Notices
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 239
Like Tree9Likes

Thread: Real Non-Perpectual Gravity-Magnetic engines.

  1. #1 Real Non-Perpectual Gravity-Magnetic engines. 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Hi,I am inventing a non-Perpectual Gravity engine.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, A way of using more gravitational energy through weight concentration. | Flickr - Photo Sharing! 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. Magnetic bearing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 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, A way of using more gravitational energy through weight concentration. | Flickr - Photo Sharing! 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 Analogy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for more details about analogy. Note that I am only converting a form of energy into other,I am not creating energy.

    Please see,http://blogs.scienceforums.net/realf...gneticengines/

    FOR More Details in Proper Format.


    Last edited by Aman Shah; March 18th, 2012 at 07:28 AM.
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    So what's according to me is gravity amplification : Additional gravitational energy stored in a descending body when gravity acts on it!
    Sorry to tell you that, but "gravity amplification" does not exist. When you lift an object up, and then let if free-fall in perfect vacuum, you will get the exact same amount of energy out again. In practice, because there is no such thing as a perfect vacuum, you will actually loose some energy through friction, and when you try and perform any work through this type of engine, then the piston just simply will not return to its starting position. The gist of the matter is that whatever energy you get out of the engine, you have to first put in.
    So unfortunately this whole concept is a no-go.


     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    No,Gravity has two components:1)Potential energy2)Impulsive energy .I regain the energy supplied by a special mechanism when the heavy ball/Piston in real engine, comes down plus I also make use of Impulsive energy.Thats one of the secret of my engine.There have been many attempts to make a gravity engine,but as I expected they failed because they tried to foolishly make PMM.My engine is not a PMM.Its a revolutionary concept.
     

  5. #4  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    No,Gravity has two components:1)Potential energy2)Impulsive energy .I regain the energy supplied by a special mechanism when the heavy ball/Piston in real engine, comes down plus I also make use of Impulsive energy.
    No it doesn't, that is something you have just made up. There is just one type of energy at play here, and that is gravitational energy. In the Newtonian limit this is :

     

  6. #5  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    So have you built one yet? If not, why not? If you have then post the test results.

    Since you have an interest in revolutionary concepts, have you heard about the revolutionary concept of paragraphs?
    KALSTER likes this.
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    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
    Don't bother, we already know it does not work, even without looking at the blueprints.
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    This sure looks like pseudoscience to me. Moved.
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    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
    Don't bother, we already know it does not work, even without looking at the blueprints.
    Hey,I am feeling as if I am Rudolf diesel or wright brothers who were Continiously told that they can not do it.Let the patent come in,you would be shocked.

    The prototype will be made soon .

    I am using the concept of impulse.And it's not Pepectual.Remember that I am not making PMM.If you see more details clearly,have a look at,http://blogs.scienceforums.net/realfreeenergy/Where I have described the idea in proper format.
    Last edited by Aman Shah; March 18th, 2012 at 07:23 AM.
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    This sure looks like pseudoscience to me. Moved.
    Thanks!Please have a. Look at,Aman shah | Just another blogs.scienceforums.net site know more details in proper format.
     

  11. #10  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Man, what I pile of BS...
     

  12. #11  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    Man, what I pile of BS...
    I agree. Complete waste of time.
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Conventional!Not out of box!I should talk to the right people.I believe you have not seen/understood this website:Real Non-Perpectual gravity magnetic engines | Aman shah Inspite of telling that my engine is not Perpectual,it seems people don't bother to read the whole description,due to their psycological thinking that gravity engines are always Perpectual.I agree that majority are cheaters,but you should support,understand real inventions.Please read the Science Forums website blog before making this type of comments.

    Some idiots tried to build Perpectual Motion machines.

    some idiots cheated Some idiots told that Gravity engines are always Perpectual and hence cannot work.

    And few of you acted idiotly by accepting what those idiots told to you.

    Remember that there are only few real inventors.Rest are idiots.Due to Format limitation,text size limitations,I am not able to post everything here.

    Real Non-Perpectual gravity magnetic engines | Aman shah

    A simple prototype will be ready,don't worry
    Last edited by Aman Shah; March 18th, 2012 at 08:03 AM.
     

  14. #13  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Conventional!not out of box!I should talk to the right people
    Usual statement by all pseudo-scientists. I am seeing this one every day.

