Jump to content

The energy producer


Recommended Posts

yahya, please take a piece of paper and then draw the following. To move your plate horizontally you need to apply a total acceleration pointing towards your target location, right? Now, draw g vector pointing down. And now draw another acceleration vector such that the sum of this a and g vectors will give you a net vector at pointing in the direction towards your target location. Do you see now that the vector a will have to point upwards making an angle with the horizontal line and so the force you need to apply to provide this acceleration will have to be bigger than just to move horizontally as you claim?

 

That's your gravitational losses. Every time you move the plate sideways you'll need to provide an extra boost to account for gravity. And you won't get this energy back.

Edited by pavelcherepan
Link to post
Share on other sites

yahya, please take a piece of paper and then draw the following. To move your plate horizontally you need to apply a total acceleration pointing towards your target location, right? Now, draw g vector pointing down. And now draw another acceleration vector such that the sum of this a and g vectors will give you a net vector at pointing in the direction towards your target location. Do you see now that the vector a will have to point upwards making an angle with the horizontal line and so the force you need to apply to provide this acceleration will have to be bigger than just to move horizontally as you claim?

 

That's your gravitational losses. Every time you move the plate sideways you'll need to provide an extra boost to account for gravity. And you won't get this energy back.

look at the picture above , in the previous post of mine , the acceleration of gravity g will cancel , if the surface is frictionless I may need small force to just push it along to continue motion by itself , the force may be neglected if the mass of the iron is small .

are you convinced now ?

Edited by yahya515
Link to post
Share on other sites

look at the picture above , in the previous post of mine , the acceleration of gravity g will cancel , if the surface is frictionless I may need small force to just push it along to continue motion by itself , the force may be neglected if the mass of the iron is small .

 

OK, now I see. So you have a frictionless surface suspended on springs. You're initial drawing didn't have this one. Did you change your design?

 

So now it makes sense - you'll just need a frictionless material, probably brought from the other universe or simply not consisting of atoms or molecules and you're golden. Best of luck with that! :blink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK, now I see. So you have a frictionless surface suspended on springs. You're initial drawing didn't have this one. Did you change your design?

 

So now it makes sense - you'll just need a frictionless material, probably brought from the other universe or simply not consisting of atoms or molecules and you're golden. Best of luck with that! :blink:

that is not a design , it is just a demonstration for the concept.

I do not need it to be completely frictionless , just at level to obtain more work from small one .

 

are you convinced now ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a clear problem with your concept and it has been pointed out to you.

It can not work. It produces no energy.

It is a breach of the laws of physics.

Not just a breach of the things we know because we have seen them before but a breach of a law that is proven mathematically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

 

And yet, even though you have no evidence for it, you think there is something to discuss.

There is not.

There hasn't been since someone pointed out the problem with this variation on the idea

The Taisnierus Magnetic Engine

http://www.kilty.com/pmotion.htm

Link to post
Share on other sites

There hasn't been since someone pointed out the problem with this variation on the idea

The Taisnierus Magnetic Engine

http://www.kilty.com/pmotion.htm

The Taisnierus Magnetic Engine has nothing to do with what I am talking about :)

There's a clear problem with your concept and it has been pointed out to you.

It can not work. It produces no energy.

It is a breach of the laws of physics.

that means you just can't analyze it :)

There's a clear problem with your concept and it has been pointed out to you.

 

let me summarize that , there are two people , one claimed that there must be a noticeable horizontal resistance and he was convinced that there is not , another one suggested that there must be loss due to gravity , and he was convinced that there is not, everything is clear here , Cuthber.

Edited by yahya515
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Taisnierus Magnetic Engine has nothing to do with what I am talking about :)

that means you just can't analyze it :)

let me summarize that , there are two people , one claimed that there must be a noticeable horizontal resistance and he was convinced that there is not , another one suggested that there must be loss due to gravity , and he was convinced that there is not, everything is clear here , Cuthber.

swansont and Cuthber know their stuff; you misunderstand the physics, yahya. All you need to do to prove us wrong is make something move forever with no input power, an axle, lever or wheel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Taisnierus Magnetic Engine has nothing to do with what I am talking about :)

that means you just can't analyze it :)

let me summarize that , there are two people , one claimed that there must be a noticeable horizontal resistance and he was convinced that there is not , another one suggested that there must be loss due to gravity , and he was convinced that there is not, everything is clear here , Cuthber.

yes it has: it also can't work.

It is difficult to analyse something so poorly described but that's not the issue.

I cited the proof that it can't work, so there's nothing to be gained from analysing it.

 

If I claimed to have some mathematical proof that pi was about 7 would you need to analyse it to know that it was wrong?

That is the sort of claim you have made.

You missed something from the summary

 

Over-unity/perpetual motion device designs can't be patented in the US. You'd have to actually build one and demonstrate it, because they designs never work. Never.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I see it, from your posts your idea rests on three things:

 

The force required to keep it going being small due to the "iron" being light enough. When talking about over unity devices you cannot ignore forces like this, they're killers.

 

Having a frictionless plate. This doesn't exist, you also have air resistance, saying it'll just be low friction so it can be disregarded is not going to work for this kind of device, those forces are killers.

 

Not having any horizontal resistance between the magnet and metal plate, that's not how it works, you get resistance, especially around edges.

 

These forces will ALWAYS result in your system slowing to a stop. If you need to give it a helping hand that's where the system energy is coming from, the energy out will always equal less than the energy you use to set it up and keep it going.

 

Members have attempted to explain this to you and get you to do simple force diagrams. You've not provided enough information to do a proper analytical analysis and it doesn't look like you will.

 

!

Moderator Note

Given this is an energy from nothing machine and the thread isn't going anywhere I'm closing it.

 

Build one, if you can make it run for more than a year report this post and we'll reopen the thread with some schematics so we can properly analyse the energies involved. Until then do not reintroduce this topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.