info/page/An+Inquiry+Co ... y+Friction

http://www.eoht.info/page/caloric

joule's apparatus is the same principle, but it took it a step further, it actually measured it, rather than just boiling water.

any interaction between two bodies, or particles, no matter how small or large, involves transduction of energy, and inevitably, irreversible heat losses.

Thanks for the links - very interesting.

The pièce de résistance of course is is this transduction of low order mechanical energy into high order heat energy:



For me an even more astonishing transduction is its inverse, the Stirling's conversion of high order cold energy of ice into low order mechanical energy (the yellow highlights aren't mine - they came with the image).

[eccentrically1]

-.

[Tarsier79]

The 2nd order energy of gravity is partitioned into two third order packets, one which is retained within the mechanism and turns it, a wheel in the case of the Bessler and Keenie, the crankshaft in the RAR.

What exact mechanism/movement of the RAR creates your so-called "third order packets", and what makes them unequal?

[Grimer]

Good question.

The sitting down of the outer weight on the floor. There's relevant stuff on the OU forum.
I'll find the link.

****************************************

Found it.

http://www.overunity.com/13480/big-try- ... suWkfRdXh4

[MrVibrating]

MrVibrating,

Your findings are very disappointing to the expectations that the Ribeiro invention created. I haven't run all the way through the process as yet due to other commitments, but it isn't promising.
What appears on first sight can be very deceptive and misleading especially when you get later on to the details. The meat is always in the fine details, but the odds are for sure stacked towards a negative outcome rather than a positive.

Looking at the wider picture, what is surprising is the background,

A reputable designer, an established design company, many patents in diverse technologies, multiple patent applications (4) for this concept, 2 builds on different continents).
What is also interesting to note is that Renato Ribeiro dabbled also in an other gravity energy concept, using buoyancy with patent awarded in 2011 (see below the list of patent applications in the last 6 yrs and below the actual patents awarded to-date.)

To produce a hypothetical concept patent what has never been build because it is difficult to do is one thing, but to proceed with 2 demo installations is an other. A large exposure to a "mis-represented patent application" and multiple variations at that, I would think is not very complementary to an established design company, or the potential benefit must outweigh the associated fraudulent reputation it would create.
Also if we assume a fraudulent case, why would he advertise a machine (on the web) before he can show a working machine. What he is showing is no ordinary thing, it upsets the balance of everything we know. This is a good recipe to create plenty of skepticism and negative "cannot work" publicity. None of it could possibly help his objective in this case. Waiting would overcome this problem or he must be very confident to be able to make all skeptics loose face.

If we assume a "delusion", I think that would be improbable except if it is premeditated for a gain unknown to us. I am still not so convinced on that path of logic.(maybe because I am not well enough informed). In the end, the "money flow" picture would give us the best reality picture if this would be the case.

Notwithstanding, as you said, nothing is lost, even our perceptions obey the conservation laws, it is inspirational and educational to retrace someone's thought pattern towards a puzzles we have also been unsuccessfully dabbling with.
Remember, the reason that we are dabbling in this area is believe/conviction, "That because it hasn't been found yet, doesn't mean it doesn't exists." We just don't know yet where to look.

Red_Sunset

USA Patent applications in the last 6 years for Renato Ribeiro

PUB. APP. NO. Title
1 20130284540 MECHANICAL MOTION SYSTEM FOR ENERGY GENERATION
2 20130270039 MECHANICAL MOTION SYSTEM FOR ENERGY GENERATION
3 20130264148 MECHANICAL MOTION SYSTEM FOR ENERGY GENERATION
4 20130256067 MECHANICAL MOTION SYSTEM FOR ENERGY GENERATION
5 20130256066 MECHANICAL MOTION SYSTEM FOR ENERGY GENERATION
6 20120006191 AIR OR GAS COMPRESSION SYSTEM
7 20110209569 POWER MULTIPLIER LEVER SYSTEM
8 20110198858 APPARATUS FOR ENERGY PRODUCTION
9 20110107288 Methods of deriving switch networks
10 20110107287 Methods of deriving switch networks
11 20090218898 MULTI FUNCTION ENGINES
12 20090090104 APPARATUS AND ASSOCIATED METHODS TO GENERATE USEABLE ENERGY
13 20090064961 RECIPROCATING PISTON CYLINDER HEAD COVER HAVING AN INTEGRATED FLUID EXCHANGE ROTARY DISC VALVE
14 20080264052 APPARATUS AND ASSOCIATED METHODS TO GENERATE USEABLE ENERGY
15 20070214439 Methods of deriving switch networks


Patents registered for Renato Ribeiro

PAT. NO. Title
1 8,100,103 Full-Text Reciprocating piston cylinder head cover having an integrated fluid exchange rotary disc valve
2 8,042,334 Full-Text Vertical fluid container with endless chain
3 7,958,726 Full-Text Apparatus and associated methods to generate useable energy
4 7,877,711 Full-Text Methods of deriving switch networks

Fascinating information, however we have at least a version of the story from the patent app. - he says the two current full-scale builds were initiated following the results of his successful demonstration of a force other than gravity acting upon the crankshaft, in the configuration we've simmed here.

