ydoaPs Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) 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! You can't get rid of it. You will have to add energy to keep it from stopping.....in any design. It's a physics problem; not an engineering one. Edited March 14, 2012 by ydoaPs
Aman shah Posted March 14, 2012 Author Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) 1331738906[/url]' post='665197']You can't get rid of it. You will have to add energy to keep it from stopping.....in any design. It's a physics problem; not an engineering one. I have heard of magnetic friction reduction Technologies which are slowly commercialised and is under research,which we can use in future to reduce friction.we will try to reduce frction and we can't eliminate.In the mean time,you will be happy that my engine invention does not have so much friction problems,the friction is Infact only as much as in IC Engines in my engine design! Yes,everything is physics,engineering is application of physics!I love physics! Please see, http://en.wikipedia....agnetic_bearing Edited March 14, 2012 by Aman shah
ydoaPs Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 They don't get rid of the friction. They just make it smaller. There will always be friction in any design.
Klaynos Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 They also take energy, magnetism isn't a free ride. 1
Aman shah Posted March 14, 2012 Author Posted March 14, 2012 1331742135[/url]' post='665205']They also take energy, magnetism isn't a free ride. Good point!But be assured that my invention does not have such problems!Let engineers see if some great ideas spark into their and my mind to reduce friction.
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? I still feel this way.
ydoaPs Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 Good point!But be assured that my invention does not have such problems!Let engineers see if some great ideas spark into their and my mind to reduce friction. How do you plan to completely remove friction? Any friction will eventually make it stop. And, as Klaynos said, even reducing friction with magnets (which doesn't remove friction) requires energy input. Then if you want to actually do anything with it, you'll need to add even more energy.
Aman shah Posted March 14, 2012 Author Posted March 14, 2012 (edited) 1331746755[/url]' post='665221']How do you plan to completely remove friction? Any friction will eventually make it stop. And, as Klaynos said, even reducing friction with magnets (which doesn't remove friction) requires energy input. Then if you want to actually do anything with it, you'll need to add even more energy. No,friction is not completely removed in my invention,but it is allmost as much as any IC engine!The other's invention in the animation video has a friction factor around 30 times more than acceptable maximum value,I think so.I was never talking ever of completely removing friction.I was telling that Engineer always should try to reduce friction.There is difference between reducing and completely eliminating/removing. Edited March 14, 2012 by Aman shah
ydoaPs Posted March 14, 2012 Posted March 14, 2012 No,friction is not completely removed in my invention,but it is allmost as much as any IC engine!The other's invention in the animation video has a friction factor around 30 times more than acceptable maximum value,I think so.I was never talking ever of completely removing friction.I was telling that Engineer always should try to reduce friction.There is difference between reducing and completely eliminating/removing. Which is why you'll have to add energy with any design.
Aman shah Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) 1331752948[/url]' post='665245']Which is why you'll have to add energy with any design. Agreed,but friction is considered in my design and can gaurantee you that there is no big problem in the working of my engine.(Here considered means friction factor value is kept under workable/acceptable limits) unlike that of the engine in the video. Edited March 15, 2012 by Aman shah
John Cuthber Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Aman, do you realise that there is probably nobody here who believes you? And there won't be until you show some real evidence so you might as well stop posting.
Aman shah Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) 1331794769[/url]' post='665360']Aman, do you realise that there is probably nobody here who believes you? And there won't be until you show some real evidence so you might as well stop posting. 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.Well,I am trying to spread the reality to as many people as possible!It depends on people how they except the reality.It is not a dump man's task to make gravity engines.Its needs intelluctual people like me,newton,Galileo,etc.There are only few true gravity engine inventors!The others have failed because they have either tried to create PMM or have tried to cheat society.I don't know why those idiots tried to made PMM.You can't make PMM.My engine is not a PMM.The most funniest thing is this:Most people think Psychologically that a gravity engine is PMM and cannot run.Who told them this nonsense? Edited March 15, 2012 by Aman shah
Klaynos Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 Everyone loves hydroelectric... or jump starting your car down a hill...
Aman shah Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) But we need to make easier and more convinient solutions,we cannot make dams everywhere.A suitable location is needed.You cannot make dams in some areas like Rajasthan,India,placed around deserts.And it's so risky to handle dams,can cause floods,also difficult to fight against cavitation of turbine blades.Making dams are so expensive.It has still not completely replaced coal derived power generation plants. Edited March 15, 2012 by Aman shah
Klaynos Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 But we need to make easier and more convinient solutions,we cannot make dams everywhere.A suitable location is needed.You cannot make dams in some areas like Rajasthan,India,placed around deserts.And it's so risky to handle dams,can cause floods,also difficult to fight against cavitation of turbine blades.Making dams are so expensive.It has still not completely replaced coal derived power generation plants. The thing with hydroelectric it's very obvious where the energy comes from to move the water against graivty in the first place, the sun. I'm unclear in your proposed idea where this energy comes from and as I've said before why you do not just use that in a direct conversion to electricity.