    I believe you have not seen/understood this
    I don't need to. I understand the laws of physics, and it is quite clear that such a thing as "Impulsive Energy" does not exist.
    Or do you have any experimental evidence to the contrary ? If so, please post a link to the proper peer-review data.
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Conventional!not out of box!I should talk to the right people
    Usual statement by all pseudo-scientists. I am seeing this one every day.
    I believe you have not seen/understood this
    I don't need to. I understand the laws of physics, and it is quite clear that such a thing as "Impulsive Energy" does not exist.Or do you have any experimental evidence to the contrary ? If so, please post a link to the proper peer-review data.
    People were always using "Impulse" in various machines or I say "Impulsive energy" in various machines.The problem is,not many gave the name "Impulsive energy".However the word Impulse is defined in physics. Impulse (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia To explain the concept,I needed to mention Impulsive energy. If I say,I am taking the impulsive energy(using impulse) from gravity:I can say that I am using Gravitational energy.Gravitational amplification is similarly a name given/derived by me to a obvious process. So the concepts / principles aren't new but were not defined in a proper standard. For example,You write chemical names eg: 1,1 diamine tetrachloric Acid,terelyne,polyester. Before,scientists knew the properties and composition of these compounds but never named it before an international regular actors body/ institute called IUPAC developed a new chemical nomenclature system. You cannot say,I use a chemical,involving so many carbon atoms,so many hydrogen atoms with this particular orientation with this many double bonds at these positions,which react with....................... You need a simple nomenclature like for example "Polyester" I would say I coined the appropriate names for the known phenomeneons. A nomenclature is very important,it may be obvious or non obvious easily. The types of nomenclature I have used derived/named/used are easy to understand/obvious. The chemical name nomenclature is non obvious for common man but obvious for people knowing good basics of chemistry and IUPAC nomenclature. So I have not created any new theories but I am giving correct nomenclature for the old prooved theories to use in my described gravity engines.

    Also remember that,then all scientists are Pseudo scientists,even if they have used simply well established theories to invent and not used new theories involving assumptions.
     

  16. #15  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    However the word Impulse is defined in physics
    No one doubts that, however, it is not related to any "extra" energy stored in gravitational fields. You are misusing a well-defined physical term for your own delusions.
    I say it again to you - the energy released when the piston decends is the same as the energy used to lift it. No extra energy appears due to "gravity amplification". If you take energy out of this system, then the piston just simply stops.

    Gravitational amplification is similarly a name given/derived by me to a obvious process.
    You mean obvious as in extra phantom energy appearing out of nowhere in your engine ?
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    However the word Impulse is defined in physics
    No one doubts that, however, it is not related to any "extra" energy stored in gravitational fields. You are misusing a well-defined physical term for your own delusions. I say it again to you - the energy released when the piston decends is the same as the energy used to lift it. No extra energy appears due to "gravity amplification". If you take energy out of this system, then the piston just simply stops.
    Gravitational amplification is similarly a name given/derived by me to a obvious process.
    You mean obvious as in extra phantom energy appearing out of nowhere in your engine ?
    How about this Flickr webpage:

    A way of using more gravitational energy through weight concentration. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

    Gravity has two components whose nomenclature was not properly set but known.More info on this is discussed on the flickr website.
     

  18. #17  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    A way of using more gravitational energy through weight concentration. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

    Gravity has two components whose nomenclature was not properly set but known.More info on this is discussed on the flickr website.
    Flickr is not a reliable source of scientific data. Sorry.
    Gravity does not have two components. The gravitational field is fully described by just one value, the gravitational potential/energy ( in the Newtonian limit ), or the metric tensor in General Relativity. Either way, there is no "gravitational amplification due to Impulsive Energy". These terms - in the context of gravity - are completely made up, and thus meaningless. Therefore your design will not work.
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    A way of using more gravitational energy through weight concentration. | Flickr - Photo Sharing! Gravity has two components whose nomenclature was not properly set but known.More info on this is discussed on the flickr website.
    Flickr is not a reliable source of scientific data. Sorry.Gravity does not have two components. The gravitational field is fully described by just one value, the gravitational potential/energy ( in the Newtonian limit ), or the metric tensor in General Relativity. Either way, there is no "gravitational amplification due to Impulsive Energy". These terms - in the context of gravity - are completely made up, and thus meaningless. Therefore your design will not work.
    Hey,that Flickr web page is my own uploaded webpage.not anybody's else.There is no question of reliability for me if that image and desrciption is made and uploaded by me on Flickr.And you have not understood the concept.
    My concept really works. If you try to read and concentrate it once more,you may understand it.
    It is not meaningless.It is fully meaning ful.Just see that Flickr post once again.It can be experimentally verified too!

    Ok if I assume that gravity applied is only one component,then why the ball bounces due to impulse?
    When already potential energy is converted to kinetic energy to let heavy ball come down,why the heavy ball bounces?
    Isn't this against your thought that Gravitational energy applied and stored is only one component?

