Aman shah Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) 1331833982[/url]' post='665484']This does not address my concerns. Can you draw a vector diagram showing the two components of the force? Based on request, Velocity diagram for the weight and impulsive potential energy distribution can be found on, http://www.flickr.com/photos/59145126@N07/6985212845/in/photostream Edited March 15, 2012 by Aman shah
John Cuthber Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Why not do a small experiment to know what is impulsive potential energy?Release quiet a heavy ball on floor from a height and see how the ball bounces?Just analyse,you might get the doubt solved. I have done that experiment. What happens id the the ball bounces for a while but it never gets quite as high as it started from so energy is lost all the time and quite soon, it stops. The overall effect is that the potential energy is converted to heat. Not much use as an engine. And, BTW, re ""Most people don't believe but there are some intelluctual people who can take interest in the analogous principle of my engine which I have discussed and learn from it how real gravity engines could be made." No, they can't because gravity engines don't really work.
Klaynos Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Based on request, Velocity diagram for the weight and impulsive potential energy distribution can be found on, http://www.flickr.com/photos/59145126@N07/6985212845/in/photostream You are assuming that after the interaction the sideways energy adds more than the vertical energy up to that point, it does not.
Aman shah Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) 1331837213[/url]' post='665492']I have done that experiment. What happens id the the ball bounces for a while but it never gets quite as high as it started from so energy is lost all the time and quite soon, it stops. The overall effect is that the potential energy is converted to heat. Not much use as an engine. And, BTW, re ""Most people don't believe but there are some intelluctual people who can take interest in the analogous principle of my engine which I have discussed and learn from it how real gravity engines could be made." No, they can't because gravity engines don't really work. This is your thought,not mine!Because you have believed in those idiots who told you that gravity engines are perpectual and cannot be made.I don't know how many have a workable gravity engine,perhaps very few including me.May be only me-one only. 1331838241[/url]' post='665495']You are assuming that after the interaction the sideways energy adds more than the vertical energy up to that point, it does not. You have to combine/correlate this with the old Flickr post including both the descriptions on Flickr.Remember,gravity has two components and components are not exactly distributed in a particular channel!Both the vectors flowing away from each other ,away from the origin should be actually mixture of Impulsive potential and other component ,which I have showed a bit wrongly! Edited March 15, 2012 by Aman shah
John Cuthber Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 "I don't know how many have a workable gravity engine,perhaps very few including me.May be only me-one only." My best guess is that you overestimate by at least one. And, by the way, calling the whole of science "idiots" isn't going to get you very far.
Aman shah Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) 1331841284[/url]' post='665508']"I don't know how many have a workable gravity engine,perhaps very few including me.May be only me-one only." My best guess is that you overestimate by at least one. And, by the way, calling the whole of science "idiots" isn't going to get you very far. Oh,I am not calling Science as "idiot"!The idiots are many of those who definately are idiots!How can science be idiot.Science is a subject ,not a living being. 1331842746[/url]' post='665518']Gravity is only a single force. Wrong,I thing you have not understood what I have described in the first Flickr webpage post.I also told that I have also added some more description 2-3 lines on the first Flickr post(diagram is still the same) Edited March 16, 2012 by Aman shah
Klaynos Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 Just saying wrong doesn't change the physics. Could you please give me the maths then. This will have to include vectors I'd imagine. All of the maths I know for gravity it's one conservative force. 1
Aman shah Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) I am finding difficult to explain this to you,because I think you are confussed.Yes,I might make a better detailed vector diagram to show you soon.The vector diagram for the first Flickr post is complicated to draw!The last diagram I posted was only a simplified version.Till now,if you have not seen this few sentences on Flickr,then see this carefully once more. Now assume that you place one electrical generator at each wheel both in case 1 and case 2 ,then energy produced in case 1) is more than that in case 2),only due to weight force and implusive force distribution. So if you spend some energy to lift a ball up,you can recover it through one of the generators and take additional impulsive energy as output power though other generator. Now,when the rod falls over the floor,the vibration (bouncing) in case 2) is more than case 1) because impulsive energy turns into output more effectively in case 1)So the additional energy in case 2) is converted into inter material vibrations (Phonons)in the rod and more bounces compared to than in case1). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon That bounces will still be slightly converted to little useful energy but not as much as that in case 1). I use similar analogous concept in my engine Plus one more simple secret concept. Edited March 16, 2012 by Aman shah
Klaynos Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 If you remove all of the energy from it falling there will still be no bounce, no vibration.
