[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

So that everyone could understand it correctly without any confusion.

[Bored chemist]

Why not carry on in the first thread?

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

As I mentioned that I have done some changes in the mechanism so that everyone could understand it completely to avoid confusion.
It will be also easy to a new registered member to read the entire thread separately.

[The Spoon]

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?

Why are you asking me to calculate input and output? It is your idea and therefore up to you to show that it works and do the calculations.

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

The spoon,
I have already proved it mathematically.you are not convinced that's why I asked you.otherwise you don't think that I don't know.everone know what will be input and output?
Out put will be always greater than input.

[Kryptid]

What part of this device are you unable to construct on your own?

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

Kryptid,
The part is ,to mounted generator on each side of tube.

[Bored chemist]

I have already proved it mathematically.

What do you think you have proved?
Do you mean this

Mgh= 10*10*2=200 joule at the time of tilting.
Mgh=10*10*2=200 joule at the time of reversing.

So total output is 400 joule but input will be almost free due to equilibrium position of seesaw.

Because that's not the correct arithmetic.
The net output is not 400J
What you need to do is subtraction, rather than addition.
The 200J released in one stage  of the cycle is used to provide the 200J needed to lift the weight again.
The net output is not
200J +200J = 400 J
the correct equation is
200J - 200 J = 0
The net output is zero which is exactly as expected from the conservation of energy.

[The Spoon]

The spoon,
I have already proved it mathematically.you are not convinced that's why I asked you.otherwise you don't think that I don't know.everone know what will be input and output?
Out put will be always greater than input.

Where have you proved it mathematically? Do you mean this?

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.

That is not mathematical proof. Where do you get your figures from input and output? If the output is 200 joules from a ball falling from 2 metre height, how can your input be only 20 joules when you have to lift it to 2 metres height? lso what about the loss for lifting after it has fallen and needs to use momentum to lift it back up to 2 metres height? Where did you get the 10% friction loss figure?
Also see Bored Chemists comments on your so called calculation.

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

Hello Bored Chemist,
See this sketch carefully.
In the sketch the tube length is 4 meter.
So input is 200 Joule correct but output.
Output is 400 Joule as ball is falling down from 4 meter height at the time of tilting.
Ball is again falling down from again 4 meter height at the time of reversing.
So output is 400 joule.
So total output is 800 Joule.
Now subtract 800-200=600
So overall output is 600 Joule.
If there is 10 % friction loss in it then the output is 540 joule.but I reduce it more 140 joule.still it is 400 Joule.
But you are calculating only one time output.
Calculate input and output after viewing the sketch.your all doubts will be cleared immediately.

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

The spoon see the sketch.and read my post to Bored Chemist.
I have just increased the length of tube from 2 meter to 4 meter.
Now input will be same as it was in previous design when the tube was 2 meter long but output will be increased very interestingly.
The Bored is forgetting the reversing of device as ball is again falling at the time of reversing.
I took 10 % friction loss or 20 Joule due to reversing of arm.
All of you are correct that input will be same 200 Joule and output is also same 200 Joule but it will be only for one side falling.
All of you forgetting the reverse falling of ball again from 2 meter height.
But no problem see the sketch to clear your doubts.

[The Spoon]

Please show your calculations for inputs and outputs with workings. All we have is your claim for inputs and outputs. That is not a calculation.

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

If you have viewed the sketch carefully.hope you will understand it.

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

The spoon.
All of you at first input at the time of tilting ,then falling of ball as a output,then again falling of ball at the time of reversing but at the time of reversing don't calculate input as the device is getting back its original position without any external influence.

[The Spoon]

If you have viewed the sketch carefully.hope you will understand it.

Yes I have seen the sketch and I understand it perfectly. It is a seesaw with a tube containing a ball at one end with a counterbalanced weight. In position 1, the ball is at the bottom. In position 2 the ball has been lifted up. The ball then falls to the bottom of the tube causing the 'seesaw' to swing around.  You claim it will swing back to position 2 because of the kinetic energy resulting from the ball dropping. Correct?

That is fine, in as much as it is a conceptual model demonstrating what you think will happen.

However, I did not ask this. I asked how you calculated the inputs and outputs showing your workings which you seem reluctant to do.  You are claiming output is greater than input. Without workings and evidence for these inputs and outputs, you are just another nutter who claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine.

[Bored chemist]

your all doubts will be cleared immediately.

I have no doubts.
it will not work, because it can not work.

If you don't understand that fact then it is you who needs to do the calculations.

[Kryptid]

Kryptid,
The part is ,to mounted generator on each side of tube.

Then don't worry about using it to generate power just yet. First just get a working model constructed that can move on its own indefinitely despite friction. If you can do that, then finding someone to help you connect it to a generator should be easy.

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

The spoon,Bored Chemist,
Both of you are not understanding is that you are taking it in wrong direction.
Let me clarify all things.
The scale length is 2 meter.
There is a 2 or 4 meter long tube.
Let's take tube length 2 meter.
This 2 meter long tube is mounted on left arm of seesaw in middle so it's 1 meter part is above fulcrum and 1 meter is below fulcrum.
A 10 kg.ball is resting at the bottom of the tube.
Now counterweight.
After calculating distance from fulcrum the counterweight will be 14.4 kg.to balance the seesaw as the distance of ball is 1.44 meter from fulcrum as the ball is in rest position in the tube.
Now the seesaw is in balanced position.
But I will take counterweight 20 kg.due to this excess counterweight the seesaw will be in tilting position at 90 degree angle.
Now when I lift up the seesaw then I will not have to calculate the input energy of  the 1 meter distance of tube which is mounted below fulcrum as I have added mass in counterweight.
Now calculate input using mgh formula
Mgh=10*10*1=100 Joule
But calculate output as ball will fall down from 2 meter height
Mgh= 10*10*2=200 Joule
Ball will again fall down from 2 meter height at the time of reversing
Mgh=10*10*2=200 Joule
So total output is 400 Joule but input is 100 Joule.
The very interesting point is that it is not important that the device must complete one cycle as ball has completed one cycle.
See the link.you can see momentum in the video.

[Bored chemist]

it will not work, because it can not work.

If you don't understand that fact then it is you who needs to do the calculations.

If it was in any useful way "overunity" you would not need to keep pushing it.

[vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)]

Bored chemist,
The main purpose is to get more output than input.
But tell me one thing if it move continuously then can I get more output than input.No.the output will be same in both condition if it moves continuously or it stop and will need to push it up again and again.