Fuzzwood Posted March 11, 2012 Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) This is analogy!In actual practise,a heavy weight piston is lifted and then left at an offset position to let it down due to gravity,during which the supplied energy is recovered by special means!The impulsive energy is the output which otherwise could have wasted!I think,you just joined discussion,so I will recommend to read my second comment first to understand in detail! How is that ANY different from the proposed equation? Gravity is a conservative force which means that the work done by any mass is independent of the path taken. Again, provide us with valid equation, else you are deemed as just another crackpot who failed at physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_force Edited March 11, 2012 by Fuzzwood
John Cuthber Posted March 11, 2012 Posted March 11, 2012 And I think I have explained the basic idea/concept in this forum! Does anyone else think so?
Aman shah Posted March 11, 2012 Author Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) Ok,Let me put it in this form:Impulsive energy converted to electricity by special conversion technique (not disclosed here)PLUS energy to lift the heavy object up recovered PLUS little friction component 1 =energy given to lift piston PLUS additional potential impulsive energy stored in the heavy body when it is lifted up PLUS little friction component 2! Thats the basic Equation idea!I have putted it in a simple format! Edited March 11, 2012 by Aman shah
Klaynos Posted March 11, 2012 Posted March 11, 2012 If you add all of those things together you still get only the energy used to move the mass to top position. Why not use that energy wherever it comes from in your generator. You'll extract less because no process is perfect. There is no additional energy.
Joatmon Posted March 11, 2012 Posted March 11, 2012 What you appear to be saying is that if you dropped a heavy ball onto a spring it would bounce back into the air. You seem to agree that it would bounce to a lesser height and eventually come to rest on the spring after so many bounces. What you seem to be proposing is that the oscillatory motion could give you some useful energy that otherwise would be wasted. You seem to agree that the energy you get would be less than that required to lift the ball. If so, I don't see anything new.
Aman shah Posted March 11, 2012 Author Posted March 11, 2012 (edited) Hold down,you all r confused!I went outside for dinner,so couldn't reply immediately. As discussed earlier gravity acting has two components:(a)energy required to pull a heavy object (b)potential impulsive energy. Also,the energy to lift the heavy object up recovered=energy given to lift the piston----eq.1) Use eq.1) in previous equation.Also,Resultant friction= plus or minus friction component 1 plus or minus friction component 2. what do you get? 1331483033[/url]' post='664420']Hold down,you all r confused!I went outside for dinner,so couldn't reply immediately. As discussed earlier gravity acting has two components:(a)energy required to pull a heavy object (b)potential impulsive energy. Also,the energy to lift the heavy object up recovered=energy given to lift the piston----eq.1) Use eq.1) in previous equation.Also,Resultant friction= plus or minus friction component 1 plus or minus friction component 2. what do you get? Come on,concept I used is really simple and occurs daily in nature!Why you are not understanding it!The difficulty previously before was in applying this concept in gravity engine through use of gears,pistons,flywheels,etc.which I have not discussed here!I am surprised that you can't understand the simple analogous principle! 1331478568[/url]' post='664406']What you appear to be saying is that if you dropped a heavy ball onto a spring it would bounce back into the air. You seem to agree that it would bounce to a lesser height and eventually come to rest on the spring after so many bounces. What you seem to be proposing is that the oscillatory motion could give you some useful energy that otherwise would be wasted. You seem to agree that the energy you get would be less than that required to lift the ball. If so, I don't see anything new. I advice,First go through the analogous principle of my engine,if u haven't seen it!I have discussed it in second part of my second comment Edited March 11, 2012 by Aman shah
Aman shah Posted March 12, 2012 Author Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) You will get finally as: Impulsive energy converted to electricity by special conversion technique (not disclosed here)=additional potential impulsive energy stored in the heavy body when it is lifted up PLUS Or MINUS Resultant friction You can same equation write in other similar way as: Impulsive energy converted to electricity by special conversion technique (not disclosed here) PLUS Or MINUS Resultant friction=additional potential impulsive energy stored in the heavy body when it is lifted up. As you all know you can't make friction zero!Infact friction is one of the Important cause of increase in entropy. Interestingly ,I had heard of new research about magnetic friction less bearing,but I don't know much about this frictionless magnetic bearing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_bearing http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000APS..NEF.DB003D Even if I use these bearings,I will not be able to eliminate friction completely! Edited March 12, 2012 by Aman shah
Aman shah Posted March 12, 2012 Author Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) Please see , http://www.flickr.co.../in/photostream Here I have explained with rough sketch,how you can use special weight distribution technique useful in gravity engine. This post has been edited by Aman shah: Today, 04:57 PM Edited March 12, 2012 by Aman shah
hypervalent_iodine Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 Can I ask if these images are sketches of your device: Edited as per request.
