Mathematically proven Overunity mechanism

[vikram_gupta11]

Just now, toast said:

A true dream.

[Ozymandias]

19 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

No ,still you have not understood the mechanism.

See the sketch again carefully.i have already mentioned that we will have to extract impact energy of ball using generator.once we get energy then this energy will work to run it forever.

You can consult with Mr.physicist.

If, as you claim, you have proved the veracity of your revolutionary device you must have written and published a peer reviewed paper on it. Instead of lamely telling us all to 'consult with Mr. Physicist' could you give us a reference to your academic articles?

[vikram_gupta11]

3 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

If, as you claim, you have proved the veracity of your revolutionary device you must have written and published a peer reviewed paper on it. Instead of lamely telling us all to 'consult with Mr. Physicist' could you give us a reference to your academic articles?

I am going to publish it very soon.

[vikram_gupta11]

3 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

If, as you claim, you have proved the veracity of your revolutionary device you must have written and published a peer reviewed paper on it. Instead of lamely telling us all to 'consult with Mr. Physicist' could you give us a reference to your academic articles?

Will you please tell me your educational qualification?

[Ozymandias]

1 minute ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Will you please tell me your educational qualification?

A PhD in engineering and 35 years experience lecturing in the subject.

[vikram_gupta11]

22 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

A PhD in engineering and 35 years experience lecturing in the subject.

Don't mind but still you are asking me more details regarding the device mechanism.

[vikram_gupta11]

25 minutes ago, Ozymandias said:

A PhD in engineering and 35 years experience lecturing in the subject.

Tell me your doubts but request you that please prepare a list of your doubts so that I could clear your doubts point to point.

[Ozymandias]

43 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Don't mind but still you are asking me more details regarding the device mechanism.

Of course I am! Your video visually demonstrates - proves - that it does not work. Your graphic is simplistic and would not be accepted from an undergraduate. Your maths - which is merely the simple potential energy equation, mgh - ignores completely the physical complexity of your theoretical device and its operation. Your perpetual motion device, if true, would totally undermine physics as we currently understand it. If I had invented such a mechanism I would not be presenting it on the internet so poorly and simplistically before I had stormed the scientific world through peer-reviewed papers. My understanding at the moment is that you are not a physicist or engineer, you do not have access to academic journals through conventional channels and are using the internet to promote a device the physics of which you do not fully understand yourself.       

[Ozymandias]

1 hour ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Tell me your doubts but request you that please prepare a list of your doubts so that I could clear your doubts point to point.

Many people have already taken your device to task here on many points. You have not cleared their doubts. You are claiming you have an overunity mechanism of the first kind. It contravenes the First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy Princi[ple). You have not addressed the issue of external energy input to your device or the dissipative nature of its mechanical friction.

You say that the maths involved in your proof of its veracity is just the potential energy equation: PE = mgh. That applies only to a free falling body moving vertically downwards under the influence of gravity. Your ball does not do this. Once it is released it will initially fall vertically but, once it is no longer physically bearing on the locking pin (i.e. weighing downwards on the device) the mechanism will start to counter-rotate under the influence of the counter balance. The tube will rotate out of the vertical and the ball will roll down its inner surface less than the vertical 2 metres you claim in your simple calculation. In contacting the tube the ball will lose potential/kinetic energy to friction. Having lost some energy, however small, the impact energy imparted by the ball to the device at the end of its fall will not be sufficient to restore the mechanism to its original position.

Friction in the fulchrum will also absorb (dissipate) energy so the mechanism cannot repeatedly and indefinitely rotate through continuous cycles. To cap it all your video clearly shows this. In order to get it to cycle continuously you have to keep suppling the system with the lost energy via your left hand.   

Edited February 9, 2018 by Ozymandias

[vikram_gupta11]

3 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

Many people have already taken your device to task here on many points. You have not cleared their doubts. You are claiming you have an overunity mechanism of the first kind. It contravenes the First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy Princi[ple). You have not addressed the issue of external energy input to your device or the dissipative nature of its mechanical friction.

You say that the maths involved in your proof of its veracity is just the potential energy equation: PE = mgh. That applies only to a free falling body moving vertically downwards under the influence of gravity. Your ball does not do this. Once it is released it will initially fall vertically but, once it is no longer physically bearing on the locking pin (i.e. weighing downwards on the device) the mechanism will start to counter-rotate under the influence of the counter balance. The tube will rotate out of the vertical and the ball will roll down its inner surface less than the vertical 2 metres you claim in your simple calculation. In contacting the tube the ball will lose potential/kinetic energy to friction. Having lost some energy, however small, the impact energy imparted by the ball to the device at the end of its fall will not be sufficient to restore the mechanism to its original position.

