Jump to content
Unexplained Mysteries uses cookies. By using the site you consent to our use of cookies as per our Cookie Policy.
Close X
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
vikram_gupta11

Mathematically proven Overunity mechanism

1,258 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

vikram_gupta11
52 minutes ago, Jampudding said:

Sorry, I can not see the video

The video I send you earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vikram_gupta11

Didn't you see the video.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vikram_gupta11

Hello are you online

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vikram_gupta11
59 minutes ago, Jampudding said:

Sorry, I can not see the video

See 324 no.post.i will have to tilt the counterweight only 91 degree from rest position then there will be no need as due to heavy weight of counterweight the device will get back it's initial position without any external influence.

If the device tilt 91 degree then take 40 cm.

Now use mgh

0.5*10*0.4=2 Joule

Impact is 8 Joule

Now tell me where I am wrong.

I challenge every Physicist if he could debunk it .there is no flaw in it.

You calculate input and output as per my equations as there are no formula will work in it.

You have Msc.in industrial engineering so it will be not a big deal to you to calculate it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dejarma
5 hours ago, Jampudding said:

We do understand

you've quoted the wrong person-- i didn't say that!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

There is a possibility that the OP is delusional in his own thinking.

After all, there is NOTHING in physics to support this outlandish claim.

Where is the self-REPEAT cycle?

Geeze... we are not stupid.

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ozymandias
9 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Ok.i clear your doubts and after that I don't think there will be need of prove it more.

See the sketch as per my video.

The ball weight is 400 gram

Distance from fulcrum  of tube 0.35 meter

The ball is resting 1 meter

Now use pythagoras equation to calculate exact distance of ball.

It will be 1.060 m.

Now use torque formula

Torque= rf=rmg

So torque of ball is 0.400*1.060=0.424

So counterweight will be only 424 gram to Balanced the seesaw.

But I took 500 gram to take advantage of heavy counterweight. So seesaw will be tilted .

Now if I am releasing the ball from 1 meter height  and it will travelled 2 meter.

Calculate bthe kinetic energy.

Mgh=0.400*10*2=8 Joule

And counterweight will be rotate more than 180 degree.

The reason is that the ball will have to lift up only 24 gram weight

As counterweight is 424 gram so the will do two work at first it will work to balance the seesaw then the energy will work to lift up only 24 gram weight.

This is the main reason of overunity in it.

 

 

 

 

IMG_20180216_193431.jpg

These calculations are rubbish and your analysis betrays a total lack of understanding of the dynamics of the system. The torque effect of the ball only exists while it is restrained by the pin. It has no effect while in freefall in the tube. Also, while the ball is in the restrained position its torque arm length is 0.35m according to your diagram, not 1.06m. The torque effect of the ball is entirely due to its weight which acts vertically downwards at all times no matter what position it is in. The torque arm is always at right-angles to the weight. Furthermore, you equate a torque of 0.424Nm with a counterbalance of 424g! A counterbalance of 424g at a torque arm length of 0.35m gives a counter torque of 1.484Nm, not 0.424Nm. 

You do not understand the physics of your own device and you certainly cannot analyse its operation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vikram_gupta11
27 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

These calculations are rubbish and your analysis betrays a total lack of understanding of the dynamics of the system. The torque effect of the ball only exists while it is restrained by the pin. It has no effect while in freefall in the tube. Also, while the ball is in the restrained position its torque arm length is 0.35m according to your diagram, not 1.06m. The torque effect of the ball is entirely due to its weight which acts vertically downwards at all times no matter what position it is in. The torque arm is always at right-angles to the weight. Furthermore, you equate a torque of 0.424Nm with a counterbalance of 424g! A counterbalance of 424g at a torque arm length of 0.35m gives a counter torque of 1.484Nm, not 0.424Nm. 

You do not understand the physics of your own device and you certainly cannot analyse its operation.

 

You have not understood the math in this mechanism.the tube length is 2 meter and it is connect in middle 1 meter above fulcrum and 1 meter below fulcrum.

The ball will be stopped after transferring it's energy to the generator but due to same length of tube from fulcrum the device will have to face gravitational potential energy .but as counterweight is heavy than ball+ height so the device easily counter the gravitational potential energy.

