Another claim to a working device...

[rlortie]

we might alter the locking points on the brace on a per-cycle basis, lifting a weight when it's light and dropping it when it's heavy, or else, we could spread the variation in locking points amongst multiple parallel mechanisms....

This may explain the reasoning for the serrated inner sides of the crank throws. They may act as ratchets working one way on the oscillating cycle.

Ralph

[MrVibrating]

Hadn't noticed that, but might be a good probability...

As ever, other stuff came up this w/e so i didn't get the time i wanted to spend on this, however i read a little more of the patent tonight, and have reached some further clarifications:

Consider that the horizontal armature protruding forward from the curved brace is firmly affixed to it - any weight hanging off the end of this beam is supported by either the vertical parallelogram section, or the crank push-rod, or some degree of both, via the locking stops at the corners of the curved brace.

The effective weight bearing on the stator and/or rotor varies as a function of angle - for the heavy drop, it is mostly borne by the crank push-rod, but for the light lift phase, it is mostly borne by the stator, via the trapezoid section...

I know that can't be right - it's just the current hypothesis.. should be easy to sim tho, will have a go tomorrow...

[justsomeone]

Too many questions.

Did the first one work?

Why no video of it running?

If the first one did not run, why build a second one in another country?

Does the U.S. government know this machine is being built here?

I am still not buying it! Something is fishy.

Why, with the patents viewable, can't our brighter members determine whether it works or not?

I know Bessler accomplished a working wheel but consider me a skeptic on this build.

[MrVibrating]

Well it'll all come out in the wash - only wish i had more time to scrutinize this patent, but still plodding thru it, slowly..

Here's a quick rendition of Fig. 10 from the patent, to investigate the forces involved:



I've highlighted the stops in red, and don't know how to do curves so used a circle for the brace. I've also used a circular weight again instead of a hanging block, to eliminate rocking... its mass is 50 kg, as an arbitrary reference weight.

So, as shown, the system is balanced and at rest; the stops are resting against their adjacent beams and there's zero static torque on the crank.

The crank is easier to turn counter-clockwise, and this is because when rotated clockwise, the brace/beam/weight assembly is rotated CCW, lifting the weight.

I'm not sure what else to test on this for now - any suggestions, anyone? If we remove or unlock the lower stop, there's a clockwise torque on the crank as the parallelogram droops downwards.

IF OTOH we remove the upper stop, then there's a CCW torque caused by the lower stop pushing leftwards against the crank push-rod. The brace/beam/weight assembly also rotates CW, lowering the weight, hence the greater PE when rotated in this direction. Of course, the weight has to be re-lifted as the crank passes 180° and comes back round.


So not at all sure what i'm looking at yet... am i right in linking the brace, beam and weight this way? Is there another possible interpretation i'm missing? Any thoughts or corrections appreciated...

[eccentrically1]

Does the U.S. government know this machine is being built here?

i guess the patent office knows..

So not at all sure what i'm looking at yet... am i right in linking the brace, beam and weight this way? Is there another possible interpretation i'm missing? Any thoughts or corrections appreciated...

that looks right. it looks like it has even more linkages going on. i think a sim will 'grind to a halt', too.

[MrVibrating]

Final thought for the night - if we follow the mechanism through a clockwise cycle of the crank, then during the first 180° the weight bobs up and back down once - a small lift and drop, or 'bump'.

At the same time, the brace, beam and weight are all descending as the parallelogram section droops.

After passing 180° BDC, everything is lifted back up, however there's no further bump on the brace/beam/weight assembly.

So it only bumps on the way down, but doesn't bump again on the way back up.

This seems to be the principle purpose of the mechanism. If there's a path-dependent asymmetry here, apparently it's staring us in the face right about now....

Anyone? Anybody?

Bueller?

[Art]

Hi Mr Vibrating ,

I admire your attempts to ‘Sim’ this device but fear that without some meaningful input from the designers of the mechanism you will likely be wasting your time . IMO there are too many loose ends to which there are no answers forthcoming !

However if you are looking to Sim a system to gain rotational energy through the manipulation of the forces inherent in the mass (ie the weight and inertia of the mass) which uses a ‘cranking ’ system of sorts I would like to direct you to a device built and tested by one of our members in 2012 .

The device was the ‘Cole Mechanism’ by Aemilius and is discussed in the post titled ‘ The Cole Mechanism ’.