Klaynos Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 If the energy transferred between the ball and the device is the same between case 1 and case 2, which as the transferring method is the same I cannot see how it could be different the wheels will not be moving at an equal speed as you state. The energy of the wheels (combined) in case 1 will be equal to the energy of the wheel in case 2.
Aman shah Posted March 12, 2012 Author Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) 1331553291[/url]' post='664595']If the energy transferred between the ball and the device is the same between case 1 and case 2, which as the transferring method is the same I cannot see how it could be different the wheels will not be moving at an equal speed as you state. The energy of the wheels (combined) in case 1 will be equal to the energy of the wheel in case 2. This is very interesting and intelligent Question:The gravitational energy when applied to object at height has two components: 1)The impulsive potential energy and 2) attractive pulling component. Well,the resultant velocity of two wheels will be same as resultant velocity as in the other case showing single wheel.But energy transferred in case 2 will be partially wasted when wheel hits the floor!as bumps or vibrations. 1331552020[/url]' post='664594']Can I ask if these images are sketches of your device: Yes ,these sketches are mine but not detailed!some detailed sketches are still kept secret by me !Still I believe that some intelligent people can understand my sketches!Hence I ask Hypervalent Iodine to kindly delete this sketches,considering the patent processing requirnments!i have already now deleted it from Flickr . I was not expecting that some one could resize it and see those diagrams!This is very sensitive for patent processing! Please I request you to delete those sketches. Edited March 12, 2012 by Aman shah
Klaynos Posted March 12, 2012 Posted March 12, 2012 This is very interesting and intelligent Question:The gravitational energy when applied to object at height has two components: 1)The impulsive potential energy and 2) attractive pulling component. Well,the resultant velocity of two wheels will be same as resultant velocity as in the other case showing single wheel.But energy transferred in case 2 will be partially wasted when wheel hits the floor!as bumps or vibrations. You have set your system up so you are comparing two different efficiency situations then, which is arbitrary in this case. There is nothing fundamental that says the second case must have energy left over in the falling ball. Can you draw a vector diagram of a ball falling that shows these two components you are talking about, they seem fictitious to me.
Aman shah Posted March 12, 2012 Author Posted March 12, 2012 Well let me think how can I explain!Well I will try to make vector diagram!I thought,you might have understood!but you haven't,Any way I will try to see how to explain.
Aman shah Posted March 13, 2012 Author Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Also one interesting news:I have got another idea of inventing a non Perpectual Gravity Engine when I sleeping at night 3 O'clock(indian timing),which is based mostly on the same weight force distribution technique mostly.I have not eliminated concept of impulse completely but somehow eliminated more use of it.The advantage is more compact system,more consistency in power and less fatique,creep chances.Don't be surprised,scientists don't have any time restriction,Infact I don't care about my clothes. 1331577746[/url]' post='664693']Well let me think how can I explain!Well I will try to make vector diagram!I thought,you might have understood!but you haven't,Any way I will try to see how to explain. The energy is left unused in the wheels mostly,than in the ball mostly.The rod will come down and bounce ,left unused and vibrations will occur.Whether it is 1st case or 2nd case,loss of impulsive energy is present but loss is much much much more in case 2 compared to case 1. Edited March 13, 2012 by Aman shah
shawnhcorey Posted March 13, 2012 Posted March 13, 2012 Hi friends I am inventing gravity engine.I will post more updates I thought those were called water wheels. 1
Aman shah Posted March 13, 2012 Author Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) 1331649705[/url]' post='664955']I thought those were called water wheels. No,that's very different!But it seems good source of power if flowing water is available and in proper way,that's completely different. However,what we are looking at is easier and convinient source of power.Dams already exist,but difficult to maintain and build,and has enviornmental imapacts to the life of marine animals.Location availability is also important,that's why I am inventing convinient gravity engines!May be if I succed in increasing power output by design modification ,Gravity engines may power your car one day. Edited March 13, 2012 by Aman shah
