Another claim to a working device...

[Andyb]

Hi Mr vibrating thank you for your help in analyzing and understanding this concept, happy new year.

[Red_Sunset]

..............................................
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).
...............................................................
...

Hi MrVibrating,
I can see from your opinions in your initial reply posting that your are definitely unconvinced of any genuine intentions by Renato. Neither am I ready to disagree with you to that possibility at present. And neither did I expect him to just lie down and spill his beans that easily.
It is still too early for me to give you a final conclusion on this, the info is still too limited, need to verify a few more details, so who knows, it can always go 2 ways.
These commercial and other information are interesting, although my interest was primarily aroused by the design features rather than a working machine, where the real value lies more in the different techniques utilized trying to achieve a set objective.
To reverse engineer, it is important to take a position to figure out how it is intended to work rather than trying to prove that it cannot work. Basically what was the inventor trying to achieve tend to drill down into the essence quickly.

The patent text is always useful but is always short of information. A patent is a legal document, not a technical document. Therefore you will only find in there information that is required as the basis to defend (when needed) the invention in court. The patent can easily contain disinformation to mislead without impacting its primary function.
In the patent text, there is no reference to weight ascension except daisy chaining more units to get a more evenly smooth torque at all angles. Only the descent is described. It mentions weight balancing, but that is not supported by the drawings.

Having an other closer look at your torque chart, it somewhat resembles also a rudimentary calculation I put together in xls. It was a pretty rough calculation, so I did not trust the calculations that much. They showed a fairly biased picture 57 to 43 in favor, in a way similar to your graph.

The key to the whole contraption resides in the locking of the weight bar to blue or yellow bars, giving a differentiation to force applied to the crank. I think that I do not properly understand the behavior of forces when locked to the blue bar (the leverage). Renato implies that this lock is equal to a behavior as a lock to the green bar. A green bar lock would cause only a doubling of force, straight down with energy being directly reflected in increased weight arc distance . A blue bar lock is somewhat different, 2 forces of the ~ same strength are intertwined and applied, vertical and lateral (horizontal, this is if a lateral distance can be executed).
If lateral movement is possible, the central shaft is the pivot of the lever and the crank-con-rod attachment point the output. This would be applicable to the 135-200 dgr section of crank rotation (0dgr is TDC and rotation is clockwise with weight on the right and the support frame on left)
If lateral is not possible, the lever configuration changes, the crankshaft lever attachment becomes the pivot and the central shaft becomes the point where the gravity and lever force combine to impact the pivot point (and crank) as output. This would be applicable to ~ 90dgr of the crank rotation .

I realize this a bit far fetched and I have trouble with visualizing this, the reason that I want to test this to see if it possibly can hold true.
There is always the possibility that your simulator might not treat the configuration correctly and give incorrect results. The software can only be as smart as the programmer, regardless that the computer can only do sequential thing faster. The reason why it would be nice to see the force and direction at selected simulator pivot points in order to cross check and validate numbers rather than seeing only the end result.
Time will tell if what we are not seeing or imagining is right or wrong.
Regards, Red_sunset

[Unbalanced]

Red_Sunset wrote:

If lateral movement is possible, the central shaft is the pivot of the lever and the crank-con-rod attachment point the output. This would be applicable to the 135-200 dgr section of crank rotation (0dgr is TDC and rotation is clockwise with weight on the right and the support frame on left)
If lateral is not possible, the lever configuration changes, the crankshaft lever attachment becomes the pivot and the central shaft becomes the point where the gravity and lever force combine to impact the pivot point (and crank) as output. This would be applicable to ~ 90dgr of the crank rotation .

After looking closely at the "the weights and weighted arms" it appears to me that the weights are mounted on a square sleeve (gold yellow) that moves laterally on the square beam (brownish) within it, as illustrated below.

This enables the weight to describe an orbit, be it circular or elliptic. With the cranks and shaft, there are two rotating masses connected with alternating values of leverage and angle of force.

[Red_Sunset]

Unbalanced wrote,

After looking closely at the "the weights and weighted arms" it appears to me that the weights are mounted on a square sleeve (gold yellow) that moves laterally on the square beam (brownish) within it, as illustrated below.

This enables the weight to describe an orbit, be it circular or elliptic. With the cranks and shaft, there are two rotating masses connected with alternating values of leverage and angle of force.

Unbalanced,
You are correct, the weight appears to be mounted on a telescopic bar with its release triggered by a lever mounted just below the crankshaft. In some way I would guess that it all adds to some cost saving mechanism when lifting the weight.
This weight manipulation has been introduced later and is not part of the inventive property that underpins this invention as described in the patent.

My text is referring to a basic weight hanging of the end of the weight bar as shown in the patent. A basic picture attached below
Red_Sunset

[Red_Sunset]

...................................
.....................................
If lateral movement is not possible, the lever configuration changes, the crankshaft lever attachment becomes the pivot and the central shaft becomes the point where the gravity and lever force combine to impact the pivot point (and crank) as output. This would be applicable to ~ 90dgr of the crank rotation .

I realize this a bit far fetched and I have trouble with visualizing this, ..................................................