Aman shah Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) 1331896824[/url]' post='665636']If you remove all of the energy from it falling there will still be no bounce, no vibration. The fact in case 1),that you can convert more energy into usable energy at both the generators compared to only one generator as in case2) shows the evidence of additional gravity potential component in addition to the potential energy component achieved while lifting the heavy ball.If you have still not understood this,imagine how cricket ball is being pushed by a bat which not only displaces the ball with the bat,but also it gives additional momentum(impulse).The 1st case proves that this concept is also valid for gravity.It's better that you make the models as illustrated in case 1) and 2) with weight at the top of the rod and attach generators at each wheel and see how much electrical power each case makes.Compare the power conversion efficiency.No,this is not the exact mechanism used in my engine.This is an analogy. If these is not true then the rod in case 1) should have partially come towards downwards,not touching ground,because it shouldn't have been attracted by enough gravitational pulling energy to help it touch the ground because of the resistance of two wheels instead of one wheel.This do not happen at all and hence proves the existence of two components of gravity. Edited March 16, 2012 by Aman shah
Klaynos Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 You cannot convert more energy. The case of the bat the bat adds energy. Gravity is a conservative force acting in one direction.
Aman shah Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) 1331900130[/url]' post='665641']You cannot convert more energy. The case of the bat the bat adds energy. Gravity is a conservative force acting in one direction. Agreed that Gravity acts in one direction but the effect of gravity can be extended to other direction.For example,a weight on left side of a rotary fan(vertical) will cause a movement of other fan blade on right side in opposite direction.The acted gravitational force can be diverged to any other path by designing the mechanical elements accordingly.I have an example of one part of my engine which explains your doubt about two components very well,but I cannot disclose that due to patent processing. Edited March 16, 2012 by Aman shah
Klaynos Posted March 16, 2012 Posted March 16, 2012 Agreed that Gravity acts in one direction but the effect of gravity can be extended to other direction.For example,a weight on left side of a rotary fan(vertical) will cause a movement of other fan blade on right side in opposite direction.The acted gravitational force can be diverged to any other path by designing the mechanical elements accordingly.I have an example of one part of my engine which explains your doubt about two components very well,but I cannot disclose that due to patent processing. But this does not provide any increase in the extractable energy.
Aman shah Posted March 16, 2012 Author Posted March 16, 2012 (edited) 1331903097[/url]' post='665646']But this does not provide any increase in the extractable energy. I think the modified description on first Flickr post may explain this.Or else I request Hypervalent iodine or any other physics experts to read and study post 66 fully along with first Flickr post and comment on this,if he/she points out something interesting. Edited March 16, 2012 by Aman shah
Aman shah Posted March 20, 2012 Author Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) Let's take an another example to understand how my engine basically works.I have posted this example on Flickr. http://www.flickr.co...N07/6854088744/ Edited March 20, 2012 by Aman shah
Pantaz Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Let's take an another example to understand how my engine basically works. ... Still won't work. You are assuming far too much. Perhaps if you read the section, "The Elastic/Inelastic Dilemma" on http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/physgal.htm then you might start understanding where your design is lacking.
Klaynos Posted March 21, 2012 Posted March 21, 2012 Still won't work. You are assuming far too much. Perhaps if you read the section, "The Elastic/Inelastic Dilemma" on http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/physgal.htm then you might start understanding where your design is lacking. Agreed, got bored of repeating myself.
Aman shah Posted March 22, 2012 Author Posted March 22, 2012 (edited) Well,disagreeing this means disagreeing laws of nature.I thought ,The example I used would explain you 70 percent of the concept,but unfortunately has not explained to you.Have you considered the stress which I have talked about in the elastic net?The actual concept would not use any net but will use distribution of both energy needed to lift heavy piston (recovered) PLUS energy output on one shaft from the centre which is then transferred through a secret confidential technique for best efficiency.Sorry,I don't agree with you.Read the same last Flickr post once again.May be you understand. Edited March 22, 2012 by Aman shah
Pantaz Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Well,disagreeing... So, apparently, you aren't here to learn, you simply want agreement with your idea. Show your math, then we can talk. Until then, I'm done here.
