Mathematically proven Overunity mechanism

[vikram_gupta11]

2 hours ago, Jampudding said:

sure

 

Sir, please make an animation or a working prototype before bragging new ideas on this forum.

 

don't make sketches that nobody can understand, don't describe things as latch pin, spring based valve generator etc.
It only works in your head
Nobody can look into your head.

 

Also it is not really nice to tell other people they are wrong when they point out the flaws in your calculations 
If all people are telling you this, don't you think they are right and you in fact are ....not...?

It is disrespectfully, really...

 

please take their advice seriously, physics is vastly complex, and can not be understood just by kindergarten formulas used wrong.

 

So please for your own good, make sure you have proof in an animation made in a physics simulation software package or build a complete prototype

Dont build some crappy thing and say: "I have to add this and have to change this and that,..."

Dear Sir,

I will get time after 25 the March and build it.what all people are telling me?

No one is pointing the main flaw.just telling me about friction , friction,friction but friction is not an issue in this mechanism.

Edited March 16, 2018 by vikram_gupta11

[vikram_gupta11]

2 hours ago, Jampudding said:

sure

 

Sir, please make an animation or a working prototype before bragging new ideas on this forum.

 

don't make sketches that nobody can understand, don't describe things as latch pin, spring based valve generator etc.
It only works in your head
Nobody can look into your head.

 

Also it is not really nice to tell other people they are wrong when they point out the flaws in your calculations 
If all people are telling you this, don't you think they are right and you in fact are ....not...?

It is disrespectfully, really...

 

please take their advice seriously, physics is vastly complex, and can not be understood just by kindergarten formulas used wrong.

 

So please for your own good, make sure you have proof in an animation made in a physics simulation software package or build a complete prototype

Dont build some crappy thing and say: "I have to add this and have to change this and that,..."

Dear Sir,

I respect your advice.you are very much correct but you also know that it is time worthy to build it.

Ifphysics is vastly complex then how can you say that Overunity is not possible?

[toast]

20 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Friction,air resistance,heat are not issues in this mechanism.

Have corrected that for you:

The laws of physics, friction, air resistance, heat are not issues in this mechanism.

[vikram_gupta11]

1 hour ago, toast said:

Have corrected that for you:

The laws of physics, friction, air resistance, heat are not issues in this mechanism.

Offcourse

[danydandan]

Please don't bother making the mechanism as it won't work. As an engineer and physics lecturer I can guarantee it won't work. Overunity goes against all current understanding of laws of physics and thermodynamics. There have been papers regarding the second law being broken at the nanoscal level however it's not concrete evidence yet. I doubt a mechanism with so many moving parts as you described will not have issues with friction, heating and it needs to be started externally.

[vikram_gupta11]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Please don't bother making the mechanism as it won't work. As an engineer and physics lecturer I can guarantee it won't work. Overunity goes against all current understanding of laws of physics and thermodynamics. There have been papers regarding the second law being broken at the nanoscal level however it's not concrete evidence yet. I doubt a mechanism with so many moving parts as you described will not have issues with friction, heating and it needs to be started externally.

Dear sir,

As an inventor I take guarantee that it will work.

Where do you see so many parts in it.

The input will be very minimal and ball will get even more height than the dropping point after each fall and device will oscillate.

The input is very minimal and momentum is increasing at first attempt so why it shouldn't work.

You just tell me if I releasea pendulum from a certain height and it get more height in each oscillation than its releasing point then it will move forever or  not.

[vikram_gupta11]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Please don't bother making the mechanism as it won't work. As an engineer and physics lecturer I can guarantee it won't work. Overunity goes against all current understanding of laws of physics and thermodynamics. There have been papers regarding the second law being broken at the nanoscal level however it's not concrete evidence yet. I doubt a mechanism with so many moving parts as you described will not have issues with friction, heating and it needs to be started externally.

..and by the way where do you see so many parts except two fulcrums.

[+DieChecker]

Wait! Was there actual formula/equations with values posted somewhere??

Using the logic displayed in this thread, a bicycle is an even better Over Unity machine, because it can move an entire human at rapid speeds downhill with no input of energy. 

Viram_gupta11... Get a big stick, place a wheel on it, and spin the wheel while holding it out. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H98BgRzpOM

[danydandan]

38 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Dear sir,

As an inventor I take guarantee that it will work.