It is not rubbish but you are not understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vikram_gupta11
34 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

These calculations are rubbish and your analysis betrays a total lack of understanding of the dynamics of the system. The torque effect of the ball only exists while it is restrained by the pin. It has no effect while in freefall in the tube. Also, while the ball is in the restrained position its torque arm length is 0.35m according to your diagram, not 1.06m. The torque effect of the ball is entirely due to its weight which acts vertically downwards at all times no matter what position it is in. The torque arm is always at right-angles to the weight. Furthermore, you equate a torque of 0.424Nm with a counterbalance of 424g! A counterbalance of 424g at a torque arm length of 0.35m gives a counter torque of 1.484Nm, not 0.424Nm. 

You do not understand the physics of your own device and you certainly cannot analyse its operation.

 

The arm length is 0.35 meter and ball is resting on top of tube 1 meter from fulcrum

So what is the exact distance of ball from fulcrum?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vikram_gupta11
43 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

These calculations are rubbish and your analysis betrays a total lack of understanding of the dynamics of the system. The torque effect of the ball only exists while it is restrained by the pin. It has no effect while in freefall in the tube. Also, while the ball is in the restrained position its torque arm length is 0.35m according to your diagram, not 1.06m. The torque effect of the ball is entirely due to its weight which acts vertically downwards at all times no matter what position it is in. The torque arm is always at right-angles to the weight. Furthermore, you equate a torque of 0.424Nm with a counterbalance of 424g! A counterbalance of 424g at a torque arm length of 0.35m gives a counter torque of 1.484Nm, not 0.424Nm. 

You do not understand the physics of your own device and you certainly cannot analyse its operation.

 

You are forgetting the height of ball 1 meter above fulcrum in the tube and after hitting the bottom 1 meter down from fulcrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vikram_gupta11
44 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

These calculations are rubbish and your analysis betrays a total lack of understanding of the dynamics of the system. The torque effect of the ball only exists while it is restrained by the pin. It has no effect while in freefall in the tube. Also, while the ball is in the restrained position its torque arm length is 0.35m according to your diagram, not 1.06m. The torque effect of the ball is entirely due to its weight which acts vertically downwards at all times no matter what position it is in. The torque arm is always at right-angles to the weight. Furthermore, you equate a torque of 0.424Nm with a counterbalance of 424g! A counterbalance of 424g at a torque arm length of 0.35m gives a counter torque of 1.484Nm, not 0.424Nm. 

You do not understand the physics of your own device and you certainly cannot analyse its operation.

 

Do you know what you written.

You ,your self has proven it . consider it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vikram_gupta11
2 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

These calculations are rubbish and your analysis betrays a total lack of understanding of the dynamics of the system. The torque effect of the ball only exists while it is restrained by the pin. It has no effect while in freefall in the tube. Also, while the ball is in the restrained position its torque arm length is 0.35m according to your diagram, not 1.06m. The torque effect of the ball is entirely due to its weight which acts vertically downwards at all times no matter what position it is in. The torque arm is always at right-angles to the weight. Furthermore, you equate a torque of 0.424Nm with a counterbalance of 424g! A counterbalance of 424g at a torque arm length of 0.35m gives a counter torque of 1.484Nm, not 0.424Nm. 

You do not understand the physics of your own device and you certainly cannot analyse its operation.

 

I understand the physics very well,but you don't have knowledge of mechanical design s.you are engineer but I am sure not with mechanical stream.

How will you counter gravitational potential energy after ball hit the bottom.the only way is increasing the mass of counterweight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vikram_gupta11
7 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

You have not understood the math in this mechanism.the tube length is 2 meter and it is connect in middle 1 meter above fulcrum and 1 meter below fulcrum.

The ball will be stopped after transferring it's energy to the generator but due to same length of tube from fulcrum the device will have to face gravitational potential energy .but as counterweight is heavy than ball+ height so the device easily counter the gravitational potential energy.

It is not rubbish but you are not understanding.

Dear Sir,

This design will work.you are going deeply but there is no need.if the ball compressed the spring then in 2 round it's energy will be increased.

