Own up please.

[murilo]

My pleasure to do so Murilo - it's long overdue.

You have proved yourself dim witted on at least two fronts.

Instead of introducing your avalanche drive ad nauseum to every new member in various threads, when they are vulnerable, you have not the wits to include a web site link in your signature space beneath your posts so that these very same people could find there way there to review your theory & progress on their own or with a little polite prompting from you.

Secondly, I have witnessed scant evidence of you helping anyone - you learn in this business by analysing others designs & seeing if your method of analysis & ability to do so lines up with others, with a similar result - or you get your hands dirty - you learn from that experience & pass on some of that learning to others not confident to enter discussions at that level - that's is helping others - assuming you are not too lazy to do the maths or physics I can only assume you are too dim & not interested in educating yourself, even though you have access to the whole of the internet as a resource to self educate from.

We all want a free energy engine to materialize one day - but first we must understand why designs & theories don't or can't work & you are no exception - there is only one option to disprove the current laws of physics - that is produce a POP that disproves them empirically by demonstration - the two possible conclusions to be drawn from that are these ...

1. that the laws are correct & you are taking input energy from the environment, in which case the laws are correct.

2. that some contrivance of your machine acts in a way to 'shield' gravity or 'appearing to shield' gravity allowing positive torque & reducing back torque to allow it to self sustain - if this is the case then at some level the laws of physics will have to be re-written & gravity could be viewed as non-conservative under these conditions unless a better or more detailed explanation unfolds - you'll get a nobel for that math & physics explanation because it's a big ask overturning thousands of years of prior learning that built the technology around us today.

You are now on my ignore list along with a few other dim, delusional &/or deranged individuals.

Fletcher,
I have the strong feeling that you are now dealing with some personal issues... possibly... because I don't understand why you came to this discussion, that has nothing to see with you.
I'm sure you lost a great opportunity to keep yourself in silence and I'll not lost mine! 8|
TC!
Murilo

[murilo]

Murilo,
Hi my brother, all be it adopted! I did a quick test build on the same principle as yours to see if I could fix it, I could not! The gearing ratios needed to make it work is what will keep it in equilibrium.
As a friend I tell you this, you have a very inventive mind and the only thing that is holding you back is sticking with the avalanche design.
With much respect from someone who is equally stubborn your brother Trevor
Edit, I will PM you with a suggestion!
Edit, I sent you another PM, the avalanche problem may also be its solution!

Hi all,
First thing first, I have a lot of respect for Murilo, I made a post here to discorage him from the avalanche drive, which I thought was gear between the top and bottom cog and it worked from the top cog, then it became clear that it is a weight dump to make one side heavier than the over, I sent Murilo 2 suggestion the first was no good as I realised after I sent it that it also had ratio problems, then the solution came to me the problem of the ratios was the solution, you would think you need to drive the top gear twice as fast as the bottom gear but you would be wrong! The answer is to slow the bottom gear by making it twice as big as the top gear, it now takes the weights twice as long to go round the bottom gear so now the top gear and the bottom gear can be linked with seprate linked gears to connect the main weight chain gears, so now you have twice the weight pushing down on the bottom main gear which is twice as big so it has twice the torque and you only drive the top wheel at Two to one ratio, also now you can make the weight chain longer, it would also be best if you lead out the weight chain out of the bottom gear sooner that later.
This is what I would do to fix the Avalanche Drive I make it clear that I give this information free to Murilo as you all can see in this post, I ask one thing in return that he pays for my drinks to toast his success should it work.
Kaine, Fletcher take a look and see what you think, Murilo I apologise for taking liberties as it may have been aready been cover by you! it still has some problems but I think it looks better like this!
Regards Trevor
Edit, ratio mistake change to two to one

Trevor,
please, be welcome when you try to talk about with rational thoughts and trying to help.
Your above msg is a little confused to me, sorry.
There is a basic point: we must take a separated look at what is a physic stuff and what are simple mechanical details, open to evolution.
As said, the variations will come and your view is valid.
Thanx!
Best!
M

[murilo]

The problem with Murilo's Avalanche drive is that there are certain mathematical ratios that exist and cannot be broken. The falling weights enter the bottom sprocket at a certain radial distance from the sprocket center. And the rising weights leave the bottom sprocket at a certain larger radial distance. This produces a lever effect. The weights are on a continuous chain, and thus for every weight that enters the bottom sprocket a weight must also leave the bottom sprocket. The weights enter at a slow speed and at a smaller radius. They leave at a faster speed and at a larger radius. This acts the same as all levers. No matter what leverage ratio one might choose, the end result is the many weights on the falling side multiplied by the short radius always exactly matches the fewer weights on the rising side multiplied by the longer radius. Mathematically the two sides always balance, no matter what dimensions one chooses to use to construct the mechanism.

I've tried many times to explain this to Murilo, but he simply refuses to listen.

Then Murilo keeps spamming other threads, telling everyone about his avalanche drive, which is starting to really irritate some long time serious forum members.