Where do you see so many parts in it.

The input will be very minimal and ball will get even more height than the dropping point after each fall and device will oscillate.

The input is very minimal and momentum is increasing at first attempt so why it shouldn't work.

You just tell me if I releasea pendulum from a certain height and it get more height in each oscillation than its releasing point then it will move forever or  not.

I'm sorry your right.

Make the device and show us it working. Using a kenetic energy formula isn't mathematical proof either by the by.

[vikram_gupta11]

32 minutes ago, danydandan said:

I'm sorry your right.

Make the device and show us it working. Using a kenetic energy formula isn't mathematical proof either by the by.

Dear sir,

I have already mentioned the all formulas .it is a n inelastic collision.so I don't think there is need of any other formula.

My calculations are very much correct.

See 21 no.page

[danydandan]

1 hour ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Dear sir,

I have already mentioned the all formulas .it is a n inelastic collision.so I don't think there is need of any other formula.

My calculations are very much correct.

See 21 no.page

Your calculations don't take into account drag factor, friction, heat loss and the fact the springs over time loose engery.

Also please explain how friction is not applicable to your device. Are you assuming you are conducting experiments in a true vacuum?

Regardless, just build the thing and we will see.

Edited March 17, 2018 by danydandan
Adding stuff

[vikram_gupta11]

2 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Your calculations don't take into account drag factor, friction, heat loss and the fact the springs over time loose engery.

Also please explain how friction is not applicable to your device. Are you assuming you are conducting experiments in a true vacuum?

Regardless, just build the thing and we will see.

Dear Sir,

I have done some simple but solid experiment to know the friction and got friction is not an issue even the ball is getting back its initial position even more even there is lot of friction,air resistance and wobbling.

 

[vikram_gupta11]

5 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Your calculations don't take into account drag factor, friction, heat loss and the fact the springs over time loose engery.

Also please explain how friction is not applicable to your device. Are you assuming you are conducting experiments in a true vacuum?

Regardless, just build the thing and we will see.

No.no,there is no need of vacuum in it.even I am assuming that it will also work in a gas chamber.

[vikram_gupta11]

5 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Dear Sir,

I have done some simple but solid experiment to know the friction and got friction is not an issue even the ball is getting back its initial position even more even there is lot of friction,air resistance and wobbling.

 

 

11 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Your calculations don't take into account drag factor, friction, heat loss and the fact the springs over time loose engery.

Also please explain how friction is not applicable to your device. Are you assuming you are conducting experiments in a true vacuum?

Regardless, just build the thing and we will see.

Dear Sir,

Can you please explain some point about the fact That the spring over time will loose energy.

There is no need of calculating the another three point.drag factor, friction,heat are not important in it.

Edited March 17, 2018 by vikram_gupta11

[danydandan]

6 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

No.no,there is no need of vacuum in it.even I am assuming that it will also work in a gas chamber.

I take it from your response you don't understand what a true vacuum is?

Consider a box isolated by outside world with no matter inside it. Absolutely nothing inside it. Also please provide detailed work regarding your experiments regarding friction not being an issue

 

[vikram_gupta11]

Just now, danydandan said:

I take it from your response you don't understand what a true vacuum is?

Consider a box isolated by outside world with no matter inside it. Absolutely nothing inside it. Also please provide detailed work regarding your experiments regarding friction not being an issue

 

Did you see the videos?

[danydandan]

12 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

 

Dear Sir,

Can you please explain some point about the fact That the spring over time will loose energy.

Springs loose their ability to store potential over time due to stress etc . Hookes Law

Edited March 17, 2018 by danydandan

[+DieChecker]

15 hours ago, danydandan said:

I take it from your response you don't understand what a true vacuum is?

After watching the videos, it is clear how much engineering he understands...

[danydandan]

31 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

After watching the videos, it is clear how much engineering he understands...

Inventors don't need to understand physics or basic engineering disciplines apparently. Not to mention the ability to clearly convey what their doing.

[vikram_gupta11]

2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

After watching the videos, it is clear how much engineering he understands...

Ok.i don't understand the engineering but if you are expert then you have understood the concept then tell me flaw.