If possible then help to build it rather try to debunk.

There is no flaw in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ozymandias
1 minute ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Dear Sir,

This design will work.you are going deeply but there is no need.if the ball compressed the spring then in 2 round it's energy will be increased.

If possible then help to build it rather try to debunk.

There is no flaw in it.

There is no second round. Your device, which is nothing more than an elaborate pendulum, has never been able to complete even one round, i.e. recover its starting position.

You want me to help build it! Are you serious? How can you ask me to put my time into something that I know does not work? 

Is it peoples' money you want?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vikram_gupta11
Just now, Ozymandias said:

There is no second round. Your device, which is nothing more than an elaborate pendulum, has never been able to complete even one round, i.e. recover its starting position.

You want me to help build it! Are you serious? How can you ask me to put my time into something that I know does not work? 

Is it peoples' money you want?

You still didn't understand it.if ball falls down then it will compressed a spring and it's kinetic energy will be stored in spring + the device will get it's initial position so again ball fall down then the velocity of ball will be increased due to spring as spring will also released it's energy.

Sir, I am not greedy of money and I don't want people's money that's why I am asking for a team work and collaboration as accuracy is important in it .though I can build it but I cannot build it accurately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vikram_gupta11

The ball will hit the bottom  with increased energy in each stroke due to stored energy in spring.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vikram_gupta11

No Physicist can debunk it as there is no flaw in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Harte
3 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

No Physicist can debunk it as there is no flaw in it.

It will operate for all time, as long as each person that is oscillating it hands it off to someone else to provide those oscillations before he dies.

Harte

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 2/16/2018 at 7:43 AM, vikram_gupta11 said:

Didn't you see the video.

 

Here is what I see....

1. Ball in hand at 50 cm.... Potential energy.

2. Ball falling... Potential energy converts to Kinetic Energy

3. Ball lands in bucket... Ball transfers kinetic energy to device. Device reacts with a torque at the pivot point, moving at a speed Equal to what the new mass is accelerated to by the ball's kinetic energy transfer. This is affected by the acceleration due to gravity, such that it looses energy SO FAST that the device does not even swing back to the angle where it collected the ball. 

4. Device (basically) stops and ball once again is pulled down by gravity.

Where is the Over Unity in this? If more energy came out of the device then went in, where does that energy go?

NO ENERGY is made here. NO ENERGY is collected. The only thing that happens is the ball changes location and heat is produced in the air (by friction) and at the pivot point (by friction). 

Granted, energy can be created by attaching a collection device at the pivot point to turn, say, a gear. But that then leads to the question of how is the ball going to get back to the starting point? It is more efficient for a human to turn a crank then to repeatedly drop balls into buckets. This is born out by thousands of years of practical engineering.

This kind of device was invented maybe five thousand (or more) years ago. And it used water to turn a wheel.

Please read some Physics, and Heat Transfer, books to see what is going on in your examples.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 2/17/2018 at 1:06 AM, vikram_gupta11 said:

You still didn't understand it.if ball falls down then it will compressed a spring and it's kinetic energy will be stored in spring + the device will get it's initial position so again ball fall down then the velocity of ball will be increased due to spring as spring will also released it's energy.

Sir, I am not greedy of money and I don't want people's money that's why I am asking for a team work and collaboration as accuracy is important in it .though I can build it but I cannot build it accurately.

He is correct. Once your ball and bucket/spring contact each other, they are one system. There is no energy going in, or out, of the system at that point. Though the entire device will move based on any pivot point and conservation of inertia. You can't "gain" energy by using a spring. Any more then you could by using a metal ball dropped onto a magnet.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 2/17/2018 at 1:20 AM, vikram_gupta11 said:

The ball will hit the bottom  with increased energy in each stroke due to stored energy in spring.

The spring does indeed absorb energy... Until it releases the energy, which is what immediately tosses the ball back up. Each time the ball is goes up less far, because the energy is transferring to the entire device. The spring does not become "charged", it simple absorbs and releases.... there is no stored energy there.

This is all First Year college physics......