There is such a force. This is true. And this force does add to the gravity vector, yielding a higher net force than gravity alone. This force is only applied on the down-stroke (the output work), but not on the up-stroke (the input work).

So that description has all the hallmarks - well, some of them, anyway - of a genuine asymmetric interaction.

However to pitch it as such would be disingenuous, if not out-and-out fraud.. for a variety of reasons:

- it's an asymmetric loss (and i don't mean in the non-dissipative sense - it's fully thermodynamically symmetrical) - losing less energy on one side of the interaction, and more on the other

- the claim's sole dependence on peak forces is misleading, since that's no indication of energy, which depends on the net force over net displacement

- the claim acknowledges that the supposedly OU 'blue bar' condition begins with a negative torque phase, but brushes this aside, saying it is then followed by a much higher positive torque phase - which is true, however; 1) this force is NOT "200%" greater, and 2) when we look at the integral its area is significantly smaller than that of the negative torque angles

- the explicit claim that this increased force condition yields a thermodynamic gain, causing self-perpetuation, is the crowning cherry on this steaming pile of bs

I think he's someone like us, a tinkerer, dreamer etc. but just has greater wealth and/or opportunity around him for his own peculiar neuroses to feed off. However even if he originally believed he had something - purely on the basis of the force difference, however naive that might seem - the current builds are advanced well beyond the stage where he's claimed they should already be self-sustaining. IOW he's obviously treading water at this stage - all of the new additions to the mechanism are located underneath the apparatus he says causes the asymmetry - which means he's had to abandon the claims made in that patent app., and make up a new claim or set of claims, based on a new principal of operation, unrelated to the previous "blue-bar / yellow-bar" guff.. that upper parallelogram section is basically now a white elephant being cannibalised in-situ for some wacky plan-B scheme to keep the investors invested.


I'm reminded of Mylow, with his Howard Johnson hoax, perhaps mixed with the plot from The Producers - tax breaks for 'green' investments, laundering, somink' like that prolly... dunno, but they must be up for more than a cheap psychological illusion...

[MrVibrating]

HI MrV..

Good work!

Thanks!

A couple of things are bothering me that may have an impact on your conclusion

1) The argument that WM2D cannot show a gain in energy due to the algorithm used for the program....maybe why the output is way off what you expected to see?

I'm aware of the argument, but it's unlikely to be a factor because the simulation will apply CoE in much the same manner as nature - that is, instantaneously. CoE only ever applies to the here and now - the present conditions, not any previous or future ones. Indeed, in this respect, CoE will work for us in an asymmetric interaction, being a direct cause of the resulting disunity.

Any interaction can be broken down into an input force times displacement integral, and an output one. In a symmetrical interaction they both cancel, and in an asymmetric interaction their sum leaves a non-zero remainder. Because this is a sequence of actions, having two distinct phases, the results of one should not interfere with those of another; again, everything's laid out on the fly, and CoE only has any influence in the present - it can't retro-actively alter the past. It has been hypothesised that nature might somehow conspire to prevent us 'breaking reality' - such as the grandfather paradox of time travel - perhaps intervening in future results depending on past ones... however, in such a scenario, we'd measure an inexplicably different outcome than expected for the current conditions, because of some non-physical causative principle in the past..? It's nonsense isn't it!?

In this round of tests though, we put the central, core claim on trial, specifically that the effective weight bearing down on the crankshaft varies depending on which of the support bars is engaged by an arc-lock.

So each of the three conditions described in the patent application was tried independently, one after another, and for each run, the conditions were reset to the same default start state, with the crank at the zero degrees position, and ending when the crank reversed direction again, somewhere short of a full revolution.

Hence there's no way the results from the three tests could have influenced one another - each stands on its own as a separate simulation.

According to the claim, the green and blue positive bar lock points yield 200% more force than the yellow neutral bar lock point, and this is the basis of the putative symmetry break.