Aman shah Posted March 14, 2012 Author Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) Hi,there is an exciting news!Some one has Made a Real Non-Perpectual Gravity engine intelligently by using the Weight shifting!My god Ness!Wow!My competitor's design is more compact than me and gives consistent power!I am a bit Jaelous of this!This guy don't know the meaning of "Perpectual motion machines".because even though his machine is not Perpectual,he calls it Perpectual!Please see his invention: I was not expecting to see this!He is intelligently shifting the weight of the ball ,Unbelievable!Its so simple that I am thinking why his idea didnt cam to my mind!I am a bit Jaelous of him! I think,this guy should have patented his invention!Such a brilliant invention,just see his video and then post commentsProof that Non-Perpectual graity engines can exist is in front of you in the You-Tube video! The proof is front of you in YouTube !Support truth for greener world!There are plentiful cheaters on the Internet and plentiful people claiming to invent Perpectual motion machine!My task is to filter these out and reveal the truth about Non-Perpectual Real Gravity engines.Surprisingly the other inventor who's video I have posted seems to not know the meaning of the world"Perpectual".Even though his invention is not Perpectual,he calls it Perpectual! Edited March 14, 2012 by Aman shah
Aman shah Posted March 14, 2012 Author Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) 1331729634[/url]' post='665160']Have you heard of friction? WARNING: Allmost Every one knows what is friction.Please do post only relevant comments!Do not post unrelavent funny comments!.If you will repeat the same,I will have to report/inform the moderator. Edited March 14, 2012 by Aman shah -1
Klaynos Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Friction is a very real concern for these devices.
ydoaPs Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Friction is a very real concern for these devices. Indeed. Notice how neither of the videos were of actual objects, but rather computer simulations.
Aman shah Posted March 14, 2012 Author Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) They were computer simulations but the physics used in animation was very clear and understandable to me!If you have not understood that video concept,let me know so that I can explain you!Its actually simple principle! 1331735198[/url]' post='665178']Friction is a very real concern for these devices. I know that!Infact every engineer/ physics graduate knows that!And we take care to reduce that as much as possible!Technologies like Magnetic frictionless bearing (new tech under research ) will be changing that within few years!I see the problem of friction in this device(video),but through modern engineering,engineers can reduce that by new research!The difficulty is in engineering point of view ,not in basic concept/principle of working. Edited March 14, 2012 by Aman shah
Klaynos Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 I don't see how this is any better than rolling a ball down a hill or a newton's cradle then?
ydoaPs Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 They were computer simulations but the physics used in animation was very clear and understandable to me!If you have not understood that video concept,let me know so that I can explain you!Its actually simple principle! Did it take friction into account?
Aman shah Posted March 14, 2012 Author Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) 1331738096[/url]' post='665191']Did it take friction into account? In my engine design,yes,but in this video:no,But still the device in the video can be fine tuned and friction can be reduced by engineers by new low friction technologies in research! I understood the principle of working of the engine in video animation wholly!But I have the concern of friction between the rails/spokes of the wheel and the heavy balls,which will hinder the smooth travel of ball over the rail/spoke.The video concept can still work,but what enginiers has to do is finding and making new techniques to reduce friction between the balls and the rails/spoke!The video leaks the secret of the concept,I understood the concept fully and I have confirmed that It will work,provided engineers are able to reduce friction between balls and rails/wheel spokes. We don't have to wait for any one to proove the concept in that video,but we need to reduce friction (very very important). The concept in video is Wrongly tittled as "Perpectual". it is not Perpectual! I have heard of new magnetic lubrication systems including magnetic friction less bearings which are slowly commercialised and which are under research,which can be used here! Due to friction, wear out and fatique stresses are more prone to occur here compared to that of my engine! So the challenge is friction,fatique,creep and wear,a totally engineering problem! Whereas my Engine design does not have so much friction related problems! Edited March 14, 2012 by Aman shah
Recommended Posts