Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.

# Mathematically proven Overunity mechanism

## Recommended Posts

As per sketch a 2 meter long tube is mounted on the left arm of a seesaw and this see saw is balanced due to counterweight.there is a 10 kg mass ball located in the in rest position in the tube.

Now seesaw is balanced at 180 degree angle.when I tilt it this balanced seesaw then the ball fall down from 2 meter height and hit with upper part of tube .but interesting after hitting the seesaw will get back it's initial position without any external influence.so ball will again fall from 2 meter height.in this way the ball will fall down twicely but the main interesting point is that the input energy is almost zero as there is no torque due to counterweight.
There will be a lock mechanism to prevent the falling of counterweight at the time of tilting.
The ball will fall down after getting a certain angle as a pin will work to hold the ball to prevent it from sliding along tube at the time of tilting.
If there is no energy as a input as seesaw is balanced and torque is same then output is ,using mgh formula
Mgh= 10*10*2=200 joule at the time of tilting.
Mgh=10*10*2=200 joule at the time of reversing.

So total output is 400 joule but input will be almost free due to equilibrium position of seesaw.

I would like to tell everyone that don't consider this point that the mass is 2 meter below to fulcrum as I have added counterweight more so the seesaw will be in equilibrium position and there will be no need of adding energy in it.

the input will be very minimal but output????

• 1

##### Share on other sites

Why does the video show someone holding it if this seesaw is meant to be balanced?

The video contradicts your statement of no external influences and input energy.

• 2

##### Share on other sites

Its a Plonk-O-Bonk, a historical Indian musical instrument.

##### Share on other sites

In keeping with your previous visits, you have posted ZERO mathematical proof (do you not understand what a mathematical proof would look like?) and frankly, your explanation is gibberish.

If you claim to have an over unity device, why do you not just show it starting from still, and then running and getting faster, without any input?

Deja Vu, anyone:

Stop wasting our time and build a running device.  As you will discover, you can't.  That's because there's these basic physical laws that you clearly do not understand.  These claims that it is 'proven', when all you do is post an irrelevant equation and  some numbers that might as well come from your backside, are laughable.  The reason no-one is interested and will not donate money is that you clearly are either completely out of your depth, or a scammer.

Sorry to be harsh, but someone has to say it...

• 4

##### Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

Why does the video show someone holding it if this seesaw is meant to be balanced?

The video contradicts your statement of no external influences and input energy.

It doesn't matter that someone is holding or it is fix on a stand.

You say that no external influence and input energy.

I clearly mentioned that there will be no need of external influence as device is getting back its original position without any external influence or any other extra energy and have proven it.

Input energy will be very minimal due to counterweight but I didn't say that it will be zero.i said it will be almost free as torque is same on both side.but output will be much greater than input.

You can calculate input and output using mgh formula.

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

In keeping with your previous visits, you have posted ZERO mathematical proof (do you not understand what a mathematical proof would look like?) and frankly, your explanation is gibberish.

If you claim to have an over unity device, why do you not just show it starting from still, and then running and getting faster, without any input?

Deja Vu, anyone:

Stop wasting our time and build a running device.  As you will discover, you can't.  That's because there's these basic physical laws that you clearly do not understand.  These claims that it is 'proven', when all you do is post an irrelevant equation and  some numbers that might as well come from your backside, are laughable.  The reason no-one is interested and will not donate money is that you clearly are either completely out of your depth, or a scammer.

Sorry to be harsh, but someone has to say it...

Why do you raise money matter every time.have I asked you money to build it?

There is nothing beyond mgh formula and if this formula is supporting overunity in this mechanism then no one can challenge it.

You can consult with any Physicist.

##### Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, toast said:

Its a Plonk-O-Bonk, a historical Indian musical instrument.

##### Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Why do you raise money matter every time.have I asked you money to build it?

There is nothing beyond mgh formula and if this formula is supporting overunity in this mechanism then no one can challenge it.

You can consult with any Physicist.

Why doesn’t it work?

• 1

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Timonthy said:

Why doesn’t it work?