On page 3 of this post ,in a post dated Dec 27th 2012 by Aemilius , is an animated diagram of the device which pretty well summarizes the system and should lend itself to a computer simulation .

The problem Aemilius had with this nicely built device was that he had to ‘crank’ a small lever by hand with an apparently very small amount of force to synchronise the torque from the ‘out of balance’ rotating weights . He was trying to automate this process back then and may still be working on it .

A Sim of the ‘Cole Mechanism’ might give an indication of whether the energy input to ‘crank ’ the hand lever is less than the apparent increased rotational energy of the rotating masses .

I’ll copy this post into the ‘Cole Mechanism’ thread to bring it up to date , and hope that you will have a go at it : )

Cheers Aemilius and Mr Vibrating .

[MrVibrating]

Cheers Art, i'll look into it when i get time, sounds interesting...

Last night i finally grasped what i think the claimant is trying to describe in the patent - the "force other than gravity" he's discovered is a variable class 1 lever, where the fulcrum is also the pin at the top of the crank's push-rod.

The weight bearing on this pin joint is the time-dependent variable, and switches between the net weight of the weight arm and the weight itself (irrespective of the weight's location on the weight arm), and the additional force of it being levered upwards - the pin joint being the fulcrum of this leverage effort.

Hence the claimant believes that the downward force acting on the lever's fulcrum adds to the gravitational force, during that stroke.

This leverage is achieved by switching the locking points on the brace, with respect to the horizontal, vertical and diagonal beams of the parallelogram, as discussed previously.

So there's simple tests we can do to evaluate this central hypothesis - without building or simulating the whole rig.

I'm unsure how to implement switching lock mechanisms in WM2D (i'm sure it's scriptable but haven't checked it out yet) - in the meantime i've disabled the "Prevent editing except at initial conditions" preference, so i can make a change at the precise interval, then continue with the current energies... basically switching on the fly, from the sim's POV.

Negative results so far, but i'm far from through yet...

This evening i used a little app called Ghost-It! to trace an accurate scale model in WM from the patent diagram fig. 6:

Model attached, though currently lacks any locks on the brace. I just wanted to get the scale correct, for the best chances of validation.

So i'm still some days away from anything conclusive - there's been no "aha!" moment, at which point i would expect to be able to plot an in-principle gain (or not) on paper, but i think i'll either replicate or bust this within the next week or so...

More later...

[MrVibrating]

I've now tested this pretty much to death - i've wracked my brains for any additional options or possibilities but can't come up with any configuration of this apparatus that does what it says on the tin.

The central claim laid out in the patent application is patently false, unfortunately. Specifically, the claim that the blue or green locking points (to the diagonal or horizontal bars) doubles the effective force driving the crank, is without foundation - this DOES NOT occur.

After exhausting every measure i could think of, the final nail in the coffin is torque tests for all three conditions laid out in the patent application;

1) applying the arc-lock to the Green positive bar, or

2) the Yellow Neutral bar

3) the Blue positive bar

...and plotting the torques driving the crankshaft for each of the three conditions.




As you can see, it's pretty much the same curve each time. I've not bothered doing the integration, as it's plain to see the variation's negligible. The 200% force increase claimed for the green and blue conditions is conspicuously absent.

The traces are from the model RE2_1 posted earlier, with the minor change that i ranged all, and selected 'steel' to give it some realistic mass (was previously 'standard'). I also tried increasing the mass of the hanging weight to 125kg (the patent app. states the machines under construction will have 1000kg, divided between 8 mechanisms, ie. 125kg per weight), but this just destabilised the mechanism.

I then raised the mass of the smallest geared wheel (lower left) to 1000kg to provide some inertia for the crank to work against (for a clean torque reading, and also to prevent the weight from rocking due to high accelerations).

Other than that, it's as described in the patent app. I've inverted the blue bar trace because the torque in this condition is counter -clockwise (the other two are clockwise) - this is because the arc-lock pushes leftwards against the blue bar. To get a clockwise trace would require an input of energy, throwing the measured output off... hence i've simply reversed the trace for easy comparison.

If anything, the yellow neutral bar yielded the greatest energy! If the claims were valid, this integral would be 50% smaller than the other two..

It's a shame, because i had high hopes there might be a big Bessler clue here, somewhere... but alas, nada.


