Mathematically proven Overunity mechanism

[vikram_gupta11]

8 minutes 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.

You are also forgetting the energy of counterweight.

Even counterweight will also work to generate energy.

[danydandan]

2 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

You are also forgetting the energy of counterweight.

Even counterweight will also work to generate energy.

I admire your conviction. Just make the device and post the video.

[DirtyDocMartens]

If you are having trouble with construction for whatever reason, you can send me the plans and specs, and I'll build one then post a video. I'm a sculptor, and also constructed industrial wastewater treatment systems for an environmental engineering firm. That will answer the question in short order.

[danydandan]

6 minutes ago, DirtyDocMartens said:

If you are having trouble with construction for whatever reason, you can send me the plans and specs, and I'll build one then post a video. I'm a sculptor, and also constructed industrial wastewater treatment systems for an environmental engineering firm. That will answer the question in short order.

He posted sketch's. They aren't very detailed could you build it based on the sketch's?

[vikram_gupta11]

10 minutes ago, DirtyDocMartens said:

If you are having trouble with construction for whatever reason, you can send me the plans and specs, and I'll build one then post a video. I'm a sculptor, and also constructed industrial wastewater treatment systems for an environmental engineering firm. That will answer the question in short order.

Dear Sir,

At first million thanks for this post.

I send you details of plan and details of each part .

Also several sketches.

 

[vikram_gupta11]

30 minutes ago, DirtyDocMartens said:

If you are having trouble with construction for whatever reason, you can send me the plans and specs, and I'll build one then post a video. I'm a sculptor, and also constructed industrial wastewater treatment systems for an environmental engineering firm. That will answer the question in short order.

The difficult part is latch mechanism ( spring based) 

Though if we want to show that the ball will get more height than the dropping point then can use fixed latch pin but there will be some problem s

The main problem is entrapping of ball in fixed latch pin

 

Edited March 18, 2018 by vikram_gupta11

[+DieChecker]

15 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

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.

I've outlined the flaws several times, and each time you say your formulas show such not to be true, and post a video of you swinging a lever around like a highschool cheerleader. 

You state the problem in your logic right there.... "...but I , without, engineering background,was confident that ball will...". You are confident, but haven't shown a single reason to be confident. 

Build a solid structure. Mount your device onto it. Create a method to remote activate the device (a string probably would do). And then make a video showing the device swiinging from the initial position to the capture position. AND, then show it going back to the original position when it is released a second time. This will have to work in both directions to be feasible at all.

Then if by some miracle that does work. Take a very small motor, and mount it to the shaft the lever swings on. Mount it solidly so it can turn with the shaft, or so that it has a gear/wheel that is tight with the shaft and turns with it. Then attach that motor to a very weak light source. Maybe a tiny diode. Then repeat your previous experiment by releasing the device so it swings one way and then back the other way. See if the tiny amount of electricity created by the motor lights up the diode. You can use as weak a motor/generator as you like, but the drag it causes (even to light a tiny diode) will cause the device to fail to reach your locking position.

This will then be proof there is no Over Unity.

If by some method, you do get the device to lock back ever time, and you light the diode, then by ALL MEANS go get a patent and begin working on selling it to the energy industry. 

[+DieChecker]

13 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

You are also forgetting the energy of counterweight.

Even counterweight will also work to generate energy.

Counterweight only allows control of the torque on the shaft, and thus the acceleration and velocity of the turning of the shaft. It does not generate energy, it only helps determine how fast the energy is moved.

[vikram_gupta11]

20 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I've outlined the flaws several times, and each time you say your formulas show such not to be true, and post a video of you swinging a lever around like a highschool cheerleader. 

You state the problem in your logic right there.... "...but I , without, engineering background,was confident that ball will...". You are confident, but haven't shown a single reason to be confident. 

Build a solid structure. Mount your device onto it. Create a method to remote activate the device (a string probably would do). And then make a video showing the device swiinging from the initial position to the capture position. AND, then show it going back to the original position when it is released a second time. This will have to work in both directions to be feasible at all.

Then if by some miracle that does work. Take a very small motor, and mount it to the shaft the lever swings on. Mount it solidly so it can turn with the shaft, or so that it has a gear/wheel that is tight with the shaft and turns with it. Then attach that motor to a very weak light source. Maybe a tiny diode. Then repeat your previous experiment by releasing the device so it swings one way and then back the other way. See if the tiny amount of electricity created by the motor lights up the diode. You can use as weak a motor/generator as you like, but the drag it causes (even to light a tiny diode) will cause the device to fail to reach your locking position.

This will then be proof there is no Over Unity.

If by some method, you do get the device to lock back ever time, and you light the diode, then by ALL MEANS go get a patent and begin working on selling it to the energy industry. 