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jampudding
On 16-2-2018 at 4:45 PM, vikram_gupta11 said:

Hello are you online

As I told you before, in the real world were there are no bends in gravity, people have to attend to their business.

reading all messages here makes me suffer from thigh-slapping, eye-watering laughter...

Everybody with a degree in a science or engineering or even with merely a kitchen knowledge of physics sees the flaws but gets slapped on the bottom.

On 17-2-2018 at 10:25 AM, vikram_gupta11 said:

No Physicist can debunk it as there is no flaw in it.

You only take the formulas in account that suit you

It is like saying that a plane cannot exist because gravity is pulling it down.
just ignoring low and high pressure areas above and below the wings to create levitation, (to name one)

 

 

Edited by Jampudding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vikram_gupta11
2 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Here is what I see....

1. Ball in hand at 50 cm.... Potential energy.

2. Ball falling... Potential energy converts to Kinetic Energy

3. Ball lands in bucket... Ball transfers kinetic energy to device. Device reacts with a torque at the pivot point, moving at a speed Equal to what the new mass is accelerated to by the ball's kinetic energy transfer. This is affected by the acceleration due to gravity, such that it looses energy SO FAST that the device does not even swing back to the angle where it collected the ball. 

4. Device (basically) stops and ball once again is pulled down by gravity.

Where is the Over Unity in this? If more energy came out of the device then went in, where does that energy go?

NO ENERGY is made here. NO ENERGY is collected. The only thing that happens is the ball changes location and heat is produced in the air (by friction) and at the pivot point (by friction). 

Granted, energy can be created by attaching a collection device at the pivot point to turn, say, a gear. But that then leads to the question of how is the ball going to get back to the starting point? It is more efficient for a human to turn a crank then to repeatedly drop balls into buckets. This is born out by thousands of years of practical engineering.

This kind of device was invented maybe five thousand (or more) years ago. And it used water to turn a wheel.

Please read some Physics, and Heat Transfer, books to see what is going on in your examples.

I think you have just diverted the whole mechanism in wrong direction without understand in a hurry bto debunk it.but you cannot.

Tell me one thing you are dropping a 10 kg ball from 2 meter height.the ball is hitting the ground .you have spent 200 Joule energy to lift up.

Ok.now if you again liftup the ball from ground to 2 meter you will again have to spent 200 Joule energy.

And you will have to spend the 200 Joule energy in each lifting.

But in this mechanism you will have to spend 200 Joule energy only one time and it will be calculated as construction energy of device.there will be no need after that to lift up the ball again 2 meter height.

This is the main difference.

You say spring cannot store energy.from which physics you have learned that spring doesn't work to store energy.

I have said several times that ball will do two work at a time .it will compressed a spring and tilted the device.when it will compressed the spring with 200 Joule energy and if the spring efficiency is 90% then the stored energy will be 180 joule.a latch pin will work to hold the ball from reverse falling.

But remember the device is getting back its initial position with compressed spring+ ball.so in next stop the ball will fall down with 180 Joule energy or in other words the velocity of ball will be increased as due to gravity the spring will release it potential energy.

In this way after each stroke the device will move faster than previous stroke.

Hope you have understood the mechanism. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vikram_gupta11
3 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The spring does indeed absorb energy... Until it releases the energy, which is what immediately tosses the ball back up. Each time the ball is goes up less far, because the energy is transferring to the entire device. The spring does not become "charged", it simple absorbs and releases.... there is no stored energy there.

This is all First Year college physics......

The spring will release energy after the device get back it's initial position .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vikram_gupta11
1 hour ago, Jampudding said:

As I told you before, in the real world were there are no bends in gravity, people have to attend to their business.

reading all messages here makes me suffer from thigh-slapping, eye-watering laughter...

Everybody with a degree in a science or engineering or even with merely a kitchen knowledge of physics sees the flaws but gets slapped on the bottom.

You only take the formulas in account that suit you

It is like saying that a plane cannot exist because gravity is pulling it down.
just ignoring low and high pressure areas above and below the wings to create levitation, (to name one)

 

 

I am not taking formula as per my device but if there is another formula ,you know, except mgh then tell me.

The physics formulas are not against Overunity in this mechanism.even every formula supporting overunity in this mechanism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.