Aman shah Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) Let us Summarise only important things I shared with you:My engine Is not Perpectual and based on the regular laws of physics you read in books,use or see everyday. Why my engine works and why not Perpectual? If it does not work,it will prove the regular laws of physics absolutely wrong! All the laws of physics used in my engine are already validated to be true!and all those theories are used in other devices There are three types of theories which can be proposed by a scientist: 1)theories based on assumptions(assumptions made with doubtable reasons):May be wrong or right:need to be experimentally verified 2) theories based on well known and well established laws:Always right 3)Hybrid of 1st and 2nd type My engine is based on 2nd type! To prove my engine works I have to prove that my engine works on regular laws of physics! Since my engine is based on regular concepts of physics,there is no doubt that it works! To check the validity of my engine,you may check the basic analogous principle of operation of my engine! Now I am going to start making a prototype!I am talking to my college professors for starting this project!And the response is positive! Analogous Principle of working of my Non Perpectual gravity engine: (analogous principle of working means a principle of working Similar to that of the original principle of working) : This is "Gravity-Piston Impulse Kinetic Power Technology". Let's assume that,you spent energy to take object up,and regain supplied energy when object comes down PLUS gravitational amplification occurs when that object (Lets take example of basket ball)hits a basket ball net with small hole at bottom.When the basket ball hits the net,the net sets in vibration due to IMPULSIVE energy(gravitational amplification) .Assume that the net is piezo electric elastic material which converts impulsive energy to electrical energy!The basket ball net is analogous to 4 flywheels I used in my original engine design.(I use pusher rods to transmit energy to flywheels in my original design). Instead of heavy ball,I use heavy pistons and special force distribution technique,not disclosed here. I can't disclose the whole concept to general public because I am applying for patent:There are ready diagrams relating to my idea,but i fear some one could copy.Hence,I am explaining my invention through an analogous Example! My engine design is inspired from nature,hence there are no chances of failure of my Non Perpectual gravity engine. So what's according to me is gravity amplification : Additional gravitational energy stored in a descending body when gravity acts on it! This leads to Impulsive energy transfer! To be more elaborate, gravitational energy which has two components: 1) energy required to bring heavy object down 2) excessive potential energy Applied by gravity which then is converted in to Impulsive energy. Let's put it this way:take an other example not related to gravity engine.Whenever you push door,the door moves further than you intend to!Why?because of excess energy stored!Now,if u keep any ball in front of door on the floor,due to opening/pushing of door,the ball will get impulsive energy to move forward! Yes,that means gravitational energy utilised to pull the ball towards earth by the earth's magnetic field is much much more than energy required to lift it! So gravitational amplification is basically the excess energy gravity stores in a falling body like heavy ball!This can be used as impulsive energy by special and simple technique!Well ifyou are not aware,Impulsive energy is very high integral of sudden energies in a short time! I also use a weight distribution technique to get get back both impulsive energy in the form of electrical output as well as the energy needed to lift the piston up. regarding the analogous Principle in Weight and impulse force distribution,please see, http://www.flickr.co...N07/6829601232/ At first, I intend to produce products only for domestic use and as a camping accessory. I am doing more research for increasing power output so that it can be used in the future in cars. A single cylinder arrangement with 4 flywheels arrangement can produce enough power to power a tube light. What is the energy source powering your engine? The fuel is 1)impulsive potential energy component of gravity stored in heavy object if you lift it to a height as well as 2)the other gravity component needed to pull a heavy object towards the earth.You spent 2nd component fully to lift up the heavy object which is again converted to power BUT the other component emerges as the main power output(product). Ok,Let me put the initial basic equation 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 A=energy given to lift piston PLUS additional potential impulsive energy stored in the heavy body when it is lifted up PLUS little friction component B!Now, 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 A plus or minus friction component B. Now, 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....agnetic_bearing http://adsabs.harvar...APS..NEF.DB003D Even if I use these bearings,I will not be able to eliminate friction completely! Note that the final equation satisfies all known laws of physics and proves that my engine design is not Perpectual.There are few scientist who don't know the meaning of the word "Perpectual".Very few scientists may have invented a gravity engine but called it Perpectual without knowing that their engine could not be Perpectual.And there are only few real inventors ,not many. Also,note thatthis equation represents analogous principle of my engine.I also use a weight distribution technique to get get back both impulsive energy in the form of electrical output as well as the energy needed to lift the piston up. regarding the analogous Principle in Weight and impulse force distribution,please see, http://www.flickr.co...N07/6829601232/ Note that analogous means similar.Due to patent processing law requirnments ,I am not able to post the exact construction and working of my gravity engine,but it will be available as soon as patent is granted on the Internet. