For more vision and info of the system: http://www.rarenergia.com.br/
http://www.google.com/patents/US2011020 ... CE0Q6AEwCA
Finally, it only seems to be a nice "Com" ......
The "supposed" gain by lever arm .... I don't see how to escape zero effect!
Perpetual motion is?
-
- I learn econologic
- posts: 31
- Registration: 11/11/12, 10:23
- elephant
- Econologue expert
- posts: 6646
- Registration: 28/07/06, 21:25
- Location: Charleroi, center of the world ....
- x 7
"We have a small machine for experience and testing in our headquarter at Av. Pedro Ivo, 933"
Oh yeah ?????
0 x
elephant Supreme Honorary éconologue PCQ ..... I'm too cautious, not rich enough and too lazy to really save the CO2! http://www.caroloo.be
-
- I learn econologic
- posts: 31
- Registration: 11/11/12, 10:23
For those who want to realize the imminent arrival of free energy ...... the continuation of the series
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/
Well yes, to be limited does not preserve a possible reality !!!!!!!!
http://www.rarenergia.com.br/
Well yes, to be limited does not preserve a possible reality !!!!!!!!
0 x
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79364
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11060
Generator powered exclusively by gravity?
It has been around for 150 years: pelton hydraulic turbines, kaplan ...
In any case "they" found money ...
What is the principle / kinematics?
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
- Obamot
- Econologue expert
- posts: 28725
- Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
- Location: regio genevesis
- x 5538
surunitairedream wrote:Well yes, to be limited does not preserve a possible reality !!!!!!!!
It depends on which camp you place the said "bounded"And"field of the possible».
Yes, ipso facto, it is in the camp opposite to yours (which supposes the very existence of your post) in this case you are who to judge if the others would be "narrow-minded?Or not, if it is only to place yourself in the same predisposition of mind as that which you suppose to your detractors. Beautiful autogoal.
If in addition the "field of the possible"Only applies to the theories you believe in, it's called "Want to fart it serious", and well worth a Godwin:
Congratulations !
Because you Surunitairedream, you are not limited eh? No of course, NOT TOIIII noooonnnnn ...
0 x
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79364
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11060
Let him explain before you condemn him ...
0 x
Do a image search or an text search - Netiquette of forum
- elephant
- Econologue expert
- posts: 6646
- Registration: 28/07/06, 21:25
- Location: Charleroi, center of the world ....
- x 7
0 x
elephant Supreme Honorary éconologue PCQ ..... I'm too cautious, not rich enough and too lazy to really save the CO2! http://www.caroloo.be
-
- Moderator
- posts: 79364
- Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
- Location: Greenhouse planet
- x 11060
-
- I learn econologic
- posts: 31
- Registration: 11/11/12, 10:23
@Christophe:
http://www.google.com/patents/US2011020 ... CE0Q6AEwCA
The thank you box
@Obamot
"Thick headed"? : Error on my part! (Without any will to offend ..) The>
"Sufficient" is more appropriate, in the sense that too often I have had the impression (but no doubt, am I wrong?) That you give in to the ease of serving yourself too quickly, (without looking for more in depth what is the supposed meaning, little to be badly exposed, of the words of the author) in your bag "with ready answers" and with "situations already all explained".
You are very strong in the art of sarcasm, I agree, they hit the bull's eye, certainly, but I find it not constructive ...
My only posture is to read you, you from here and others elsewhere,
to fill my gaps a bit and sometimes give my opinion, nothing more.
I know even more than you (for having lived the shock of the disillusions ... following screwed up experiments) that only the "tangible" proof, of a possible overunity, to "VALUE".
The rest, whether it comes from me or others, is just "blabla".
Regarding this beautiful red Eiffel Tower of "free energy"> here is what I think:
I analyzed their system, and having noticed a great similarity with one of my past "proposals", I am able, experience doing, to know how their thing will not work .... that they would have been inspired to experiment in a smaller way before wallowing on "heavy".
In view of the (recent) addition> of a half crown connected to the rear of the offset arm, I deduce that they wish in the upward start of the movement to create a retraction from the top of the said offset arm .
