The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Overunity proved
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Down

Overunity proved

  • 78 Replies
  • 5347 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 44
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Overunity proved
« on: 17/01/2018 14:31:26 »
As per sketch a 2 meter long tube is mounted on the left arm of a seesaw and this see saw is balanced due to counterweight.there is a 10 kg mass ball located in the in rest position in the tube.
See the link.


Now seesaw is balanced at 180 degree angle.when I tilt it this balanced seesaw then the ball fall down from 2 meter height and hit with upper part of tube .but interesting after hitting the seesaw will get back it's initial position without any external influence.so ball will again fall from 2 meter height.in this way the ball will fall down twicely but the main interesting point is that the input energy is almost zero as there is no torque due to counterweight.
There will be a lock mechanism to prevent the falling of counterweight at the time of tilting.
The ball will fall down after getting a certain angle as a pin will work to hold the ball to prevent it from sliding along tube at the time of tilting.
If there is no energy as a input as seesaw is balanced and torque is same then output is ,using mgh formula
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.

* IMG_20180116_163405.jpg (21.21 kB, 600x600 - viewed 83 times.)
Logged
 



Offline vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 44
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #1 on: 17/01/2018 15:26:38 »
This is a challenge for everyone.i have consulted with many experts but all are confused.
Logged
 

Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5773
  • Activity:
    97.5%
  • Thanked: 240 times
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #2 on: 17/01/2018 16:35:06 »
Quote from: vkrmvkrm 11 on 17/01/2018 14:31:26
when I tilt it this balanced seesaw

There's your problem. Using your hand to tilt it is putting energy into the system. In the video, each time you want to make the ball move, you have to push the device with your hand. Make a version which doesn't require that step and then we can talk.
Logged
 

Offline vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 44
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #3 on: 17/01/2018 16:55:30 »
I have proven what I want to prove(overunity).
If a seesaw is balanced then there will be need of almost 0 energy to tilt it at any degree.furthermore I have already mentioned that a pin will work to hold the ball and ball will fall down after getting a certain angle.
I will extract energy of falling ball ,using two piston generator mounted on each side of long tube an this energy will work to feed a lever system which will work to tilt it again and again.
Ok .tell me input and output.
But remember that seesaw is in equilibrium position if you are calculating input .
Tell me difference between input and output.
I'm ready to give up.
Logged
 

Offline vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 44
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #4 on: 17/01/2018 17:01:07 »
The Box,you are considering yourself not less than Einstein but talking like in this way as if it is a very complex design.it is simple design.so I don't think there is a need of proving it more.
But I would like to tell you that I don't have resources to build it completely.if you could help me to build it then it will be a welcome step as there is a need of team work.
Logged
 



Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 22014
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 511 times
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #5 on: 17/01/2018 19:22:17 »
Quote from: vkrmvkrm 11 on 17/01/2018 16:55:30
I'm ready to give up.
That's good, because you are wasting your time (and ours).
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 22014
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 511 times
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #6 on: 17/01/2018 19:23:23 »
Quote from: vkrmvkrm 11 on 17/01/2018 17:01:07
I don't think there is a need of proving it more.
You couldn't prove it less.
When you set it up and walk away, and it keeps going- forever- you will have proved it.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline Petrochemicals

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1610
  • Activity:
    55%
  • Thanked: 32 times
  • forum overlord
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #7 on: 17/01/2018 19:37:46 »
These things always get me, ones where the motion is the show piece. Many things affect such bodies, magnetism grav8tational pull rotation of the earth,  gravity of the sun. Have you considered these ?

https://www.scribd.com/doc/74784234/Gyro-Compass
Logged
For reasons of repetitive antagonism, this user is currently not responding to messages from;
BoredChemist
To ignore someone too, go to your profile settings>modifyprofie>ignore!
 

Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5773
  • Activity:
    97.5%
  • Thanked: 240 times
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #8 on: 17/01/2018 20:57:36 »
Quote from: vkrmvkrm 11 on 17/01/2018 17:01:07
The Box,you are considering yourself not less than Einstein but talking like in this way as if it is a very complex design.it is simple design.so I don't think there is a need of proving it more.
But I would like to tell you that I don't have resources to build it completely.if you could help me to build it then it will be a welcome step as there is a need of team work.