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analogous for more details about analogy. Note that I am only converting a form of energy into other,I am not creating energy. Still some are confused with impulsive energy? Example: Let us consider that a heavy ball is lifted to and kept on a basket ball catching net with a elastically expandable hole at the bottom.The net is elastic material .Due to gravity,the ball does falls and releases energy back,which was required to lift up(which can be recovered by specially designed mechanical means.).BUT the ball will not simply stop.It will use its excess potential energy to bounce back two to three times before it comes to rest.This bouncing back is actually caused due to impulsive energy due to conversion of additional potential energy into pulses(impulse) which occurs when the floor hits the heavy basket ball again and again(based on newton's law of equal and opposite reaction). According to Wikipedia, Impulse (physics), in mechanics, something that changes the momentum of an object; the integral of a force with respect to time According to Wikipedia, In classical mechanics, an impulse (abbreviated I or J) is defined as the integral of a force with respect to time. When a force is applied to a rigid body it changes the momentum of that body. A small force applied for a long time can produce the same momentum change as a large force applied briefly, because it is the product of the force and the time for which it is applied that is important. The impulse is always equal to the change of momentum. More information is also given on Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia....pulse_(physics) 1331817242[/url]' post='665414']The thing with hydroelectric it's very obvious where the energy comes from to move the water against graivty in the first place, the sun. I'm unclear in your proposed idea where this energy comes from and as I've said before why you do not just use that in a direct conversion to electricity. Sun is a powerful source of energy,probably gravity may be a conversion of solar energy,Not sure at all.Latest physics research may proove or may not prove about gravity - solar energy relationship. Edited March 15, 2012 by Aman shah
Klaynos Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 When I get time I'll read the whole above post. But The fuel is 1)impulsive potential energy component of gravity stored in heavy object if you lift it to a height as well as 2)the other gravity component needed to pull a heavy object towards the earth.You spent 2nd component fully to lift up the heavy object which is again converted to power BUT the other component emerges as the main power output(product). worries me somewhat as there is still only one energy source, the energy to lift the object which I still think would be a more efficient if you just extracted that energy.
Aman shah Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) 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. Edited March 15, 2012 by Aman shah
Klaynos Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 I have done similar experiments. The energy that can be extracted is less than the energy used to increase the height of the object. That is ALWAYS the case.
Aman shah Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) 1331827125[/url]' post='665457']I have done similar experiments. The energy that can be extracted is less than the energy used to increase the height of the object. That is ALWAYS the case. That energy which you are talking of is the main energy output(impulsive energy)!The energy required to lift the heavy piston(here,ball) up is recovered in my engine when the ball is comming down ,not when the ball bounces.Well,how I use impulsive energy is partially kept secret of my engine BUT how I recover both impulsive potential energy and Impulsive energy is Partially explained with a example on, http://www.flickr.co.../in/photostream I distribute both impulsive potential energy and energy required to lift weight on the same shaft.( Partially explained on flickr webpage means some secrets are discussed/leaked and some secrets are not discussed at all due to patent processing On Flickr webpage.)The secrets discussed even though analogy here on this webpage as well as on Flickr website should be enough to get a proper idea of the validity /principle of working of my concept.If someone can copy and paste the content on Flickr on this forum with the rough sketch I posted on Flickr,that will be useful!My iPad does not support that without IOS App developed for Science Forums. Edited March 15, 2012 by Aman shah
Klaynos Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 That energy which you are talking of is the main energy output(impulsive energy)!The energy required to lift the heavy piston(here,ball) up is recovered in my engine when the ball is comming down ,not when the ball bounces. If you remove all of the energy used to lift the ball as it falls it will hit the ground with a velocity of 0. It will not bounce.
Aman shah Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) 1331830859[/url]' post='665469']If you remove all of the energy used to lift the ball as it falls it will hit the ground with a velocity of 0. It will not bounce. I will suggest look at the Flickr website sketch I posted!There you will find the answer!It shows the proper Weight and impulsive force distribution over same shaft through the centre.It won't bounce much if you extract the impulsive energy through the special mechanism I have made.But if we don't extract that impulsive energy,it will bounce very much.Remember Gravitational energy has two components which I have discussed,not one. Edited March 15, 2012 by Aman shah
Klaynos Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 I will suggest look at the Flickr website sketch I posted!There you will find the answer!It shows the proper Weight and impulsive force distribution over same shaft through the centre.It won't bounce much if you extract the impulsive energy through the special mechanism I have made.But if we don't extract that impulsive energy,it will bounce very much.Remember Gravitational energy has two components which I have discussed,not one. I have seen those images and commented that if the efficiency of the extraction is the same between case one and case two the wheels will be moving at a different speed. I think you are deceiving yourself with the two "componants" of gravitational energy. There is one, which changes with height. If you extract all the energy it does not bounce, it cannot bounce there is no energy.
Aman shah Posted March 15, 2012 Author Posted March 15, 2012 (edited) 1331832957[/url]' post='665480']I have seen those images and commented that if the efficiency of the extraction is the same between case one and case two the wheels will be moving at a different speed. I think you are deceiving yourself with the two "componants" of gravitational energy. There is one, which changes with height. If you extract all the energy it does not bounce, it cannot bounce there is no energy. You have misunderstood,I have added slightly more Description info on Flickr,just look once again. Edited March 15, 2012 by Aman shah
Klaynos Posted March 15, 2012 Posted March 15, 2012 This does not address my concerns. Can you draw a vector diagram showing the two components of the force?
Recommended Posts