It has been proven that it will work but to move it continuously I will use two piston generator and mounted these generators on each side of long tube to extract energy of falling ball.this energy will work to feed a lever system which will work to tilt the device again and again.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

It has been proven that it will work but to move it continuously I will use two piston generator and mounted these generators on each side of long tube to extract energy of falling ball.this energy will work to feed a lever system which will work to tilt the device again and again.

Piston generators aren’t nearly efficient enough to support the system you’ve proposed. That is a very critical issue, not related to the issue of the system itself not being viable.

That you have considered piston generators as an option for this screams obliviousness.

• 1

##### Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

Piston generators aren’t nearly efficient enough to support the system you’ve proposed. That is a very critical issue, not related to the issue of the system itself not being viable.

That you have considered piston generators as an option for this screams obliviousness.

You are correct but if piston generators efficiency is 50 % ,however,the output will be more.

But at this point I would like to know your thoughts about extract energy  from falling ball.if you could propose some system to extract energy then I shall be very thankful to you.

##### Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

You are correct but if piston generators efficiency is 50 % ,however,the output will be more.

But at this point I would like to know your thoughts about extract energy  from falling ball.if you could propose some system to extract energy then I shall be very thankful to you.

You have shown a number of these "machines" here already but dont you wonder, as you think you have invented "free energy machines", why you dont earned at least one nobel prize? Or spend your time on a 2500HP Cigarette speed boat? Or to have a coffee with your neighbors Melinda&Bill?

Edited by toast
• 1

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

You are correct but if piston generators efficiency is 50 % ,however,the output will be more.

But at this point I would like to know your thoughts about extract energy  from falling ball.if you could propose some system to extract energy then I shall be very thankful to you.

Not to be overly straightforward, but thinking a 50% efficient piston generator would suffice is straight crazy. You’d need a system no one has ever conceived and >99%+ efficiency from a generator which doesn’t yet exist.

Sci-fi wise, it will work.

• 1

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toast said:

You have shown a number of these "machines" here already but dont you wonder, as you think you have invented "free energy machines", why you dont earned at least one nobel prize? Or spend your time on a 2500HP Cigarette speed boat? Or to have a coffee with your neighbors Melinda&Bill?

No,I don't wonder because I have this final design after working on several designs.i was looking for a that kind of design which could be proven mathematically , technically,no issue of friction,heat ,and air resistance.

This is my final design.

Hope your words come true to have a coffee with Bill and Melinda

##### Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Timonthy said:

Not to be overly straightforward, but thinking a 50% efficient piston generator would suffice is straight crazy. You’d need a system no one has ever conceived and >99%+ efficiency from a generator which doesn’t yet exist.

Sci-fi wise, it will work.

I am surprised that you think 50 % efficiency will be not sufficient.

Even I think 40 % efficiency will be sufficient as I have mentioned several times that input is almost free so there is only one thing.what is that? That is Output........

Edited by vikram_gupta11

##### Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

I am surprised that you think 50 % efficiency will be not sufficient.

Even I think 40 % efficiency will be sufficient as I have mentioned several times that input is almost free so there is only one thing.what is that? That is Output........

Then why isn’t it a real thing?

##### Share on other sites

Perpetual motion you say? Then your machine has, or will, posses the following characteristics:

1.) The machine should not have any “rubbing” parts: Any moving part must not touch other parts. This is because of friction that would be created between the two. This friction will ultimately cause the machine to lose its energy to heat. Making the surfaces smooth is not enough, as there is no perfectly smooth object. Heat will always be generated when two parts rub on each other (and that generation of heat is energy transference i.e, the motion machine losing energy).

2.) The machine must be operated inside a vacuum (no air): The reason for this has to do with the reason listed in number one. Operating the machine anywhere will cause the machine to lose energy due to the friction between the moving parts and air. Although the energy lost due to air friction is very small, remember, we are talking about perpetual motion machines here, if there is a loss mechanism, eventually, the machine will still lose its energy and run down (even if it takes a long, long time).

3.) The machine should not produce any sound: Sound is also a form of energy; if the machine is making any sound, that means that it is also losing energy.

I'll wait for the video.

• 3

##### Share on other sites

Why did I watch that clip.... The horror

That might have been the worst example of perpetual motion I have seen.
You have to tilt it by hand after each bounce. oh my

• 6

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Timonthy said:

Then why isn’t it a real thing?

