Edtharan Posted May 19, 2011 Posted May 19, 2011 If it is evidence you want I have given it to you in the form of the complete plans of the design itself, nothing missing. The first of the two things you should have noticed is that this mechanism has essentially two movements, both deadfall so no energy is required to set them in motion. The generation stage is the weight ball's deadfall down through the lower cylinder-no energy required. The second movement is the deadfall/spring assist of the 90 degree rotation, like an overweighted wheel-again no energy required, the 90 degree rotation is not engaging in the energy production, its just turning the machine. The problem lies in that the energy of the ball falling is used to push the liquid weight up. All of the balls energy must be use to do this so none of it can be used to turn the machine. If the ball can push up more liquid weight than it weighs, then this would require more energy than the ball had originally. This is where you are producing energy from "nothing". Because you have not taken this into account, it appears that the machine produces more energy than it uses (or at least as much). However, what has occurred is that because you haven't taken this into account, the sums are unbalanced and the machine seems to do what you think it should do. Think of it this way, like money. If you forgot to account for something you bought (say you bought a computer keyboard). When you come to work out how much money you had, then you will calculate that you have more money than you do. This is what you have done. Because you have not accounted for the debt of raising the liquid weight form the energy of the ball falling, you think you have more energy than you should have.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now