But looking at the torque curves, we see these claims are patently false - yes, the peak positive force exceeds the peak negative force, but not by 200%, and at any rate peak forces alone are meaningless.

So this can't be a failure of the sim, or reality, or the scientific method. Rather, the claims are just bogus. It's a pack of lies. A scam.

2) The cranks do not appear to be at 45 degrees to me.... although shown as such in the coloured digital image; the photos of the build appear to show no two arms timed thus.

Look at the cranks, not the "blue positive bars" (aka con-rods). They follow a 45° offset, and there's two parallel crank shafts, with a 22.5° offset between them.

I may be wrong about both of these points.
However concerning WM2D, IIRC I can remember finding a help forum somewhere on which a member of the program team stated that as a fact.

I've been searching for it again, but it was not long after I joined the BW forum and most of the links I can now find appear to have been trashed by the spammers.

I shall keep searching. I can't remember if I posted of it at the time.

Regards

Mick

I read the thread you're on about, but as i said, if such a CoE sanity check is enforced, it'll be applied to individual strokes or sims as appropriate, and wouldn't be able to interfere between them - and in this particular case, the net integration is in our heads; it's a comparison judgement of the areas under/over the curves for each of the three configs described in the application. I daresay if there was any discrepancy, it'd already be too late for CoE to do anything more about it...

[MrVibrating]

MrVibrating,
The simulation output shown in an earlier mail, measured the force at “circle 29�. I would assume this is the crankshaft ? Can you confirm this?.
Could you also clarify what does the x-scale shown refer to. You have squares that are numberd and a vernier scale below that. What does it mean exactly ?.
And how and at what measure point did the simulator calculate the counter force & energy seen by the crankshaft, this being the counter pressure force posed by the weight during the upgoing part of the cycle.
Did you input the gravity weight force as a regular force or as gravity force ?
With reference to your simulation, do you have the ability to set a measurement point wherever you want ? Like any joint?
I hope you can help
Red_Sunset

Yes, 'circle 29' is the crankshaft (i think i've already mentioned this), and yes, a force measurement can be applied to any joint. However if you're thinking of the upper con-rod pin (what the application describes as a "main shaft"), then i considered this, and felt it was too complex as the sim can only connect two layers, hence that loci actually has 3 different pins stacked in 3 layers, and for accuracy's sake we'd want to measure a single point reference. Besides, the claim explicitly states that all forces under consideration are transmitted to the crank shaft, and of course, were they not then the whole point would be moot anyway... so the crank torque is arguably the most valid measurement of the central claim.

The X-axis is time in seconds, so it's a torque / time plot, which is a valid energy / work term (analogous to FxD, where we're substituting the temporal domain for the spatial one). However it also contains torque vs angle, since the minimas correspond to top dead center and BDC (the cranks 'hard' angles), and the maximas to 90° and 270° (the easy angles). So we have torque, angle and time.

I initially considered doing static torque measurements too, but felt that a sufficiently high crank-shaft inertia obviates most of the benefits of static point increments - the sim needs to roll slowly to prevent the weight from swinging, which destabilises the measurement.

This inertia is the counter force, and is an intrinsic function of volume, density and shape - its 'trace' lies in the acceleration vs angle, so it's implicit in the torque curves posted, if not explicitly so. If the crank were lighter, a cycle would take that much less than 11 seconds to complete (or not, as the case may be).

And as far as i can tell, WM2D sims gravity as a net acceleration on everything in the system - it was set at default, 1N / 9.81m/s, iirc.

Just to sum up, here's that blue curve again:



The red area is negative torque, the blue, positive (the signs are inverted cos it's run backwards, as explained earlier). The angular distance spans around 350° or so, and the point where the curve crosses the central horizontal "zero" line corresponds to BDC, 180° into proceedings. Because the speed of the crank starts slow, speeds up, then slows again, the horizontal distance shown here is 'stretched' relative to the crank angle - that is, the angle increments along the x-axis aren't regular - but the minimas and maximas must correlate to TDC/BDC and 90/270° so they're reliable reference points. A static test would eliminate this ambiguity but given the results thus far, doesn't seem warranted - what's clear already is that this curve is simply the other two, inverted, and the minor differences don't begin to support the claims being made of 200% extra free force. On the contrary, what additional force IS achieved is generated at cost, and never exceeds the peak force generated in the control run (the yellow 'neutral bar').

Hence if he ever gets a gain out of that thing, it won't be via the mechanism it was designed to exploit, at least according to that patent application.