FORCE MULTIPLYER.

[SEYCHELLES]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etATyYXmwzw

[Jim Mac]

Oh man- now that's crazy..  It's a universal lever system with a fulcrum that can act at any angle. And it seems we do not suffer the usual trade-off because the RPM from start to finish is preserved.

This is absolutely crazy to think about

[Excelsior]

A similar audible drop in RPM under load can be observed in some of Troy Reeds demos in the 80s / 90s.
It's indicative of Lenz drag in effect - although one may also say that like with any lever, it is just trading torque for speed..
Deserves a more scientific demonstration using known (stated) variables etc.

[Jim Mac]

A similar audible drop in RPM under load can be observed in some of Troy Reeds demos in the 80s / 90s.
It's indicative of Lenz drag in effect - although one may also say that like with any lever, it is just trading torque for speed..
Deserves a more scientific demonstration using known (stated) variables etc.

" it is just trading torque for speed"  -->  The thing is- the RPM of the rotor to generator stays constant.  This is not RPM conversion like a geared system.

" It's indicative of Lenz drag in effect"   -->  The point of this is not to eliminate Lenz Drag, but to increase rotational torque of the generator without trading RPM.

I have different AI models fighting between each other over this system.

[Jim Mac]

After more evaluation, this is what I see:  We end up losing any torque advantage we has at the generator coupling.

   

Think of a socket wrench on a bolt attached to the shaft.  We can't get the bolt off- so we find a longer wrench to give us more leverage.  This machine takes a Large circumference at the driving motor and converts it to a smaller rotational circle with more torque.  But as soon as we try to tap that smaller circumference to rotate the generator, we lose just as much leverage as we gained.  

Basically try to hand spin motor from it's sfaft, then put a propeller on the shaft and spin it again from the end of the propeller.  You will see how we lose all the torque

[Excelsior]

The prime mover is presumably running at about 1000RPM assuming a 1:5 ratio on the driving side of the assembly (it's probably higher than that, hard to tell at an angle) since the first drive gear is running at about 200 - 240RPM, at a guess

It is then increased again on the receiving end by using what seems to be a slightly smaller gear? and then fed into the generator at somewhere around the original speed. The diagonal "fulcrum" itself won't affect RPM.
I guess the idea is to "piggyback" extra torque in the process.

It's reminiscent of Skinners gravity machine but horizontal and not involving gravity in its operation.
The slight drop in RPM due to being under load affirms its authenticity iinm

Not sure why he was grinding the bearings, of all things..
Re. the AI situation - I'm interested in hearing more, what did they conclude so far?

[Jim Mac]

LOL I literally laughed out loud..  "I can either use a resistive load and show the watts-  OR I can go ahead and Grind The Bearings as proof..  "  Hahaha..  That's funny.

The AI's pretty much concluded there is a torque advantage but the rotational circumference is smaller on the high-torque side.  So the trade off is-  Higher Torque for a Smaller rotational circumference.  Still might be usable-  but just turning the center of the generator shaft wastes the gain.

[Jim Mac]

Applying torque at the outer edge of a rotating disc reduces the required force due to increased leverage, but the point of application moves faster through space. This means the linear velocity increases proportionally, so the product of force and velocity—mechanical power—remains constant.

Due to the above-  it is possible the gain is preserved.  This is worth further investigation

[Excelsior]

Probably wise to scale it down for proving the principle but it may be a challenge to source a suitable PM / Generator for the task.
Maybe a BLDC outrunner and a small PMA for DIY wind turbines

Then again - if RPM is maintained throughout and torque increases, is the PM / Gen. combo necessary?
Shouldn't a direct mechanical "loop" coupling suffice?

Maybe a monopole motor as PM with battery swapping would be preferable vs. a standard motor?
Or perhaps a Gerard Morin type setup?
It's simple enough that many different variations could be tried.

[webby1]

This setup is a multi-lever system. Just because one lever "rotates" does not change the force\distance relationships.

I think these kind of setups are worth the time to investigate, if for nothing else it teaches one a method to split the conversion of work into more than one path and then recombine the different work flows at the output.

Example: use an angled lever, say 15 degrees on both sides. Fix the length of the connecting rod but allow that rod to slide through the pivot hole. Set the distance of separation of the input and output levers to something shorter than the length of the connecting rod, now you can play push\pull on the connecting rod and cause rotation and at the same time you can use the leverage of the connecting rod.