    If what you are telling is true,then a ball should not bounce right?Why it bounces over the floor?
    I agree that gravitational force initially initiates as one component,but then when it acts on a body comming down,additional gravitational energy acts on it which splits gravity in to two components.I would say its like Gravity overloaded on a body at height.It is similar to Pushing/throwing ball with a bat.
    Definately you have not understood the Flickr post which I myself uploaded.
    Last edited by Aman Shah; March 18th, 2012 at 09:37 AM.
     

  20. #19  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Hey,that Flickr web page is my own uploaded webpage.not anybody's else.
    So you are referencing yourself ? Even worse.

    And you have not understood the concept. My concept really works.
    No it doesn't, as explained to you now several times already.

    .It can be experimentally verified too!
    If that is the case, then please give full references to these experiments as well the resultant data.
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Ya ya,starting prototype soon,and Patent processing is about to start.To use the concept of overloading of gravity on ball,I am distributing gravity from middle as on Flickr.Also some more additional ways are developed by me to use it efficiently which I have kept secret untill I get patent.

    But answer my one question before that.

    You claim, gravity applied on the body at height is one component .

    If it is one component ,why the ball bounces?The energy is already used by the heavy ball to come down,why the ball bounces.
    Definately,the gravity component is one at initial starting point but it then separates into two different components due to "Overloading"of gravity on the heavy ball.

    Please answer my Question first.
    Diagrams are fully ready,but I don't want any one to copy it before patent is granted.
    My answer:
    The ball bounces because of impulsive energy splitted component.
    And this is valid only for gravity,not for all types of forces.

    Waiting for your answer.Answer alternatively,your own theory may be.

    "I say don't be blind.dont be bookish.Validate all previous theories youself even if it is accepted by all.
    If scientists don't do that,then it means that scientists are quieting their job."
    Last edited by Aman Shah; March 18th, 2012 at 09:57 AM.
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    .You claim, gravity applied on the body at height is one component .If it is one component ,why the ball bounces?.
    It bounces becauses most balls are reversably elastic. What this mean is that when the ball hits the ground, some of its kinetic energy is converted to elastic energy, making the shape of the ball change :

    Elastic energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The key here is the term reversable; after the initial deformation, the material then returns to its original shape, converting the stored elastic energy back to kinetic energy - the ball bounces off the ground. Crucially, the total energy never changes, it only converts from one form to another, and some of it is lost due to friction effects ( which is why the ball generally does not reach its original height on re-bound ).

    This is not a claim by me, it is fact. You can confim this by doing it yourself with any ( elastic ) ball.
     

  23. #22  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Ya ya,starting prototype soon,and Patent processing is about to start.To use the concept of overloading of gravity on ball,I am distributing gravity from middle as on Flickr.Also some more additional ways are developed by me to use it efficiently which I have kept secret untill I get patent.
    .
    So you have not actually tried your idea yet ? Petty, because had you done so you would have found that it doesn't work.
    How can you even come on here and claim it works if you have never tried it via experiment ?
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    I am a student,not a crorepati having lot of money and facilities.I have started it as a final year project.A good engineering college is better way to find funding and facilities.Teachers are fascinated by this idea and are wondering why no body has used this idea before.

    Definately some of its kinetic energy is used elastically.But why the bounciness is much more than simply a small vibration?

    Even a heavy quiet a sturdy ball falling from high height bounces a lot,not just vibrates a bit due to elastic collision.
    Even if this is not enough,Fllickr post explains in much better way.

    Tell me what will happen if a toy aircraft is flying in between a heavy ball comming downwards and land.Definately,the toy aircraft will not only deviate from its path but will also get additional impulsive energy and will get unbalanced.
    Elastic collision exist,no doubt,but impulsive energy is far more greater.
    Last edited by Aman Shah; March 18th, 2012 at 10:17 AM.
     

  25. #24  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Ya ya,starting prototype soon,and Patent processing is about to start.To use the concept of overloading of gravity on ball,I am distributing gravity from middle as on Flickr.Also some more additional ways are developed by me to use it efficiently which I have kept secret untill I get patent.
    maybe you should have built the working prototype before talking about it. you might have had a bit more credibility (apart from the fact that it wouldnt work).

    Have you filed your patent application? If so, you can talk about it. If not, why mention it? To give an air of bogus credibility, perhaps? And of course, as we all know, a patent does prove an idea works...
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Dear,it obvious to me it works.See Flickr post.

    Regarding patent,it is in first step of process.The flickr post is a partial analogy of my engine.
    It will surely work,no doubt.
     

  27. #26  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    .
    Hey,that Flickr web page is my own uploaded webpage.not anybody's else.
    Exactly. It's as full of balony as the rest of your posts...
     