Jim,
here you come with your weird draws, done at the weird way you decided.
No... I'll not expend and waste my time with a dialogue with you.
There is no way where you will read me.
Your simple mind oversize my stupidity.
Please, take a look at this photo and TRY to absorb its data.
Let's see what you'll get!
TC!
Murilo

[11Turion]

Gentlemen,

Devices that produce more energy than they take to run are out there. There are LOTS of them. I have built several over the years. Some of the John Bedini builds meet this criteria. The issue is whether they produce ENOUGH extra to run significant loads as well as enough power to continue to run. This, I believe, is the crux of the matter. Sure, they power a couple tiny lights, but will they do real work. Maybe Mr. Bedini's stuff WILL do that, but none of his stuff that I have replicated will. That could be because I have had bad info or that I'm a crappy builder. I give him ALL the benefit of the doubt in the world, because of things that I have seen.

I am working with a setup right NOW that seems to produce pleanty of excess power, however it still has some issues. At this exact moment (Tuesday September 18, 2012 at 8:34 AM Pacific Time) I can get my motor to run a generator off of three 12 volt batteries and produce power with that generator that is MORE than what it takes to run the motor by a significant degree. It will draw down on the primaries because of things that are in the circuit which I and others are working on eliminating (and we believe CAN be eliminated), and then there will be no losses to the batteries whatsoever while still powering the motor, which runs the generator. As it stands at this moment, the system can be looped and WILL self run.

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable ... ystem.html

see post 1385 on page 47 for the three latest videos. They aren't very professional, but I am using an iPhone and trying to do things at the same time, so give me a break.

Should you choose to participate in this thread, please READ the thing. We are posting pretty much everything we know (up to a point) so that others can replicate and you will see that MANY others have seen what I am seeing. Why EVERYONE isn't working on this simple device I don't know.

Right now we feel we have a patentable concept and are in the process of raising venture capital and continuing our research to scale this thing up. I am perfectly capable of raising that venture capital myself, and wouldn't trust anyone I "met on the internet" so this is not a request for funding. We shared everything up to a point. People built replicas and they worked, but they couldn't KEEP them working, so they lost interest. Getting help figuring out how to KEEP it working was why I posted in the FIRST place, but that is where people seemed to lose interest, and then we quit sharing. Our research has continued and we have had some breakthroughs that we did not post simply because an opportunity has arisen to patent something and make some money. But the basics of what we have discovered is all there and anyone could spend the time we have spent to continue on from where we left off on that site and come up with a working setup. Or not. Your choice. As it is, you can build a very simple device out of parts you probably have lying around and see EXACTLY what we are talking about, and then you will know that this is for real.

You wanted someone with a working prototype?....I have one. It does need to be scaled up so it is a BIG motor driving a BIG generator, but all the principles that make it work are EXACTLY the same.

If YOU build the setup with the parts as they are laid out on page one of the thread, YOU will also have a working device, It is EASY to build one...but it will only work for a while. Then it will quit working just like it did for me and for everyone else on the thread who got it working. Most of them quit at that point. I did not. It has taken me four years and a lot of help from a couple friends to figure out how to KEEP it working, and that is the secret worth patenting.

Dave

[daanopperman]

Dave ,
I have no experience in your work but I really would like to try your setup , I have four 350 AH lead acid batteries in different stages of deadness , from 14 v when fully charged to 0 volts fully charged , all old batteries that I use only one of on a wind generator . That was the reason for me to start looking for ( free ) alternative energy as after I build the wind gen I now have to move to a different location for a smoke every time so I don't inhale yesterdays smoke , the wind does not work all the time . The batteries came from pallet jacks with a hydraulic power pack so I have the motors to suit the batteries , the only thing I don't have is one of them AVG batteries . When you say a BIG motor and a BIG generator what size are you referring to . I will give you all the feedback I can collect , and that will happen soon as anything that can generate any useable power should be investigated and if possible be used by as many as possible .

Daan .

[11Turion]

daanopperman,

You can put the setup together with two good batteries, any brushed DC motor and one of your bad batteries according to the directions in post # 1 on the 3BGS thread. Your results will depend on the battery in the third position. WIth a completely dead battery it may take up to 30 minutes to start up, or it may NEVER start up if the battery is truly dead. And I should tell you that this setup has brought batteries back from the dead that people could NOT believe, so if nothing else, there is THAT aspect of it. Follow those directions and I promise you will see some amazing stuff, even without an AVG battery. It just probably WON'T charge the primaries or maintain a charge on them indefinitely. They will slowly lose some energy, but I promise you will get run times on your motor that FAR surpass what you would get off of two batteries that are fully charged. You will see for yourself. Who knows...with the right battery in the third position, you MIGHT get the primaries to actually charge under load. I have seen it happen and if you read the thread, you will see that others have seen it too. You will need some way of putting a load on the motor and increasing it, and some way of hooking up a load to battery three to keep it from charging, because once it has too much voltage in it, the setup quits working. If you have problems or issues, post over there. I check that thread about 50 times a day to see if anyone is posting. Right now it is totally dead. Those of us still working on this are on the phone and by email a half dozen times a day.