What you are not understanding is that the ball will work to extract energy .direct impact of ball will work to generate energy .the arm is just for lifting up the ball again on it's initial position.

Impact energy of ball will compress a piston generator and this generator will work to extract energy in it.

Try to understand the mechanism.

[vikram_gupta11]

20 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Counterweight only allows control of the torque on the shaft, and thus the acceleration and velocity of the turning of the shaft. It does not generate energy, it only helps determine how fast the energy is moved.

Again you are forgetting that the counterweight ( also a ball)  will change it's position so it will also do work .and the work done by the counterweight will also generate energy.though the counterweight will be slides along the tube.

The impact of ball is important in it .

[vikram_gupta11]

26 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Counterweight only allows control of the torque on the shaft, and thus the acceleration and velocity of the turning of the shaft. It does not generate energy, it only helps determine how fast the energy is moved.

I am very much surprised that still you have doubts about the initial position of ball.no doubt,it will get even more height than the dropping point.

The kinetic energy of falling ball will work to lift the counterweight just 91 degree from 180 degree but after that there is no need of the energy as gravity will work to pull down the device because c.weight is some heavy.

You just focus on impact energy of the ball.

[vikram_gupta11]

35 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Counterweight only allows control of the torque on the shaft, and thus the acceleration and velocity of the turning of the shaft. It does not generate energy, it only helps determine how fast the energy is moved.

If I will generate energy after mounting generator on both side of long tube then there will be no problem of load in it and it will not affect the momentum of device.

[ChrLzs]

14 hours ago, DirtyDocMartens said:

If you are having trouble with construction for whatever reason, you can send me the plans and specs, and I'll build one then post a video. I'm a sculptor, and also constructed industrial wastewater treatment systems for an environmental engineering firm. That will answer the question in short order.

May I suggest you might want to build this one first?

... or perhaps this one?

.... notice any familiar behavior?   Do you still want to buy into this and encourage him?  Even though he'll likely use you as a reference even when it goes bad?  Even knowing that once your implementation fails to deliver 'overunity' (and we all know it will), Vikram will simply claim you didn't build it well enough, and then move onto one of those others or a new, equally deluded design?  And of course he will change the goalposts, make new claims, and ironically berate all those who DO fully understand the idiocy of his plans..

 

Look, I'd love to see the device built so we can all say we told him so, but you just have to read the thread to see that Vikram ignores any reasonable and logical assessment of his claims.  He has fully deluded himself into believing he is right no matter what is presented to him, and no matter if his own efforts to build any of this garbage don't work as he wanted it to.  He didn't reason himself into this delusional obsession, and no amount of reason or demonstration or energy calculations will get him out of it either.  It seems clear that he thrives on being given attention, even if it mostly bad/critical.  So you need to go in with eyes open, and even when you prove that the device won't work and doesn't deliver over-unity, don't be disappointed if Vikram simply admonishes you for not getting it, or not building it well enough, or being part of the conspiracy to stop him...  I'll bet he will not drop this hogwash - he can't as it is now his life...

 

Now I'll be delighted to apologise to Vikram if I'm proven wrong, so feel free to build one anyway and proceed at your own risk of a complete waste of time...

but.. that fulsome apology will ONLY come from me *after* Vikram:

- concedes that he is completely wrong about his claims of free energy/overunity  AND

- apologises to all those of us who, in the past, have (initially politely but not any more) pointed out the error of his ways, only to be berated and belittled...

 

Ignorance is one thing.  Ignorance and arrogance is inexcusable..

Edited March 19, 2018 by ChrLzs

[vikram_gupta11]

17 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

May I suggest you might want to build this one first?

... or perhaps this one?

.... notice any familiar behavior?   Do you still want to buy into this and encourage him?  Even though he'll likely use you as a reference even when it goes bad?  Even knowing that once your implementation fails to deliver 'overunity' (and we all know it will), Vikram will simply claim you didn't build it well enough, and then move onto one of those others or a new, equally deluded design?  And of course he will change the goalposts, make new claims, and ironically berate all those who DO fully understand the idiocy of his plans..

 

Look, I'd love to see the device built so we can all say we told him so, but you just have to read the thread to see that Vikram ignores any reasonable and logical assessment of his claims.  He has fully deluded himself into believing he is right no matter what is presented to him, and no matter if his own efforts to build any of this garbage don't work as he wanted it to.  He didn't reason himself into this delusional obsession, and no amount of reason or demonstration or energy calculations will get him out of it either.  It seems clear that he thrives on being given attention, even if it mostly bad/critical.  So you need to go in with eyes open, and even when you prove that the device won't work and doesn't deliver over-unity, don't be disappointed if Vikram simply admonishes you for not getting it, or not building it well enough, or being part of the conspiracy to stop him...  I'll bet he will not drop this hogwash - he can't as it is now his life...