Friction in the fulchrum will also absorb (dissipate) energy so the mechanism cannot repeatedly and indefinitely rotate through continuous cycles. To cap it all your video clearly shows this. In order to get it to cycle continuously you have to keep suppling the system with the lost energy via your left hand.   

Dear Sir,

Now my turn.

See the sketch again carefully.the Device is positioned at 170 degree angle.(initial position)

Now I tilt it at 175 to180 degree then the ball fall down and hit with another part of tube.but you are forgetting that the device is already tilted due to counterweight as counterweight is some heavy.

The mass of counterweight is 16 kg and the mass of ball is 10 kg.

The initial position of device is 170 degree but due to a break or a lock system under counterweight the device will hold this position or not tilted any more.

Now if I tilted it just  5 degree more the ball is falling down vertically and hit with another part but you are again wrong as due to heavy counterweight and lock or break system the device will not move anymore .so the ball will use it's impact energy completely.as the device will not counter rotate due to break.

So kinetic of ball will be 200 Joule using mgh formula.

Hope your first doubt is clear.

Second once ball hit the second part of tube then the counterweight will rotate and device will get back it's initial position in opposite direction as per sketch .

But you are again wrong as this time you are forgetting about latch pin and lock or break system.

The latch pin will be designed in this way that once ball hit the end parts of tube then the latch pin will work to hold the ball .in another word spring based.

In first  falling of ball the device will be lifted up towards counterweight side and in second falling towards tube due to break system.

 the break system will play an important role in this mechanism as there is no need of rotate the device completely as the output will be same in both cases if the device complete or doesn't,a circle .

Now input and output.

If entire mass of device is 26 kg and it is tilting 5 cm.more then the input will be

13 Joule using mgh formula though it will be less but I am taking entire mass.

But output will be 200 Joule as ball will fall vertical and will not slipped as the lock will work to hold the device remain in initial position.

Now you tell me how much you will reduce.

A piston generator will work to extract the energy (impact) and the energy will be used to tilt the device again.in this way the device will oscillate forever.

You are forgetting lock system,latch pin, initial position, impact energy,and generator.

But still you have doubts then please tell me as I am waiting of your response now.

 

 

[vikram_gupta11]

5 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

Many people have already taken your device to task here on many points. You have not cleared their doubts. You are claiming you have an overunity mechanism of the first kind. It contravenes the First Law of Thermodynamics (Conservation of Energy Princi[ple). You have not addressed the issue of external energy input to your device or the dissipative nature of its mechanical friction.

You say that the maths involved in your proof of its veracity is just the potential energy equation: PE = mgh. That applies only to a free falling body moving vertically downwards under the influence of gravity. Your ball does not do this. Once it is released it will initially fall vertically but, once it is no longer physically bearing on the locking pin (i.e. weighing downwards on the device) the mechanism will start to counter-rotate under the influence of the counter balance. The tube will rotate out of the vertical and the ball will roll down its inner surface less than the vertical 2 metres you claim in your simple calculation. In contacting the tube the ball will lose potential/kinetic energy to friction. Having lost some energy, however small, the impact energy imparted by the ball to the device at the end of its fall will not be sufficient to restore the mechanism to its original position.

Friction in the fulchrum will also absorb (dissipate) energy so the mechanism cannot repeatedly and indefinitely rotate through continuous cycles. To cap it all your video clearly shows this. In order to get it to cycle continuously you have to keep suppling the system with the lost energy via your left hand.   

You consider input energy.the lock will work to lock and unlock the device.

There will be need of very minimal energy in the lock mechanism.

The ball will FALL DOWN vertical from 2 meter height due to lock or brake system as the brake will work to hold the initial position of device.

If a lever is used to tilt the device from 170 to 175 degree and ball fall down then the device will be  locked in this 180 degree position due to heavy counterweight.

So the simple mgh formula is sufficient to calculate input and output.

Edited February 9, 2018 by vikram_gupta11

[toast]

4 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

You consider input energy.the lock will work to lock and unlock the device. There will be need of very minimal energy in the lock mechanism. The ball will FALL DOWN vertical from 2 meter height due to lock or brake system as the brake will work to hold the initial position of device. If a lever is used to tilt the device from 170 to 175 degree and ball fall down then the device will be  locked in this 180 degree position due to heavy counterweight. So the simple mgh formula is sufficient to calculate input and output.

What exactly is your educational qualification to take the explanations and argumentations of a PhD (Ozymandias) in engineering with 35 years experience lecturing in the subject, into question?

[vikram_gupta11]

10 minutes ago, toast said:

What exactly is your educational qualification to take the explanations and argumentations of a PhD (Ozymandias) in engineering with 35 years experience lecturing in the subject, into question?

At first ,let Mr.Ozymandis give answer as I think I have cleared his doubts.

[toast]

5 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

At first ,let Mr.Ozymandis give answer as I think I have cleared his doubts.