  28. #27  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    I am a student,not a crorepati having lot of money and facilities.
    That's no excuse for lousy science, and a lack of basic understanding of physics.
     

  29. #28  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Teachers are fascinated by this idea and are wondering why no body has used this idea before.
    .
    That's because everyone knows that it is not going to work, so no one will bother to throw any resources at it.

    But why the bounciness is much more than simply a small vibration?
    Because balls are usually filled with pressurized air, or some other compressible substance ?!

    Even a heavy quiet a sturdy ball falling from high height bounces a lot,not just vibrates a bit due to elastic collision.
    The "bounciness" is of course directly related to how elastic the ball is. In the (unachievable) extreme case of the ball being completely inelastic, it would not bounce at all.

    Tell me what will happen if a toy aircraft is flying in between a heavy ball comming downwards and land.Definately,the toy aircraft will not only deviate from its path but will also get additional impulsive energy and will get unbalanced.
    I don't understand. What does this have to do with gravity ? Of course the toy aircraft will deviate, but this is because of the air turbulence caused by the passing ball, not due to gravity.
    Please do not change the subject. We are talking about gravity here, not aerodynamics.

    Elastic collision exist,no doubt,but impulsive energy is far more greater.
    Once again - there is no such thing as "impulsive energy".
     

  30. #29  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Dear,it obvious to me it works.See Flickr post.

    Regarding patent,it is in first step of process.The flickr post is a partial analogy of my engine.
    It will surely work,no doubt.
    Sorry to tell you that you will be very disappointed.
    I suggest come back to us when you have the results of your prototype.
     

  31. #30  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    I'm not gonna hold my breath, but await your experimental results...
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Results will come in when my final year project completes.Any way,I will like to tell Markus that the concept is straight forward,its nature inspired and mostly mechanical,hence chances of failure is 0.0006 percent.The problems can be in selection of materials,stresses,fatique and creep,not in the principle of working.
    The pusher rods would be subjected to extremme stresses against flywheel and here enginiers have to select correct material.
    It involves heavy piston,gears,pusher rods etc.The challenge is totally in wear and fatique management,not in principle of working.The engine needs to be controlled by an electronic control unit for which I will have to ask a software engineer to write the Program code.
    When you work with magnets,nanotechnology and Quantum mechanics ,it is not straight forward because it is on nano scale and it works on very much complex theories but Macro scale is pretty straight forward.
    The challenge lies in principal stresses which has to be minimised to minimise wear and tear of the components.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress_(mechanics)

    In short,the challenge is to make a product whose working life (Factor of safety related issue)is pretty high and that's what engineers generally do.
    Last edited by Aman Shah; March 18th, 2012 at 01:09 PM.
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Hey,I am feeling as if I am Rudolf diesel or wright brothers who were Continiously told that they can not do it.Let the patent come in,you would be shocked.
    Yes, someone will be shocked. I regret that it will certainly be you. The universe we live in enforces the conservation of energy. Really. No fooling. And energy conservation turns out to be a consequence of a very deep symmetry in nature. See Noether's First Theorem to understand more. Failure to obey the necessary symmetries (of the Lagrangian with respect to time reversal) would have been observed long ago. No such failures have ever been detected, so conservation of energy is as solid a law as any we have.

    You will be disappointed.

    The prototype will be made soon .
    Excellent. That means that you will soon discover for yourself that you have managed to delude yourself, as have countless others before you through the centuries. You should have built it first before declaring such foolishness, but I guess you got so excited you couldn't help yourself.

    I am using the concept of impulse.And it's not Pepectual.Remember that I am not making PMM.
    You can keep repeating it, but it doesn't make it true. Whether you call it "the concept of the impulse" or "turbocharged zero-point bunny poop," you are still describing perpetual motion.
    Last edited by tk421; March 18th, 2012 at 01:16 PM.
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    There is no question of failure.The concept I have used is very very straight forward concept on a scale visible and imaginable to eyes(macro).It was very clear to all my professors.
    The reasons why many failed is that they were not intelligent and didn't thought logically.They simply conducted experiments without a proper layout and they were going against laws of thermodynamics and Newton's laws purposefully to make gravity engines without thinking logically.I am not as stupid as them.
    "Doesn't make true "might be sometimes applicable on nano scale ,not on macro scale.
    A macro scale concept is straight forward,but it's very complicated on nano scale because we have not understood Quantum theory completely.
    I have one idea on a Quantum nano battery whose energy source is light but it's very complicated and no gaurantee that it will run because there are many proved and unproved theories on nano scale.
    Whereas the theories which I have used on macro scale are already in use.
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    There is no question of failure.The concept I have used is very very straight forward concept on a scale visible and imaginable to eyes(macro).It was very clear to all my professors.
    The reasons why many failed is that they were not intelligent and didn't thought logically.They simply conducted experiments without a proper layout and they were going against laws of thermodynamics and Newton's laws purposefully to make gravity engines without thinking logically.I am not as stupid as them.
    Logic is only part of it. You can have a completely logical falsehood if your premises are wrong.