 

Now I'll be delighted to apologise to Vikram if I'm proven wrong, so feel free to build one anyway and proceed at your own risk of a complete waste of time...

but.. that fulsome apology will ONLY come from me *after* Vikram:

- concedes that he is completely wrong about his claims of free energy/overunity  AND

- apologises to all those of us who, in the past, have (initially politely but not any more) pointed out the error of his ways, only to be berated and belittled...

 

Ignorance is one thing.  Ignorance and arrogance is inexcusable..

I think you have not read the biographies of inventors.you don't know about research and development.you don't know how to build device.

You just know only one thing that is negativity.

In the world daily thousand of scientist works on thousands of project but do they get success in each project?

No, some time they got , some time they don't but it means not that they drop their plan to pursue it.

If it would be then you ,I and we wouldn't have the technology what we are using today.

Let him build it and I assure you that it will work this time.

 

 

[vikram_gupta11]

24 minutes ago, ChrLzs said:

May I suggest you might want to build this one first?

... or perhaps this one?

.... notice any familiar behavior?   Do you still want to buy into this and encourage him?  Even though he'll likely use you as a reference even when it goes bad?  Even knowing that once your implementation fails to deliver 'overunity' (and we all know it will), Vikram will simply claim you didn't build it well enough, and then move onto one of those others or a new, equally deluded design?  And of course he will change the goalposts, make new claims, and ironically berate all those who DO fully understand the idiocy of his plans..

 

Look, I'd love to see the device built so we can all say we told him so, but you just have to read the thread to see that Vikram ignores any reasonable and logical assessment of his claims.  He has fully deluded himself into believing he is right no matter what is presented to him, and no matter if his own efforts to build any of this garbage don't work as he wanted it to.  He didn't reason himself into this delusional obsession, and no amount of reason or demonstration or energy calculations will get him out of it either.  It seems clear that he thrives on being given attention, even if it mostly bad/critical.  So you need to go in with eyes open, and even when you prove that the device won't work and doesn't deliver over-unity, don't be disappointed if Vikram simply admonishes you for not getting it, or not building it well enough, or being part of the conspiracy to stop him...  I'll bet he will not drop this hogwash - he can't as it is now his life...

 

Now I'll be delighted to apologise to Vikram if I'm proven wrong, so feel free to build one anyway and proceed at your own risk of a complete waste of time...

but.. that fulsome apology will ONLY come from me *after* Vikram:

- concedes that he is completely wrong about his claims of free energy/overunity  AND

- apologises to all those of us who, in the past, have (initially politely but not any more) pointed out the error of his ways, only to be berated and belittled...

 

Ignorance is one thing.  Ignorance and arrogance is inexcusable..

You just enjoy the thread .

[Ozymandias]

17 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Dear Sir,

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

That might be true according to your shambolic calculations that merely demonstrate your lack of understanding of physics. 

Where did you get V1 = 3.33m/s from. Out of a hat? 

Quote

The ball is getting more height than the dropping point 

No it does not! Your videos show clearly that the ball never attains its otiginal position and you have to assist it back with your left hand.

Quote

Two fulcrums!! How does this device rotate about TWO fulcrums??!!

What utter rubbish. You task others with not understanding your device but cannot build a working model yourself. Of course, those of us who know physics know why: it cannot be done.

Edited March 19, 2018 by Ozymandias

[vikram_gupta11]

4 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

That might be true according to your shambolic calculations that merely demonstrate your lack of understanding of physics. 

Where did you get V1 = 3.33m/s from. Out of a hat? 

No it does not! Your videos show clearly that the ball never attains its otiginal position and you have to assist it back with your left hand.

Two fulcrums!! How does this device rotate about TWO fulcrums??!!

What utter rubbish. You task others with not understanding your device but cannot build a working model yourself. Of course, those of us who know physics know why: it cannot be done.

The height from where the ball will drop down is 50 cm.now use velocity formula √2gh to know the velocity.

How two fulcrum will wor

See the sketch carefully.each fulcrum or seesaw is separate d with each other so there is no problem in it.

You can understand it in this way that there are two seesaws and each seesaw  is pushing up each other after falling down of ball.

See my video the ball is getting back even more height than the dropping point and yes I am using my hand power but the ball is only falling down after getting a certain angle.it doesn't matter in this mechanism that I am using my hand power or not.

I have used only one fulcrum but there will be need of two fulcrum so that the center of gravity will be always in line with fulcrum.

[vikram_gupta11]

34 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

That might be true according to your shambolic calculations that merely demonstrate your lack of understanding of physics. 