Don't change the subject. I have asked you a question, the same question you have asked Ozymandis and that was answered to you by Ozymandis.

So my question again: what exactly is your educational qualification to take the explanations and argumentations of a PhD (Ozymandias) in engineering with 35 years experience lecturing in the subject, into question?

Also still pending answer:

Quote

So why does your "concept" hasnt been hickjacked by a single one physicist, out of 100ks on this planet, and taken to the markets already?

 

 

[vikram_gupta11]

10 minutes ago, toast said:

Don't change the subject. I have asked you a question, the same question you have asked Ozymandis and that was answered to you by Ozymandis.

So my question again: what exactly is your educational qualification to take the explanations and argumentations of a PhD (Ozymandias) in engineering with 35 years experience lecturing in the subject, into question?

Also still pending answer:

 

 

So why are you asking to me.let ozymandias ask me this question.

I am eagerly waiting response from Ozymandias.

And if I asked then my intention was that someone having sound Knowledge of subject could come forward  so that I could discuss with him.

[toast]

9 minutes ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

So why are you asking to me.let ozymandias ask me this question.

Because I ask you, because (at least) I wanna know, because it looks like that your level of qualification is zero, so here is my question again:

Quote

What exactly is your educational qualification to take the explanations and argumentations of a PhD (Ozymandias) in engineering with 35 years experience lecturing in the subject, into question?

 

Quote

I am eagerly waiting response from Ozymandias.

Thats not of relevance to my question. Don't change the subject.

Quote

And if I asked then my intention was that someone having sound Knowledge of subject could come forward  so that I could discuss with him.

Thats not of relevance to my question. Don't change the subject.

BTW, did you have an answer to this question meanwhile?:

Quote

So why does your "concept" hasnt been hickjacked by a single one physicist, out of 100ks on this planet, and taken to the markets already?

 

[bmk1245]

On 2/8/2018 at 4:24 PM, vikram_gupta11 said:

[...]

Fifth the simple point is what will you say about Hydropower plant.

[...]

 

Funny thing, you mentioned that. Here is a bit of reality:

Quote

The round-trip energy efficiency of PSH varies between 70%–80%.

(link)

Where do you see overunity in THAT?!

 

PS read sepulchrave's post again, he put it in the very concise and simple form. If you can't understand something, you can always ask.

Edited February 9, 2018 by bmk1245

[vikram_gupta11]

7 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

Funny thing, you mentioned that. Here is a bit of reality:

(link)

Where do you see overunity in THAT?!

 

PS read sepulchrave's post again, he put it in the very concise and simple form. If you can't understand something, you can always ask.

Hello,

The sepulchrave's points works only in continuous running devices or where there system's speed is being increased after each cycle.

But this device will run at constant speed so sepulchrave's points will not work here in this mechanism.

You can consult with him directly.he will be agree with me.

Also consider too much difference between input and output.

So yes there will be some LOSSES but not 70 to 80%.

Edited February 10, 2018 by vikram_gupta11

[vikram_gupta11]

8 hours ago, toast said:

Because I ask you, because (at least) I wanna know, because it looks like that your level of qualification is zero, so here is my question again:

 

Thats not of relevance to my question. Don't change the subject.

Thats not of relevance to my question. Don't change the subject.

BTW, did you have an answer to this question meanwhile?:

 

This time my concept will be hijacked by someone definitely.someone definitely come forward as a collaborator to build it completely.

Wait and watch and let Ozymandias post his comments now.

You don't know the importance of zero.

 

[sepulchrave]

3 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Hello,

The sepulchrave's points works only in continuous running devices or where there system's speed is being increased after each cycle.

But this device will run at constant speed so sepulchrave's points will not work here in this mechanism.

You can consult with him directly.he will be agree with me.

Also consider too much difference between input and output.

So yes there will be some LOSSES but not 70 to 80%.

No, I won't agree with you.

As long as you insist that gravity is providing the motivating force for your device, and until you can mathematically demonstrate that the curl of a divergence is not zero, I will never agree with you.

[bmk1245]

7 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Hello,

The sepulchrave's points works only in continuous running devices or where there system's speed is being increased after each cycle.

But this device will run at constant speed so sepulchrave's points will not work here in this mechanism.

You can consult with him directly.he will be agree with me.

Also consider too much difference between input and output.

So yes there will be some LOSSES but not 70 to 80%.

You brought hydropower into discussion, and I pointed out that you are dead wrong considering hydropower as overunity stuff.

Again, read sepulchrave's post, and try to understand every point he makes.

[Ozymandias]

19 hours ago, vikram_gupta11 said:

Dear Sir,

Now my turn.