You cannot find a flaw in it .all of you(engineering experts) are insisting that the ball will not get back it's initial position but I , without, engineering background,was confident that ball will get or even more height than the dropping point.

And ,no doubt,it is getting.

[danydandan]

The flaws have been pointed out by numerous people numerous times.

It would be great if someone did create a device that breaks the first law of thermodynamics as it would mean no more fossil fuels etc but considering the mountains of evidence that the first law can't be broken I, like most sane people, would need alot more evidence to support your idea. You have not provided any proof mathematical or demonstrative to disprove that energy can be created from nothing.

[vikram_gupta11]

14 minutes ago, danydandan said:

The flaws have been pointed out by numerous people numerous times.

It would be great if someone did create a device that breaks the first law of thermodynamics as it would mean no more fossil fuels etc but considering the mountains of evidence that the first law can't be broken I, like most sane people, would need alot more evidence to support your idea. You have not provided any proof mathematical or demonstrative to disprove that energy can be created from nothing.

Dear Sir,

My calculations  are very much correct.there is clearly difference between input and output.

See post no.509

The ball is getting more height than the dropping point and center of gravity is always in line with fulcrum due changing position of mass and fulcrum.

See the sketch that how it will work.

The tube length is 50 cm.the total arm length is 70 cm.

Now mathematical proof.

Consider in it an inelastic collision.

Initial data:

m1=1 kg

M2=1.2kg

V1=3.33m/s

Kinetic energy=5.54joule

Final value:

V2=1.51m/s

Kinetic energy=2.52 joule

Amount of kinetic energy lost in collision is=3.02 joule

Ratio of kinetic energy before and after Collision=0.45

Fraction of kinetic energy lost in the collision=0.54

So input energy will be 

Mgh=0.2*10*0.35

Input=0.70 joule 

Why,because the arm length and mass distance is equal from fulcrum but there is only 200 gram weight difference.

There is an another very interesting point.

The counterweight will compress a spring when the ball is in air .once ball hit the bottom of tube then the spring will release its energy and device will turn with great momentum.

 

Edited March 18, 2018 by vikram_gupta11

[vikram_gupta11]

17 minutes ago, danydandan said:

The flaws have been pointed out by numerous people numerous times.

It would be great if someone did create a device that breaks the first law of thermodynamics as it would mean no more fossil fuels etc but considering the mountains of evidence that the first law can't be broken I, like most sane people, would need alot more evidence to support your idea. You have not provided any proof mathematical or demonstrative to disprove that energy can be created from nothing.

Dear Sir,
There are two fulcrum A and B.
An orange color ball is in resting position on fulcrum B and a green color counterweight is resting on fulcrum A as per sketch.
The mass of ball is 1 kg.
The mass of counterweight is 1.2 kg.
There are two spring based brake system and only counterweight will hit with these spring brakes.
How it will work?
The initial position of device will be 178 degree.
So when we tilt it at 180 degree then the ball will be dropped down and hit with the bottom of tube of fulcrum A.
Due to impact a " spring based latch mechanism" will work to hold the ball from reverse falling down at the time when the arm will rotate clockwise.
Counterweight will also move from arm A to arm b.
In this way the ball will get back it's initial or even more height than the dropping point.
Now see the second sketch.
The ball will fall down again and the same thing will be happened but the arm will rotate anticlockwise.
The friction heat air resistance are not issues as both mass are exchanging their position from one system to another.
In this way this mechanism will work.
The latch pin mechanism will work in this way that it will lock and unlock due to mechanical power.

 

Edited March 18, 2018 by vikram_gupta11

[danydandan]

Them responses aren't proof. You don't take into account air drag factors, heat losses in multiple areas and how springs loose the ability to store potential over time. What you've described is not going to work. However I would love to see a video of a completed device working as you think it will.

[vikram_gupta11]

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

Them responses aren't proof. You don't take into account air drag factors, heat losses in multiple areas and how springs loose the ability to store potential over time. What you've described is not going to work. However I would love to see a video of a completed device working as you think it will.

The output is almost three times greater after each fall down and six time greater after each cycle so air drag factor and heat losses are not issues.

Now you say the spring will loose energy over time but I would like to tell you that it is not necessary to take spring .it will also work without spring as ball is getting more height than the dropping point.

We can use secondary lever system instead of spring.