Where did you get V1 = 3.33m/s from. Out of a hat? 

No it does not! Your videos show clearly that the ball never attains its otiginal position and you have to assist it back with your left hand.

Two fulcrums!! How does this device rotate about TWO fulcrums??!!

What utter rubbish. You task others with not understanding your device but cannot build a working model yourself. Of course, those of us who know physics know why: it cannot be done.

My video is only to test it.i tested it that if ball fall down from a latch pin then the device will rotate or not and ball will get back it's initial position or not.

And yes, the device is rotating and ball is getting back even more height than the dropping point.

[vikram_gupta11]

37 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

That might be true according to your shambolic calculations that merely demonstrate your lack of understanding of physics. 

Where did you get V1 = 3.33m/s from. Out of a hat? 

No it does not! Your videos show clearly that the ball never attains its otiginal position and you have to assist it back with your left hand.

Two fulcrums!! How does this device rotate about TWO fulcrums??!!

What utter rubbish. You task others with not understanding your device but cannot build a working model yourself. Of course, those of us who know physics know why: it cannot be done.

If someone wants to prove or disprove it in short period of time then let him do it.

I am sure 101%.it will work.

[Ozymandias]

26 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

The height from where the ball will drop down is 50 cm.now use velocity formula √2gh to know the velocity.

The ball does not fall through a vertical height of 50cm in your video and that is the mechanism you 'analysed' mathematically. It does not have two fulcrums.

Quote

How two fulcrum will wor

See the sketch carefully.each fulcrum or seesaw is separate d with each other so there is no problem in it.

You can understand it in this way that there are two seesaws and each seesaw  is pushing up each other after falling down of ball.

That can only work if the connecting joints between the tubes and the balance arms are unconstrained and free to rotate. Your videos have never shown that to be the case.

Quote

See my video the ball is getting back even more height than the dropping point and yes I am using my hand power but the ball is only falling down after getting a certain angle.it doesn't matter in this mechanism that I am using my hand power or not.

You don't use your hand only once. 

Quote

I have used only one fulcrum but there will be need of two fulcrum so that the center of gravity will be always in line with fulcrum.

You are clearly confused. If you mean that the tubes must always remain vertical then only one fulcrum is needed but their joint attachments are free to rotate.

At no time have your drawings indicated this kind of set-up and your videos certainly have not. But, in any case, such a device will run down to a stop - there can be no overunity in it.

[Jampudding]

19 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

This is impossible

This is a Roberval, not Roverball balance (see image below)  it is just impossible to turn this thing 180° around

In your sketch you turn in a way that point C becomes point F => NO WAY!!!

 

 

Edited March 19, 2018 by Jampudding

[Ozymandias]

7 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

If someone wants to prove or disprove it in short period of time then let him do it.

I am sure 101%.it will work.

It won't. I'd love to but you keep moving the goalposts and now your videos do not represent the device you are claiming will work. On top of this your diagrams are not sufficiently labelled to represent your design either or allow for a clear picture of its working.

Furthermore, you make theoretic assumptions (e.g. inelastic collision) that are not realised in practice and you ignore energy losses (heat, sound, aerodynamic effects, friction, etc) that will eventually bring you device to a stop by gradually dissipating the initial potential energy possessdd by the ball from its first drop.

Overunity implies the production of energy from nothing. All mechanical systems use more energy than they can produce.

[Jampudding]

On 16-3-2018 at 4:58 PM, vikram_gupta11 said:

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?

go and build it then!

I don't say overunity is not possible, I only say you are just simplifying your calculations way too much

You just ignore all friction and heat etc, just by telling "there is nog use of it in your device"

but we never see any mathematical or demonstration proof of that

[Jampudding]

On 17-3-2018 at 3:02 PM, vikram_gupta11 said:

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.

even your own video shows this is not true!

the ball might do this (we can not see it, so we just believe your word on it)
but the total arm of the device is clearly not!
just look at your own video!

Edited March 19, 2018 by Jampudding

[vikram_gupta11]

1 hour ago, Ozymandias said:

The ball does not fall through a vertical height of 50cm in your video and that is the mechanism you 'analysed' mathematically. It does not have two fulcrums.

That can only work if the connecting joints between the tubes and the balance arms are unconstrained and free to rotate. Your videos have never shown that to be the case.

You don't use your hand only once. 

You are clearly confused. If you mean that the tubes must always remain vertical then only one fulcrum is needed but their joint attachments are free to rotate.

At no time have your drawings indicated this kind of set-up and your videos certainly have not. But, in any case, such a device will run down to a stop - there can be no overunity in it.

So where I am denying .I myself is accepting it that I have used only one fulcrum and there is need of two fulcrum.

See the sketch there is clearly gap between tubes but it will be very minimal.