    And stupidity is not necessarily a reason for earlier failures, nor is the absence of stupidity necessarily going to enable you to succeed where others have failed. Here you are simply up against the laws of nature. But go ahead and build it. You'll find out the truth soon enough.
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    There is no question of failure.The concept I have used is very very straight forward concept on a scale visible and imaginable to eyes(macro).It was very clear to all my professors.The reasons why many failed is that they were not intelligent and didn't thought logically.They simply conducted experiments without a proper layout and they were going against laws of thermodynamics and Newton's laws purposefully to make gravity engines without thinking logically.I am not as stupid as them.
    Logic is only part of it. You can have a completely logical falsehood if your premises are wrong.And stupidity is not necessarily a reason for earlier failures, nor is the absence of stupidity necessarily going to enable you to succeed where others have failed. Here you are simply up against the laws of nature. But go ahead and build it. You'll find out the truth soon enough.
    You know what,if my engine will not work,it will prove some theories/phenomeneons in physics wrong,because it is based only on known laws on physics,not on any new theories with assumptions.Impulse is not new in physics.

    Ok,wait for the results as I expect to be true.

    Ok,you are telling that I am going against laws of nature.
    This is what some persions told:

    There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom - Robert Milliken, Nobel Prize in Physics 1923

    "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin,
    president, Royal Society, 1895.

    "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains
    is more and more precise measurement" - Lord Kelvin.
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    You know what,if my engine will not work,it will prove some theories/phenomeneons in physics wrong,because it is based only on known laws on physics,not on any new theories with assumptions.Impulse is not new in physics.Ok,wait for the results as I expect to be true.
    Well, good luck with that.
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Thanks ,I will post the prototype video here,once it is ready.
    And just a small note that my engine is not against laws of thermodynamics and newton's
    Laws.Its not Perpectual .
    Last edited by Aman Shah; March 18th, 2012 at 01:55 PM.
     

  39. #38  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    A small note: it is perpetual, not perpectual. It is vey distracting to see it consistently spelled incorrectly and cements the feeling that you don't know what you are talking about.
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Ok,you are telling that I am going against laws of nature.
    This is what some persions told:

    There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom - Robert Milliken, Nobel Prize in Physics 1923

    "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible." - Lord Kelvin,
    president, Royal Society, 1895.

    "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains
    is more and more precise measurement" - Lord Kelvin.
    You can always find a quotation to support or deny just about anything. It's not a useful activity, and only makes you look intellectually weak. Science is not argued by authority.

    Let's look at those three quotes, one at a time, shall we?

    Millikan (not Milliken -- please do afford these pioneers the respect of spelling their names correctly) -- was obviously expressing a personal opinion. He did not argue any law of physics, so you can disregard his statement. Many of his contemporaries certainly did.

    The next two quotes are frequently attributed to Lord Kelvin. However, no one seems to be able to produce the actual source of these gems. Sometimes a BAA meeting in 1900 is given, but that seems to be fabricated out of thin air. I've actually spent a significant amount of time looking for the primary sources, without luck. So, you shouldn't put too much stock in those quotes. (Another similar urban legend has the US Patent Commissioner arguing for closing the office, because everything had already been invented. That's bogus, too. Never happened.)

    The entire point is not to find historical examples where some scientist expressed an opinion that was later found to be wrong. The point should be to examine the basis for the statement being made. If it's an opinion, give it the weight it deserves. If it's something as strong as, say, "you can't jump to the moon, no matter how hard you try, because you can't metabolize food fast enough to achieve escape velocity," then you ought to pay more attention. And Noether's First Theorem is of the second type; it's not just some random opinion one can freely disregard.

    Just because "they laughed at Fulton's steamboat" wrongly doesn't mean that your idea is automatically sound. The laughter may be justified. And in this case, it is. You'll find that out soon enough.
    Last edited by tk421; March 18th, 2012 at 03:59 PM.
     

  41. #40  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Regarding patent,it is in first step of process.
    What, precisely, does the "first step of process" mean?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  42. #41  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    We anxiously await your working prototype. Pardon us if we do not hold our breath...

    WTH is Perpectual anyway???
     