It does seem inconceivable though that the claimant could genuinely believe the claims set out in the patent application.

My verdict: Scam/hoax/delusion... most likely fraud imho... Either way, his investors haven't done due diligence..

[MrVibrating]

Colour key for reference (the patent app. copy is only black and white)..

[eccentrically1]

Im still wondering what it looks like in action. It looks like it might work, if it had enough gravity and centrifugal force. Maybe some aerodynamic lift.
lol!

[Andyb]

Mr vibrating good work you have put in a lot of time here thank you ,it is a shame no real insight to be gained here other than your good work in showing this approach can not work, may be at some later point rar may show us how it is done or may be there is no way from this approach ,either way thanks for your dedication skill and time, ANDY.

[Red_Sunset]

I've now tested this pretty much to death - i've wracked my brains for any additional options or possibilities but can't come up with any configuration of this apparatus that does what it says on the tin.
.............................................
The central claim laid out in the patent application is patently false,
....................................................

It does seem inconceivable though that the claimant could genuinely believe the claims set out in the patent application.

My verdict: Scam/hoax/delusion... most likely fraud imho... Either way, his investors haven't done due diligence..

Hi MrVibrating,

You have done some good work on this conundrum, I am impressed !
This puzzle also has kept me entertained over the last few weeks. I like working with partners that do their homework rather than wire sitters that usually give un-researched opinions that disturb. This encouraged me to share my finding with you , I registered yesterday.

We need to be always somewhat cautious about output data from "simulators & computers", the output is only as good as the input, so your measurement might be skewed due to incomplete tuning data.

I found "one" & "main" underlying principle to what the inventor was aspiring to. And it is a good one with possibilities. I haven't taken it to the end of the road as yet, so I give no final verdict.

Let me share the following finding with you that might help you tune your simulation to give an output hopefully closer to the "actual".

The objective of the invention is to get (by means of a human introduced interference)
1.. More energy out of the crankshaft than we need to input into the crankshaft to restore all back to start point
or
2.. With the given energy out of the crank, we put less energy into the crank to rstore the system.

Both statements say pretty much the same, it is only a question on what side we tamper, the “up� or the “down� part of cycle.
Note that I said crank in the above, not weight.

What I describe here is only the descending part of the cycle. Do keep in mind that this is only one aspect, Ribeiro is looking at more than one additional principles to increase the balance difference. Although I think this is the core principle.

1.. The mechanical setup is a dual tandem roberval setup, the middle horizontal member is shared. The lower roberval is made up by the con-rod drive shaft as vertical member and the crankshaft as the lower horizontal bar. The upper and lower roberval are connected by the joint called “central shaft�

2.. The roberval forces, The weight attachement to a vertical member causes 2 forces
* The vertical gravity weight force
** The rotational lever force caused by the weight (dependent on weight location along the vertical member). This puts a tension on the top horizontal member and a compression on the bottom horizontal member.

3.. The arc connection mechanism locks allows choice to connect to vertical member of the top or lower roberval.

4.. When connected to the con-rod (lower vertical), we introduce an additional force onto the crankshaft arm (lower horizontal member). The rotational setup causes this force to be “for or against� at certain rotation quadrants. This lateral force is with the rotation in the 90-270 quadrant compared to the 0-180dgr for the axial gravity weight force.

5.. The 2 forces combine into a composite vector (vector parallelogram) at the lower connection joint (con-rod to crankshaft arm) that modifies the resultant vector angle to be better positioned to drive the crankshaft perpendicular through part of the descend rotation.

6.. Driving with force takes movement, so the energy taken by the lateral force in the 90-180 dgr quadrant to do work has been stored in the angular position of the triangle to where the weight is attached. So our crankshaft energy input in the first 90dgr is lessened by the storage requirement for the lateral force (tilt of the triangle) . The weight height drop for the axial force in these first 90dgr is estimated to be only 60% of what it would have been without triangular storage tilt. The storage peaks at 90dgr (furthest horizontal out position of the crank joint). The storage use is exclusively reserved for the “lateral force� and is used after 90dgr.
Note: This quantity of lateral energy can no longer be made available to the axial force.

In summary, In the process, we take energy away from the standard axial energy and so reduce the power over the first 90dgr of rotation, to add this towards a force vector angle improvement in the second 90dgr of rotation.

