[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

The Spoon,what I have not proven.
If a seesaw is balanced then the torque will be same on both side of seesaw.is it not valid?
If I tilt it from rest position to 180 degree more then the input will be very minimal as it is balanced.is it not valid?
If a 10 kg weight ball fall down from 2 meter height then kinetic energy will be ,200 joule.is it not valid? The system will get back it's initial position without any external influence due to counterweight,impact energy and gravity.is it not valid?The 10 kg ball will fall down again at the time of reversing from 2 meter height then the kinetic energy will be again 200 joule.is it not valid.
Friction is not an issue.P.E.is being increased,input is very minimal due to counterweight,then what should I prove?
Even surprisingly physics formulas are supporting overunity in it and you better that physics laws are not against Overunity but some properties like friction,air resistance works against to achieve overunity.but in this mechanism friction and air resistance are not an issues.is it not valid?
If you are Confused on input then try it as I tried .you will get convinced.

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

If you have a iron ball and a plastic tube then test it.but remember that also use a pin to hold the ball or prevent sliding of ball .mounted it on a beam and mounted counterweight and balanced the seesaw.now tilt it and post your comments.

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

I promise you that you will found that input is very minimal.but when ball will fall down then you will feel some energy.

[tkadm30]

is this another thread on the so-called perpetual motion machine?

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

Yes ,it is an another thread.

[The Spoon]

This is a challenge for everyone.i have consulted with many experts but all are confused.

What 'experts'?

Again, what 'experts' are you referring to? Physicists? Engineers? Or some local bloke who thinks he knows a bit?

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

I consult with some physics professor s in my area and they are confused only on one point that input is minimal and ball is completing one cycle after falling twicely then
There must be overunity but says they are confused and can't tell exactly but also says that I can win the race.

[The Spoon]

I consult with some physics professor s in my area and they are confused only on one point that input is minimal and ball is completing one cycle after falling twicely then why there is no overunity.

Are you sure he is not confused by your explanation?
You say 'If a seesaw is balanced then the torque will be same on both side of seesaw.is it not valid?'
If it is balanced where is the torque? There is no rotational movement if in a state of balance.

You also say 'Friction is not an issue.P.E.is being increased,input is very minimal due to counterweight,then what should I prove?' Of course there is friction - unless you have invented frictionless bearings and this is no air....
You keep saying that input will be minimal. That means there is input. Therefore, you have to put energy into the system.

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

Off course I say that input is minimal but why are you not considering output?why don't you tell me about output?
If output is more than input then it is not considerable to calculate input.
I say friction is not an issue.it means that friction will not create any hurdle in the device to get back it's initial position.
I have shown it in the video.there is lot of friction but ,however,seesaw is reversing.so friction is not an issue.
The 99.99% overunity devices couldn't survive due to friction but in this mechanism gravity will work to overcome the friction.
Remember the ball will work to generate energy not arm .the arm is working only to increase to he potential energy of the ball.

[The Spoon]

Maybe you have forgotten when you posted this stuff before and Colin pointed out:

However, the item is question is not the input energy, but the output energy for which your calculation is incorrect.
Your potential energy calculation is correct for a non-counterbalanced weight, but the falling weight also has to lift the counterbalance weight and the energy required to do this should be subtracted from your calculation in order to show the minimal amount of output energy available from the seesaw.

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

The spoon,the minimal input is only 20 Joule if I take friction loss 10% but output is 200 Joule from a 10 kg falling ball from 2 meter height.so when ball will hit with upper part of tube at the time of tilting then kinetic energy is 200 joule.now minus the input 20 Joule from 200 Joule
So overall output is 180 Joule.
But you are forgetting that the seesaw is getting back it's initial position without any extra energy so ball is again falling from 2 meter height then output is 200 Joule again.
Why are you not considering the falling of ball at the time of reversing.

[The Spoon]

The spoon,the minimal input is only 20 Joule if I take friction loss 10% but output is 200 Joule from a 10 kg falling ball from 2 meter height.so when ball will hit with upper part of tube at the time of tilting then kinetic energy is 200 joule.now minus the input 20 Joule from 200 Joule
So overall output is 180 Joule.
But you are forgetting that the seesaw is getting back it's initial position without any extra energy so ball is again falling from 2 meter height then output is 200 Joule again.
Why are you not considering the falling of ball at the time of reversing.

See above.

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

The spoon,answer is that the energy will be generated by the kinetic energy of ball not by system.the ball will work to press a piston generator not system.so when it fall down then obviously the counterweight will be lift up but the output will be not subtracted .
In this mechanism ball is working to generate energy not device as device is working to increase the potential energy.
The counterweight has already been lifted up otherwise how ball will fall down?

[The Spoon]

The spoon,answer is that the energy will be generated by the kinetic energy of ball not by system.the ball will work to press a piston generator not system.so when it fall down then obviously the counterweight will be lift up but the output will be not subtracted .
In this mechanism ball is working to generate energy not device as device is working to increase the potential energy.
The counterweight has already been lifted up otherwise how ball will fall down?

Te ball is not 'generating' electricity it is releasing energy from being lifted.

As I pointed out, we get loonies claiming to have invented perpetual motion every week. It is therefore pointless engaging with you further.

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

The spoon,I am very much surprised that how are you taking it.
The ball is being lifted up but you are forgetting that the seesaw is balanced so input is no matter.
The ball is not generating energy ,it very strange but is releasing 200 Joule energy or 400 Joule energy twicely and you say that it is not perfect all motion.will you please explain then what is perpetual motion or overunity?
You yourself has contradictions in your post.

[The Spoon]

The spoon,I am very much surprised that how are you taking it.
The ball is being lifted up but you are forgetting that the seesaw is balanced so input is no matter.
The ball is not generating energy ,it very strange but is releasing 200 Joule energy or 400 Joule energy twicely and you say that it is not perfect all motion.will you please explain then what is perpetual motion or overunity?
You yourself has contradictions in your post.

If you are lifting the ball of course there is energy input - it doesnt matter if the see saw is balanced - to lift the ball from a starting position you require an energy input. That will be the equivalent of the energy output when it falls.  Or are you proposing the use of magic to levitate it? Perhaps you are thinking of unicorns or wizards or some other nutty mechanism.

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

Ok but what about falling down of ball at the time of reversing.as the seesaw is getting back its original position without any extra energy.

[The Spoon]

Ok but what about falling down of ball at the time of reversing.as the seesaw is getting back its original position without any extra energy.

That may happen if there is enough energy to overcome friction from the bearings, air etc. But that will not go indefinitely due to losses from friction - same as with any perpetual motion device. It will come to a stop when the energy is dissipated.

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

The spoon,
See the sketch carefully.
I have just changed the length of long tube .now it is 4 meter and it is mounted in middle with the Left arm of seesaw.
Now calculate input and output.
You please also calculate output from counterweight as I had forgotten to mention about it.
Everything is same but I have just increased the length of tube so input will be same like previous design.
But output?

[Bored chemist]

Yes ,it is an another thread.

Why  have you started a second thread?