  43. #42  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    WTH is Perpectual anyway???
    A new perspective on perpetual?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  44. #43  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    I'm perceplexed
     

  45. #44  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    We anxiously await your working prototype. Pardon us if we do not hold our breath...WTH is Perpectual anyway???
    Good Morning:::,
    Most people in physics and engineering know what is perpetual.

    Any way,Perpetual motion describes hypothetical machines that operate or produce useful work indefinitely and, more generally, hypothetical machines that produce more work or energy than they consume, whether they might operate indefinitely or not.

    Anyway,we all know Perpetual motion is impossible.

    4 years back when I started working on Gravity engine,I was not knowing that idiot people are trying to make Perpetual Motion Machine .

    4 years back,I was not knowing that people are relating gravity engines with the word,"Perpetual" unnecessary psychologically.

    4 years back,I was not knowing that somebody else is attempting at Non-Realistic gravity engines. 4 years back,I was not knowing what is Perpetual.

    There are people who tell that gravity engines are impossible because these are perpetual.How they can tell this without seeing the ananlogous principle of my engine?

    I don't understand why people relate gravity engines with "Perpetual" psychologically?Who told them them gravity-magnetic engines is perpetual?This is non sense for me.

    Thats why I use the words"Non-Perpetual".
    Ok,leaving for my college.
    Last edited by Aman Shah; March 18th, 2012 at 10:28 PM.
     

  46. #45  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    [QUOTE=Aman Shah;314789]
    Quote Originally Posted by MeteorWayne View Post
    I don't understand why people relate gravity engines with "Perpetual" psychologically?Who told them them gravity-magnetic engines is perpetual?This is non sense for me.
    Well, for one thing, you titled this thread "Non-Perpectual Gravity-Magnetic engine". That immediately made people associate your idea with perpetual motion machines. You could definitely use some help from a marketing standpoint!

    You then moved on and started using terms in non-standard ways, without providing clear definitions and explanations of these terms. This is exactly what cranks and charalatans do. I don't follow what you are proposing at all, but I see you mention perpetual motion and abuse terminology and that leads me to believe you are badly mistaken.

    However, I remain open minded. Do you want to present your idea again, but this time build it slowly. Define terms where necessary, but try not to change the meaning of terms. Where you introduce a novel concept fully justify that concept. Offer some general equations showing what you are about. All of this could get you a better hearing, or help others to convince you exactly where you have gone wrong in your thinking.
     

  47. #46  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    I don't understand why people relate gravity engines with "Perpetual" psychologically?Who told them them gravity-magnetic engines is perpetual?This is non sense for me.
    Perhaps it is because, even though you insist it is not a perpetual motion machine, what you are proposing is, in fact, a perpetual motion machine.
     

  48. #47  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Could you answer this please....

    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Regarding patent,it is in first step of process.
    What, precisely, does the "first step of process" mean?
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Oh!,John I meant, people seeing(or commenting on) websites related to "Gravity engines" say that it's perpetual psychologically.No body told them how it works,neither me!

    How can they decide this just by seeing the tittle.Ok I know that cheaters are present,but why they think that a gravity engine(not shown to them)is perpetual.

    And yes,I did not started any thing about PMM.Impulsive energy means impulse derived energy:not new.
    It's simply that some are not understanding the Flickr post.Also it is just an analogous principle,not the actual engine I have invented.(Actual engne is under patent initialisation)

    For me my this concept/invention is not a pseudo science,but knowing the psychology of people,I putted this in pseudoscience category.I know that most pseudo science posts are NON-SENSE and I have read those non sense posts on few websites.One such non sense post was on "soul" on this same website.I tried to control my laugh on such posts but couldn't Control.No,I do not believe in souls neither in religion.
    Last edited by Aman Shah; March 19th, 2012 at 01:45 PM.
     

  50. #49  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    A small note: it is perpetual, not perpectual. It is vey distracting to see it consistently spelled incorrectly and cements the feeling that you don't know what you are talking about.
    Thanks,I will try not to make this mistake again.Its because some Indian engineering and physics textbooks use the word"Perpectual".Also others use perpetual.So I got a very wrong habit of using the word "Perpectual".I am from India,Bangalore.
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Meteor,The general equations and detailed Analogous principle discussion is available on my blog:

    http://blogs.scienceforums.net/realf...gneticengines/

    The general equations are available on the same website under the Sub-Topic
    "What is the energy source powering my engine?"
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Also see the Flickr post:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/5914512...in/photostream

    for some very very important additional information with a analogous diagram.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Can my thread be shifted to

    http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-hypotheses-ideas/

    I just saw this weblink,I was not aware of this subcategory before.I would have putted my thread in new-hypothesis-ideas,if I had seen this category before.
    Last edited by Aman Shah; March 19th, 2012 at 02:07 PM.
     