CORRECTION to the quote
If lateral is not possible, the lever configuration changes,
The green bar (frame to central shaft) and the weight bar combined become the lever with the central shaft as the lever force output tap.(when weight bar is locked to con-rod).
The lever pivot is the frame joint for the green bar.
The effect is identical as if the weight bar was attached to the green bar with one major difference, this is a dynamic condition.

Your comments ?
Red_Sunset

[MrVibrating]

Hi mate (and happy NY to all! Will 2014 be the one?) - i admire your perseverence and while you're right - i'm not optimistic on this one - as you say there's a small chance the patent app might be chaff, designed to throw everyone off, maybe..

The part of the app i focused on was the three lock point examples, and the conclusions stated for them:

- for the blue bar lock, the 'extra' force generated at the 'main shaft' is one and the same force being applied to lever up the weight arm as it descends, and is exerted upon the crank shaft as negative torque - ie. an open and shut case if ever there was one.

- Any additional energy the green bar generates (over and above the yellow neutral bar) must be attributed to the greater drop height, as the weight arm inclines downwards as it descends - ie. it then needs re-lifting from that lower position

Although the app doesn't detail ascension, this is implicit when it states that the blue bar lock causes clockwise self-perpetuation.

Obviously, as i keep banging on about input vs outut FxD differentials, the first thing i thought of was to try and pick'n'mix from the choice of I/O integrals to find a complimentary pair - a yellow input with a blue output, type stuff, but none of these combis panned out either.

And i think you're right about the lateral action - it's there to try attenuate the input energy, after the anticipated extra output failed to materialise from this whole arc-lock scheme..


Re. your ideas, if you could do a quick sketch i don't mind running them through the sim - i also have Mecanno on hand if we want real measurements...

[Oystein]

After going through the simpler patent by the same inventor: "the work amplifier" (If it was real...WOW) it seems like the inventor is fooled by the principle described in Besslers MT26 and MT27 etc. Since the input force is free to move sideways it seems like the inventor think that the F- is added to F+ through the movable/central application-point, and thus the work produced is 2xForce x Distance. No such thing appear in real life. Bessler described this 300 years ago. The patent should be called a force adapter or something like that.

I see traces of the same false principle used in the large PM Machine patent. This is not the way to go.

"My two cents"

[Red_Sunset]

Hi MrVibrating & Oystein,

Thank you for your frank replies, let them be not very optimistic on finding something good in Renato’s system. Please do not be discouraged notwithstanding that your efforts and answers have been based on due diligence. I still feel that there remains a nut to crack within, my gut feel tells me we are not running on empty as yet, far from a closed and shut case.

Some of Oystein "two cents" references intrigued me, can they be transformed into a investment beyond 2 cents?. Sorry for not knowing this information of the cuff. A web link to the same will suffice. My googling produced some good info but I couldn’t get or missed the essence.

1.. <Oystein> "the work amplifier" (If it was real...WOW) it seems like the inventor is fooled by the principle described in Besslers MT26 and MT27 etc.

<red> I regret not being familiar with Bessler’s work, most likely the reason that the relationship to the “principle described in Besslers MT26 and MT27� still escapes me (apart from rolling weight control). Can you describe the principle that has misled the inventor ? (in a few words, or picture)

2.. <Oystein> Since the input force is free to move sideways it seems like the inventor think that the F- is added to F+ through the movable/central application-point, and thus the work produced is 2xForce x Distance. No such thing appear in real life. Bessler described this 300 years ago. The patent should be called a force adapter or something like that.

<red> Can you expand the logic somewhat to be more clear
<red> What did Bessler describe 300yrs ago ?

3.. <Oystein> I see traces of the same false principle used in the large PM Machine patent. This is not the way to go.

<red> I guess you are referring to the RAR PM machine. I can see your similarity reference but the implementation construct is totally different (although the patent 2x gain does relate pretty closely to the work amplifier) Can you expand on how you see the details and usage of the false principle ?

PS: Thanks MrVibrating for your simulator support offer, I will definitely take you up on it when the need arises.

Regards, Red_Sunset

[Unbalanced]

Just when I thought that they had thrown in the towel, Four new pictures posted to http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ as work continues in Gilman Illinois.

[AB Hammer]

Looks like they have slowed down a bit. Most likely to figure out where they went wrong with the first one that no one has seen run.

[Grimer]

Just when I thought that they had thrown in the towel, Four new pictures posted to http://www.rarenergia.com.br/ as work continues in Gilman Illinois.

I don't see new pictures.

The last picture I see is dated 14 Dec 2013 which has been up for ages.

[Grimer]

To add to my last post the reason I came onto this thread at 1.30 am London time is that I believe I understand what RAR are up to.

Its the Chimney wot done it - and those enigmatic hammer people on the toy page.

More later.

[rlortie]

Grimer,

The latest pictures are dated February 6, 2014.

[Grimer]

For some reason they are not yet showing up on this side of the pond.

[Unbalanced]

Hi Grimer, your computer is likely pulling up a chached version. You might try refreshing the site once it's open or clearing your cache first etc.