See the sketch again carefully.the Device is positioned at 170 degree angle.(initial position)

This will almost certainly be my last post on this matter as it is a waste of time. Your sketch is quite useless for a number of reasons. It is poorly and insufficiently labelled to make any analysis or sense of how the device works. There is no inclusion of the 170deg, for example, and am I to take it that the torque arms extending from the fulchrum are each 1 metre long? Furthermore, as drawn on the left-hand side, the mechanism cannot rotate into the position shown on the right-hand side.

Besides the friction losses already pointed out, the various momentum energies involved are being dissipated with each impact of the ball on the bottom of its tube and every time it strikes and operates the locking pin. Momentum energy is lost whenever the device is arrested by the brakelock.

But let us cut to the chase, I cannot clearly follow your verbal descriptions of the operation of the mechanism. As you have already been able to post up a picture of this sketch then I will expect to see a picture or pictures in your next response to me of a proper mathematical analysis of the system accompanied by labelled sketches. This will allow us to make an unambiguous determination as to your claim.

Oh, and you have not answered my question about the use of your left hand in your video. Did you not understand it?

[vikram_gupta11]

2 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

This will almost certainly be my last post on this matter as it is a waste of time. Your sketch is quite useless for a number of reasons. It is poorly and insufficiently labelled to make any analysis or sense of how the device works. There is no inclusion of the 170deg, for example, and am I to take it that the torque arms extending from the fulchrum are each 1 metre long? Furthermore, as drawn on the left-hand side, the mechanism cannot rotate into the position shown on the right-hand side.

Besides the friction losses already pointed out, the various momentum energies involved are being dissipated with each impact of the ball on the bottom of its tube and every time it strikes and operates the locking pin. Momentum energy is lost whenever the device is arrested by the brakelock.

But let us cut to the chase, I cannot clearly follow your verbal descriptions of the operation of the mechanism. As you have already been able to post up a picture of this sketch then I will expect to see a picture or pictures in your next response to me of a proper mathematical analysis of the system accompanied by labelled sketches. This will allow us to make an unambiguous determination as to your claim.

Oh, and you have not answered my question about the use of your left hand in your video. Did you not understand it?

Dear Sir,

This is not a complex design so that you cannot understand it.

See the video .there is no need of sketch s as you will understand the mechanism very clearly.

As per video at first see the initial position of device.the Device is positioned at some angle.so I will have to tilt it only 5 cm and ball will fall down.

I am using my finger as a lock system so it will work to prevent the device from counter rotating.

The ball(10 kg) is falling down from 2 meter height so it's kinetic energy will be 200 Joule.

This impact energy will work to provide momentum as the counter weight will be lifted up.and device will rotate.

It is very simple.

Even the input energy can be reduced.

But I would like to tell you that the device will not rotate in a circle but oscillate but it doesn't matter as output will be same in both cases if it complete one cycle or doesn't.

Hope this time you will understand the whole mechanism.

You asked me why I am using my handpower because I have not used lock mechanism but you can see that the device is getting back its initial position.

You can see the length of tube which is just 20 cm.

But  in kinetic energy formula time is in square.

You can also see momentum.

So what is this.

The initial position of device is important as the input will be minimal.

I agree with you that there will be some LOSSES but out put is 200 Joule so how much you will reduce?

The device will work and move back and forth .there is no need to rotate it at 360 degree angle as ball has completed one cycle and work is being done by ball.

My earnest request to you that please reconsider it very seriously.

I shall be very grateful to you.

 

[vikram_gupta11]

4 hours ago, bmk1245 said:

You brought hydropower into discussion, and I pointed out that you are dead wrong considering hydropower as overunity stuff.

Again, read sepulchrave's post, and try to understand every point he makes.

I know but you are dead wrong to understand what I want to tell.

Sepulchrave say that energy cannot be generated by falling mass so I mentioned that all Hydropower plant must shut down.

Read carefully before any comments.

Edited February 10, 2018 by vikram_gupta11

[vikram_gupta11]

9 hours ago, sepulchrave said:

No, I won't agree with you.

As long as you insist that gravity is providing the motivating force for your device, and until you can mathematically demonstrate that the curl of a divergence is not zero, I will never agree with you.

Dear Sir,

If you have some another formula beyond mgh then tell me as as per mgh formula I have proven the difference between input and output.

Ok but if you are not agree then tell me input and output but remember you will have to consider the initial position of device.

See the video in 23 no.post and tell me input and output.

The entire mass of device is 26 kg.

The ball mass is 10 kg and counter weight is 16 kg.

The ball will fall down even if if liftup the counterweight 1 cm clockwise.and again will fall down if I lift up the tube 1 cm anticlockwise.

I have already told you that the latch pin will work to hold the ball and ball will fall down only after the tube get 90 degree angle.

Lock system will also play an important role in this mechanism.

Now you calculate input including lock plus losses and tell me exact input energy.

As output is 200 Joule so there is no need to mention about it.

Just tell me input.

Edited February 10, 2018 by vikram_gupta11