So, for them, it is to believe that an internalized load compared to the other will generate a higher torque!
Where they get stuck is that if the support rod of the assembly-parallel arm / offset arm -performs on its lower axis (connecting rod arm) a circular movement .... it does not apply. even for the "real load" (mass) (at the end of the arm, where they will suspend a mass vertically at the end of the free rod), or more precisely for the "real" support point of this mass, which unlike the optical impression of writing, for its part, a simply vertical movement.
So, vertically, unlike in a circular situation, an "exteriority brings nothing more !!!!!
To have fallen myself into this / the following trap, I know that the use of two parallel arms serving as an axis / support for an offset arm, in order to keep it horizontal during rotation requires (loses) as much of strength for the horizontal maintenance that it gains by the maintenance in offset due to the horizontality maintained!
Unless by the way they know how to add a parade, by what I denounce above ... for me, it's badly barred for their investment !!!!
What is the principle / kinematics?
http://www.google.com/patents/US2011020 ... CE0Q6AEwCA
Let him explain before you condemn him ...
The thank you box
@Obamot
"Thick headed"? : Error on my part! (Without any will to offend ..) The>
"Sufficient" is more appropriate, in the sense that too often I have had the impression (but no doubt, am I wrong?) That you give in to the ease of serving yourself too quickly, (without looking for more in depth what is the supposed meaning, little to be badly exposed, of the words of the author) in your bag "with ready answers" and with "situations already all explained".
You are very strong in the art of sarcasm, I agree, they hit the bull's eye, certainly, but I find it not constructive ...
My only posture is to read you, you from here and others elsewhere,
to fill my gaps a bit and sometimes give my opinion, nothing more.
I know even more than you (for having lived the shock of the disillusions ... following screwed up experiments) that only the "tangible" proof, of a possible overunity, to "VALUE".
The rest, whether it comes from me or others, is just "blabla".
Regarding this beautiful red Eiffel Tower of "free energy"> here is what I think:
I analyzed their system, and having noticed a great similarity with one of my past "proposals", I am able, experience doing, to know how their thing will not work .... that they would have been inspired to experiment in a smaller way before wallowing on "heavy".
In view of the (recent) addition> of a half crown connected to the rear of the offset arm, I deduce that they wish in the upward start of the movement to create a retraction from the top of the said offset arm .
So, for them, it is to believe that an internalized load compared to the other will generate a higher torque!
Where they get stuck is that if the support rod of the assembly-parallel arm / offset arm -performs on its lower axis (connecting rod arm) a circular movement .... it does not apply. even for the "real load" (mass) (at the end of the arm, where they will suspend a mass vertically at the end of the free rod), or more precisely for the "real" support point of this mass, which unlike the optical impression of writing, for its part, a simply vertical movement.
So, vertically, unlike in a circular situation, an "exteriority brings nothing more !!!!!
To have fallen myself into this / the following trap, I know that the use of two parallel arms serving as an axis / support for an offset arm, in order to keep it horizontal during rotation requires (loses) as much of strength for the horizontal maintenance that it gains by the maintenance in offset due to the horizontality maintained!
Unless by the way they know how to add a parade, by what I denounce above ... for me, it's badly barred for their investment !!!!
0 x
-
- Similar topics
- Replies
- views
- Last message
-
- 23 Replies
- 16670 views
-
Last message by ABC2019
View the latest post
06/11/20, 07:57A subject posted in the forum : Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development
-
- 49 Replies
- 37737 views
-
Last message by ABC2019
View the latest post
06/11/20, 07:57A subject posted in the forum : Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development
-
- 115 Replies
- 71267 views
-
Last message by Christophe
View the latest post
24/05/12, 20:56A subject posted in the forum : Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development
-
- 2 Replies
- 6010 views
-
Last message by Remundo
View the latest post
04/01/10, 22:52A subject posted in the forum : Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development
-
- 31 Replies
- 45924 views
-
Last message by the middle
View the latest post
06/06/11, 08:28A subject posted in the forum : Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development
Go back to "Innovations, inventions, patents and ideas for sustainable development"
Who is online ?
Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 132 guests