  52. #51  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    A small note: it is perpetual, not perpectual. It is vey distracting to see it consistently spelled incorrectly and cements the feeling that you don't know what you are talking about.
    Thanks,I will try not to make this mistake again.Its because some Indian engineering and physics textbooks use the word"Perpectual".Also others use perpetual.So I got a very wrong habit of using the word "Perpectual".I am from India,Bangalore.
    I understood you were from India. I also understand the difficulty of working in a second, third or even fourth language. Your readers should focus on your idea, not your command of a particular language, but it doesn't always happen that way.

    As to your earlier post, I have not looked ath the Flickr posting you referenced. I may be wrong, but I want to see your argument presented here, at leas in summary form, with clear definitions of terms and citations supporting your more unusual claims. Good luck with that - you have an uphill battle.
     

  53. #52  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post

    As to your earlier post, I have not looked ath the Flickr posting you referenced. I may be wrong, but I want to see your argument presented here, at leas in summary form, with clear definitions of terms and citations supporting your more unusual claims. Good luck with that - you have an uphill battle.
    Don't worry, you're not missing anything. The Flickr posting makes no more sense than what he has posted here. He just added a couple of incomprehensible sketches of a bicycle and a unicycle.
     

  54. #53  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    The Flickr posting makes no more sense than what he has posted here. He just added a couple of incomprehensible sketches of a bicycle and a unicycle.
    Oh good. Not just me then. I thought I was being particularly dense....
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  55. #54  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    A bicycle and a Unicorn? Oh, cool, must check it out!

    Oh, wait, no never mind...
     

  56. #55  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Hey,it's not just a fun,it's analogy example of my engine!It seems ,you have not read the description below the Flickr diagram post,neither my Science Forum blog.All the information can be found on this two Flickr and science forum blog website.The text limitation on this forum thread per comment is around 10000 or so where as the description is around 11500.Also I wanted to highlight some words.Since I had already described description clearly with highlighting on the Science Forum Blog,I thought it is better to take you to:

    Real Non-Perpectual gravity magnetic engines | Aman shah

    Or I can divide the description into two comments-I will do that.
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Part1)

    My engine Is not Perpectual and based it is on the regular laws of physics you read in books,use or see everyday.*

    Why my engine works and why it is 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.com/photos/5914512...n/photostream*
    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.*
     

  58. #57  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    What is the energy source powering my 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.org/wiki/Magnetic_bearing*


    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.com/photos/5914512...n/photostream*

    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.*
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    That was part2)
    Part3):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,means 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

    Impulse (physics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Just wanted to share this,Please share the below very very important article with as many people as possible:*


    A real gravity /magnetic engine is not a Perpectual motion machine ,considering modern Defination.!I am myself inventing a non -Perpectual gravity engine!People think falsely that gravity and magnetic engines are impossible but it is not true!They are mostly mislead by cheaters claiming to invent Perpectual machines or claiming to invent such engine that are Perpectual for us!These cheaters and non intelluctual conventional minded people have made our scientists life miserable.Very little people believe in us real scientists because of the psycological thinking that gravity / magnetic engines are Perpectual!It seems these people including most professors have stopped thinking the reality and are only bookish.Though complex,the most simplest principle/way to make use of gravity is impulsive energy when a heavy ball falls over a light weight object(Example : basket ball net) in between.I am inventing my own gravity engine based on this impulsive energy concept using proper force distribution and gravitaitional amplification,inspired from nature and flywheels*
    Reminding once again:My engine is not Perpectual!*
    Don’t be dump:Spread awareness about real gravity engines which are not Perpectual!Ask people never get mislead by cheaters claiming to invent Perpectual motion machines!Let me tell you that there might be only 20 real gravity/magnetic engines inventors,all others are cheaters!
    I am not posting spam,those cheaters are posting spams!*
    The internet community should explain the reality to other people!Dont simply tell people that free energy engines exist:Unless you explain them that these engines are not Perpectual and you can use impulsive energy concept intelligently,no one will believe in us!And try to spread my message to atleast 20 famous websites each of you!Be aware of spams and cheaters like this:*


    http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sge.htm*


    and tell people that they are been mislead by such spams!Encourage only real authentic inventors like me!And I wil like to know whether most of you really know what is meant by a”Perpectual motion machine”.Please understand the concepts of physics!*
    My Non Perpectual engine does not violate any laws of thermaodynamics!Since its not a Perpectual machine!*
    If you all will do what I say,the day is not far when your children will see IC engines in museums,and will never go to any fuel filling station!But we only need your effort in right direction,not just some statements which don’t explain the reality!A magnetic engine is also possible.Photons compress atomic particles to store compressed energy in them as nuclear energy,but it’s not easy to make such engines.It requires a highly intellectual brain!*

    NOTE:I don't know why those stars come in between when I copy and paste from my file.
    Last edited by Aman Shah; March 20th, 2012 at 12:03 AM.
     