Ophiolite Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 Aman, as you have stated in another forum you believe that the potential enrgy of a body depends upon how long it is supported within a gravity field, or how long it takes to be raised within such a field. For the record, would you care to confirm that on this forum?
Klaynos Posted March 22, 2012 Posted March 22, 2012 energy needed to lift heavy piston (recovered) PLUS energy output on one shaft from the centre which There's no plus.
Aman shah Posted March 23, 2012 Author Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) 1332455499[/url]' post='666931']Aman, as you have stated in another forum you believe that the potential enrgy of a body depends upon how long it is supported within a gravity field, or how long it takes to be raised within such a field. For the record, would you care to confirm that on this forum? Well,yes, 1)Suppose you place any object on a table top,the object will transfer it's gravity potential energy to table top.the table top will be full of internal vibrations on atomic lattice scale. 2) Similarly,suppose you have an elastic net with hole at bottom,ithat object/ball will transfer its potential energy to the net.The elastic net will be strained (related to material science) and will elongate causing vibrations which can be tapped by piezoelectric effect.This will increase the time taken to ball to come down by miliseconds to let the elastic material strained but at the end what we have is usable output. 3)Well,if you hold a object in air,you are going against the gravity as equal and opposite reaction producing zero net gravity. So gravity energy can be a fuel,but it should not be wasted simply.What my engine does is something similar to Case 2).The problem is we have gravity as fuel,we simply waste it. In my actual engine,I am using heavy pistons,gears,central shaft force distribution technique,etc.Actual engine will not use balls and net,which was just a very good analogous example Well,someone asked me whether I am here to learn or not.My answer is Yes,I am here to learn.But not blindly,first I will validate the comments here and then learn surely if anything is told which I don't know. Well what I have learnt from few forums like this is amazing!Infact,2-3 experts on other forums like this agreed that my idea works surely with no doubt. But they made me realise one thing:My idea works because of strained gravitational energy in material over a period of time,not beacause of impulsive energy. Since my idea is derived straight away from nature,there is no doubt my idea works. One more thing:My machine is not perpetual.Perpetual machine don't exist. Cases 1),2) and 3) I discussed are common sense to anyone.If someone is disagreeing to existance of elastic material,stresses,resistance and these three cases,it might mean that her/his basis in physics are not clear. Iwill give two examples how nature inspires and converts it in to inventions: 1)See how a fruit falls over a leaf attached to a leaf and sets the leaf in vibration,because of elasticity and resistance to fall of fruit causing stress in leaf. 2) see how MIT scientists made Artificial leaf which involves artificial photosynthesis.(A competition to gravity engines)The Artificial leaf is an excellent invention.We could have vehicles carrying a water tank which supplies water to this device which then converts water into H2 and O2 which can power a compact fuel cell for vehicle power train.I think this device is one of the most promising device.It is even better than having an electric car with expensive batteries such as tesla model S having a range of 480 Kms per charge. http://web.mit.edu/n...-leaf-0930.html I think we should learn from nature and ,my engine is inspired from nature. Edited March 23, 2012 by Aman shah
John Cuthber Posted March 23, 2012 Posted March 23, 2012 Aman, You misunderstood my post. You are saying that all the scientists are idiots. You are not only wrong about that, but you are wrong about how gravity works. If you take the trouble to learn what you are talking about then you will realise this. Until then you are wasting not just your time but other people's time trying to teach you. Until then you will remain just plain wrong.
Aman shah Posted March 23, 2012 Author Posted March 23, 2012 (edited) May be you really misunderstood something. I used the word Idiots for those people who tried to create non realistic Perpetual motion machines and those people who can't think out of box:conventional.I didnt told that scientists are idiots. I used the word idiots for Some class of people,not for scientists. A persion trying to make Perpectual machine is definately an idiot.See,my engine is not perpetual. I would have named my topic as Real Gravity Engines.The reason why I had to add the words"Non perpeual" is that people assume that gravity engine is perpetual and cannot run,without actually reading the description.I know this psychology of people. In fact when I started inventing my engine,I was not knowing meaning of perpetual 4 years back.You can call this engine as gravity resistance engine.The resistance is realised by centralised (point weight) point loaded shaft. For understanding the concept fully,ou can log on to, http://blogs.scienceforums.net/realfreeenergy/ Or same description is available is available just below the image upload on last post on Flickr, http://www.flickr.co...N07/6854088744/ Edited March 23, 2012 by Aman shah
Recommended Posts