You are mistaken if you think that the quote in my signature came from me.
Logged
 



Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 22014
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 511 times
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #9 on: 17/01/2018 21:30:22 »
Quote from: vkrmvkrm 11 on 17/01/2018 17:01:07
The Box,you are considering yourself not less than Einstein
Thebox has not posted in this thread.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 6807
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 174 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #10 on: 18/01/2018 01:02:25 »
You must have stood on the shoulders of giants. Then fell off and bashed your head.
Logged
Even the most obstinately ignorant cannot avoid learning when in an environment that educates.
 

Offline vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 44
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #11 on: 18/01/2018 02:18:15 »
I would like to know if a seesaw system is in equilibrium position then the torque will be same on both arm of seesaw.all of you are ignoring this valid fact.it doesn't matter that the ball is below fulcrum as system is balanced due to counterweight.that's why there is no need to adding energy in the system.so all gravitational forces,magnetism,and sun rotation will work same on both side of seesaw and required energy ( input)will be almost free to tilt it .
There is nothing beyond the formula of kinetic energy and this formula is proving overunity in it.
So no one can challenge it.
I have asked all of you that tell me input and output.
I am not wasting anyone's time.i am presenting it on the basis of pure physics..
Logged
 

Offline vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 44
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #12 on: 18/01/2018 02:30:10 »
If there is no overunity in this mechanism then all of you are proving the formula of kinetic energy wrong yourself.
Logged
 



Offline vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 44
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #13 on: 18/01/2018 02:38:09 »
I again insist that there is no need of adding energy in this mechanism as it is balanced due to counterweight and if there is doubt then all of you test it .all doubts will be cleared immediately regarding input and output.
Logged
 

Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5773
  • Activity:
    97.5%
  • Thanked: 240 times
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #14 on: 18/01/2018 05:29:39 »
Quote from: vkrmvkrm 11 on 18/01/2018 02:18:15
So no one can challenge it.

So finish your device and go get your Nobel Prize already. Take out a loan to build it if you have to. If the device is as fool-proof as you claim, then you'll quickly and easily make all of your money back many times over for providing an unlimited, nonpolluting energy source to the world.
Logged
 

Offline vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 44
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #15 on: 18/01/2018 05:32:43 »
I have added counterweight more so if ball is 2 meter below from fulcrum then there will be no need of adding I put energy or lifting up the device due to counterweight.
This one point is working to get overunity in this mechanism.
Take it very seriously and make efforts to build it completely as a team work and collaboration.
Logged
 

Offline Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5773
  • Activity:
    97.5%
  • Thanked: 240 times
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #16 on: 18/01/2018 05:39:14 »
Quote from: vkrmvkrm 11 on 18/01/2018 05:32:43
Take it very seriously and make efforts to build it completely as a team work and collaboration.

Your design looks pretty simple. Why would you need a team of people to build it? You could probably find everything you needed at a hardware store.
Logged
 



Offline vkrmvkrm 11 (OP)

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 44
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #17 on: 18/01/2018 05:53:34 »
You are correct but I think two is better than one.but its ok.i try it.
Logged
 

Offline The Spoon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 618
  • Activity:
    0.5%
  • Thanked: 15 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #18 on: 18/01/2018 08:19:03 »
Quote from: vkrmvkrm 11 on 17/01/2018 15:26:38
This is a challenge for everyone.i have consulted with many experts but all are confused.
What 'experts'?
Logged
 

Offline The Spoon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 618
  • Activity:
    0.5%
  • Thanked: 15 times
  • Naked Science Forum Newbie
    • View Profile
Re: Overunity proved
« Reply #19 on: 18/01/2018 08:22:20 »
Quote from: vkrmvkrm 11 on 17/01/2018 16:55:30
I have proven what I want to prove(overunity).
If a seesaw is balanced then there will be need of almost 0 energy to tilt it at any degree.furthermore I have already mentioned that a pin will work to hold the ball and ball will fall down after getting a certain angle.
I will extract energy of falling ball ,using two piston generator mounted on each side of long tube an this energy will work to feed a lever system which will work to tilt it again and again.
Ok .tell me input and output.
But remember that seesaw is in equilibrium position if you are calculating input .
Tell me difference between input and output.
I'm ready to give up.
You may have 'proven what you ant to prove', but you have failed to show convincingly to anybody else that this is valid. It is for you to tell the difference between input and output as it is your idea. Why should we? We get perpetual energy loonies on here every week.
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1] 2 3 4   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.164 seconds with 81 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.