I am laughing.will you please explain it.

Even there are several mechanism to store the energy.

##### Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Herr Falukorv said:

Why did I watch that clip.... The horror

That might have been the worst example of perpetual motion I have seen.
You have to tilt it by hand after each bounce. oh my

You at first entire thread that why I am using my handpower to tilt it and after that post your comments.the horror clip is proving overunity mechanism.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

Perpetual motion you say? Then your machine has, or will, posses the following characteristics:

1.) The machine should not have any “rubbing” parts: Any moving part must not touch other parts. This is because of friction that would be created between the two. This friction will ultimately cause the machine to lose its energy to heat. Making the surfaces smooth is not enough, as there is no perfectly smooth object. Heat will always be generated when two parts rub on each other (and that generation of heat is energy transference i.e, the motion machine losing energy).

2.) The machine must be operated inside a vacuum (no air): The reason for this has to do with the reason listed in number one. Operating the machine anywhere will cause the machine to lose energy due to the friction between the moving parts and air. Although the energy lost due to air friction is very small, remember, we are talking about perpetual motion machines here, if there is a loss mechanism, eventually, the machine will still lose its energy and run down (even if it takes a long, long time).

3.) The machine should not produce any sound: Sound is also a form of energy; if the machine is making any sound, that means that it is also losing energy.

I'll wait for the video.

1 hour ago, I'mConvinced said:

Perpetual motion you say? Then your machine has, or will, posses the following characteristics:

1.) The machine should not have any “rubbing” parts: Any moving part must not touch other parts. This is because of friction that would be created between the two. This friction will ultimately cause the machine to lose its energy to heat. Making the surfaces smooth is not enough, as there is no perfectly smooth object. Heat will always be generated when two parts rub on each other (and that generation of heat is energy transference i.e, the motion machine losing energy).

2.) The machine must be operated inside a vacuum (no air): The reason for this has to do with the reason listed in number one. Operating the machine anywhere will cause the machine to lose energy due to the friction between the moving parts and air. Although the energy lost due to air friction is very small, remember, we are talking about perpetual motion machines here, if there is a loss mechanism, eventually, the machine will still lose its energy and run down (even if it takes a long, long time).

3.) The machine should not produce any sound: Sound is also a form of energy; if the machine is making any sound, that means that it is also losing energy.

I'll wait for the video.

I'm convinced Sir,

You will get surprised that these are not  issues in this mechanism.there is friction ,air resistance,heat but gravity will work to overcome these issues.

The device in the video has very much friction but getting back its initial position without any external influence due to gravity.

So please don't consider these issues as a hurdle in this mechanism.

That's why I am insisting that there is clear-cut overunity in this mechanism.

99.99% devices we're not survived due to friction and  air resistance issues but interestingly these are not issues in this mechanism.

You can consult with any renowned Physicist and he will tell you same thing as I told you or raised by you that in this kind of mechanism these characteristics will not create hurdle,not at all.

The salient feature of this mechanism is that friction,air resistance are not issues,p.e.is increasing.input is very minimal.output is greater,Noether theorem will not work in this mechanism as Noether theorem works only in continuous running devices,load is not a problem then why there is no overunity?

There is clear-cut overunity.

Edited by vikram_gupta11

• 1

##### Share on other sites
7 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

It doesn't matter that someone is holding or it is fix on a stand.

But you said the seesaw is balanced, the video doesn't show this.

7 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

You say that no external influence and input energy.

No, you said that. I said the video doesn't support your statement.

7 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

I clearly mentioned that there will be no need of external influence as device is getting back its original position without any external influence or any other extra energy and have proven it.

Gravity is making it fall back to it's original position after you tip it. These are both external influences.

• 1

##### Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Rlyeh said:

But you said the seesaw is balanced, the video doesn't show this.

No, you said that. I said the video doesn't support your statement.

Gravity is making it fall back to it's original position after you tip it. These are both external influences.

It doesn't matter that seesaw is balanced or not as it will get reversed .if it is getting it's initial position due to gravity then where do you see external influence? Why are you not considering that at the time of reversing it is not using energy.so what is this?

##### Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Herr Falukorv said:

This is using chemical energy.