As to the scaling up. I am running a small 1 1/2 hp motor off of the 12 volt potential between two batteries in series and a single battery. To run a motor in a car I would need the difference to be at least 72 volts, and a much more powerful motor. To run a generator capable of powering a home would also take a larger motor, which should be matched to the generator. I am in the process of building a modified motor and generator of UFO's design (see http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable ... hines.html for the design of his motor and generator...because I have built them and they WORK as he claims, or at least the MOTOR does...I haven't built the generator.) The motor and parts were just over $800.00 so this is not something I take lightly. What my friends and I have been working on is a way to use an off the shelf motor to do the same thing so it doesn't have to be rewound like UFO's design but for now it is the most efficient design I have found.

Dave

[bobriddle]

[Please, take a look at this photo and TRY to absorb its data.
Let's see what you'll get!
TC!
Murilo

Jim_Mich might be right unless you try hanging weights on side (having more). The weight would still be on the lower pulley. of course, the 2 pulley's would need to be connected to maintain the imbalance (maybe). might be worth checking out.

adding a pic Murilo. if all of the links are evenly spaced, more can be on the left side. Then with leverage, there is even more potential.
Who knows, you might have something.
It's just that the extra weights besides adding more mass would cause the weights on the left side to be further from the center of the 1 to 1 gears you use.

Bob

another edit :-( A shows the approximate center of force of the links on the left side if extra links equally spaced as the right side (as all links), were added.

[murilo]

Bob,
thanx for your time. You are almost there...

The 'armed' mass for expanded chain is 50% lighter than contracted pile, besides same high - other values under your choice.

When you reach my project you'll be surprised, but don't let others 'construct' your vision. Try to think by yourself, I'm not asking anything else than this!

This last photo is to show another new version for the wheel I use in my device, where the radius is 3x the chain's width.

Never to forget that:
-both reversions sets are apart of main potentials
-these main potentials may be elongated as wished, to increase power.

Best!
TC!
M

[bobriddle]

Murilo,
Can you redo this one drawing of yours ? You see, going from the center of yuor gears on top to the bottom one, there are 9 weights on the left side and 5 on the right side.
The change I am going to suggest is up to you if you want to. It might help everyone to "see" what you are trying to do.
The modification of your design would be to have the top and bottom gears the same diameter and number of teeth per inch. The modification would be to have a gear 1/2 the diameter support the weights on the left side. Then when those weights drop, the larger gear would then move them twice as quickly aound the bottom and back up and over the top.
Since force is calculated mass times velocity, both sides would have the same force. But it might be possible as you wonder is if the heavier side provides the work and in moving the lighter side, the lighter side would have an equal force to account for the work being performed by the heavier side. Just a few thoughts :-)
And one last thing, could you trying pushing a chain up from the bottom with your hand ? If you can't, your invention wouldn't fare much better I'm afraid.

Bob

A is the smaller drive gear
B is the larger gear returning the chain weights to the top
C are equal number of chain weights
D are chain weights that create an over balance

edited to add; it is possible Jim_Mich is right. Would be why I suggested hanging more weights on one side with all weights equally spaced. Would be similar to how sailboats are "over balanced" to keep them from tipping over. Would be easiest thing to try.

[murilo]

Bob,
I'm not sure if I can understand you. This draw done by J_M is not the best one, be sure. Use my draws as in file to comment.

The question upon speeds is not exactly simple.

'Mass times velocity' calculation asks for the 'geometric square' of time - acceleration. 8)

BUT in static state, it's true that the products are the same, as I said MANY times before. The operation as I see is to NEVER let the set free BUT hold much before maximum speed is reached. The use and manage for this high torsion is a fact! 8)

The top reversion is to be - under my preference - passive and free, and even doesn't need a wheel!

Yes and absolutely: both chain sets acts just like FREE 'linear pistons' and if you have a good strong arm you can support or lift them, and even experience their different potential! 8\
Best!
M

[daanopperman]

Dave ,
I checked your video on the link but lost the con. just where your motor started to run , just one question , your dynamo , how much volts and amps and your motor rpm . I have a 48 v motor dc permanent m motor , to be used as the motor , and a 200 v dc pm motor to be used as a gen/dynamo . The 200 v motor will generate 60 v 20 amps at 1200 rpm , but I will not reach that rpm with the 48v motor . On the wind gen . it can del. 24v + at 10 amp at + - 200 rpm , that will be my target . The batteries I had a good look , they are 132ah at 5 hr rating , not 350ah as stated before . It will be a skeleton of your work just to see what is going on , I need to make a coupling between the 2 motors and then get those batteries all in one place , about 100 kg each . Oh yes , the dead battery , would it not be possible to move the plates out of the casing where the electrolyte is in to keep it from reaching a to high potential , I will sacrifice one battery ( a dead one ) for a trial . The batteries I have you can remove the plates from the casing is you cut the bridges between the cells and remove them one by one , that's not what will happen when removing them from the electrolyte though , they will come out all in one go with a pulley or tackle .

[preoccupied]

I have invented PM but am keeping it a secret.

Bribe me.

[daanopperman]

preoccupied ,
I'll see you for a greenie .