The main question; What is the difference between effective crankshaft power in the quadrant 90-180dgr and the 0-90dgr quadrant. An integration would clarify this.

No difference : Standard physics
Loss : worse than standard
Gain : This is what is being aimed for.

Notes
1.. The physical setup and other details are all chosen carefully to get the best advantage.
2.. The sin/cos phasing relationships plays also an important role.
3.. That both forces (axial & lateral) are similar in strength but their effectiveness as seen by the crankshaft is 90dgr out of phase
4.. It must be noted that the first quadrant reduces in angle and making the second 90 dgr larger in the process.

I hope this view gives you some new inspiration,
Regards, Red_Sunset

[MrVibrating]

@Andy - cheers mate, and if Rar come up with any new info i'll defo give it a look over; it took me long enough to realise there was a patent application giving all the details, and this type of claim has to be the pick of the crop, where the claimant is basically making full disclosure, allowing anyone to replicate, or not... this is the 1% of claims that keep me interested in this field, the ones that, real or not, make it all worthwhile... Claims like this are what it's all about!

As for the possibility of alternative interpretations of the application, reading and re-reading the claims, i think there's very little (ie. zero) room for any equivocation here; the central claim, referred to in the application as "claim 1", is the pivotal detail that all the other claims hinge upon - it's all predicated on this central claim.

And that is, that there's an additional, non-gravitational force exerted on the main shaft, and through it, to the crank, when the arc locks connect the weight arm to either the green or blue bars; this, over and above the force applied via the yellow "neutral" bar alone.

This central claim is re-iterated multiple times throughout the application, and everything else is predicated upon it - all the rest is but details on how to optimise and best utilise this putative asymmetry.

This supposed asymmetry is very carefully and explicitly specified as an additional downwards force on the crank, which is directly proportional to the relative lengths of the weight support arm, vs either the blue or green "positive" bars. As modeled here and repeatedly stressed in the application, both of these positive bars are the same length as the weight support bar, and thus (it is claimed) the force increase is a straightforward doubling - that is, if the main shaft experiences a force of say 10 Newtons when the weight arm is locked to the Neutral bar, then when it is locked to the green or blue bars instead, that force will be doubled to 20 Newtons.

So this central claim is very unambiguous and expressed in unequivocally clear terms, and repeated for clarity and emphasis throughout the application.

Yet as we can see, there is certainly no doubling of force under the stated conditions. If i had any doubt i would double-check this with a Mecanno model - and i'm ready to be convinced to try, too, if new evidence arrives.

But for now i believe the sim is sufficient - i did try measuring the force at the "main shaft" (the upper conrod pin) with the same result, however i settled on the crank torque as the best measure since it's the only meaningful one, at the end of the day - as the application expressly acknowledges, the whole point and means of harnessing the claimed force increase is to transmit it down the con-rod and into the crankshaft. If for any reason that force isn't arriving there, then all else is for nought..

I think my previous summation was fairly accurate; the underlying principle being attempted here is to add the downforce from a lever's fulcrum to the gravitational vector. This could be simplified to a balance arm, sitting on one end of a larger balance arm, and counter-balanced at the opposite end. If we add torque to the smaller lever's pivot, there is no additional downforce exerted upon it by this effort, regardless of the power ratio, and the larger balance it's sitting on will remain level.

I considered modelling this just to double check, but decided it wasn't worth the time - i'm already certain of the result, and besides it's redundant anyway as either way it clearly doesn't work in the current implementation... in other words, even if it WAS possible (and it isn't), this rig doesn't do it.

I still got a little thrill from the chase though... if we didn't view each failure with pleasant disappointment we'd all go mad eh...

[Oystein]

What bothers me is that it is not possible to understand the reason for building those two machines. An enormous 30kw generator filling a whole building is not useful at all. They even claim that it is not enough power to become a powerplant etc. Then the machine can only be used for demonstration purposes.

At the same time they write that they have a smaller working model!

Why build a larger model of the smaller working model, when it still can`t be used for anything practical, just filling up buildings? The smaller model would be much more handy, as the extra kw is not actually going to be used.

Why are the first machine not finished and shown working? They certainly have the people, material and resources available. It was planned to be finished autumn 2013.

Nothing seems reasonable to me. If they have a working concept, then the approach is still very strange.

Anyway, this is not Bessler principle, and time will tell if Bessler was right when he said that his principle was the ONLY way.