  60. #59  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    NOTE:I don't know why those stars come in between when I copy and paste from my file.
    I don't know why you didn't honour your promise to try to spell perpetual correctly in future. You could easily have pasted your text in Word then run a replace command.

    There is no such thing as gravitational amplification.
    There is no such thing as impulsive energy.
    You are deluding yourself.
     

  61. #60  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,795
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    It seems ,you have not read the description below the Flickr diagram post,neither my Science Forum blog.
    Yes, I read it. It is simply wrong. It will continue to be wrong no matter how many times you post it.

    I am talking to my college professors for starting this project!And the response is positive!*
    How did you make it into a college physics class? You haven't grasped the basics from high school.
     

  62. #61  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Let me repeat what John has already posted, because that is all that's needed to understand why you are wrong :

    There is no such thing as gravitational amplification.
    There is no such thing as impulsive energy.
    You are deluding yourself.

    Is this hard to understand ? The details of your design don't matter, because the physical basis is simply wrong, thus your engine cannot work.

    People think falsely that gravity and magnetic engines are impossible but it is not true!
    Yes it is. Completely, utterly, totally impossible.
    If you Google the term "gravity engine" you get something like 27 million hits. Many people have deluded themselves in thinking they found a way to cheat nature. They all failed. Every single on of them. Why ? Because it is impossible. And so is yours.
     

  63. #62  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,242
    I think he might be thinking that because a falling object gains speed as it falls, it gains more energy than what was used to lift it to it's starting elevation in the first place, which is obviously false.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
     

  64. #63  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Hey,it's not just a fun,it's analogy example of my engine!
    But it is impossible to see what it means. It looks like a bicycle and a monocycle. Is that what it is meant to be?

    What does "heavy ball falling over" mean? How can a ball fall over? Why does it have two arrows from it (is it falling in two directions at the same time)? Is the blue line supposed be significant? Has the top bicycle driven over a bump?

    Sorry, but it just makes no sense to me.

    It seems ,you have not read the description below the Flickr diagram post,neither my Science Forum blog.
    Yes, I have read all your descriptions and they are all full of the same analogies and none of them explain anything.

    I think your inability to explain in detail what this thing is and how it works is the reason you have deluded yourself into thinking it will work. I can't believe you have really worked out the details when all you do is provide weird analogies.

    Show us a diagram of the machine. Show us the calculations of how it works. You claim it is based on established science, so that shouldn't be too difficult.

    You say you have applied for a patent. If so, you must have a detailed description and diagrams. (Otherwise your patent will just be rejected at the first review.) And if you have applied for a patent then there is no problem sharing the information.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  65. #64  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    According to Indian patent regulations, details cannot be leaked out at initial stage (Step1).The first stage is to prepare short patent specifications which I am submitting within few weeks.After that the patent officer will give the brief non detailed specification on the Internet as well as in newspaper.Then he/she will ask for detailed document.I have the option of submitting brief description first and then full description.I will prefer submitting full documentation initially.Then it will go to court discussion and on request of any persion against the patentee,the full whole document is published in the Official gazette .No,I am not a lawyer but it's not at all good to leak out everything at the initial stage.Otherwise some one else can submit the patent specification before I submit it.I have just informed few patent officials associated with the college that I am submitting the full patent specifications within few days.Untill the patent specification is approved and leaked out by the chief patent controller,I should not disclose everything.
     

  66. #65  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    According to Indian patent regulations, details cannot be leaked out at initial stage (Step1).The first stage is to prepare short patent specifications which I am submitting within few weeks.After that the patent officer will give the brief non detailed specification on the Internet as well as in newspaper.Then he/she will ask for detailed document.I have the option of submitting brief description first and then full description.I will prefer submitting full documentation initially.Then it will go to court discussion and on request of any persion against the patentee,the full whole document is published in the Official gazette .No,I am not a lawyer but it's not at all good to leak out everything at the initial stage.Otherwise some one else can submit the patent specification before I submit it.I have just informed few patent officials associated with the college that I am submitting the full patent specifications within few days.Untill the patent specification is approved and leaked out by the chief patent controller,I should not disclose everything.The working principle is very simple and anybody can copy it easily.
     

  67. #66  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    According to Indian patent regulations, details cannot be leaked out at initial stage (Step1).The first stage is to prepare short patent specifications which I am submitting within few weeks.After that the patent officer will give the brief non detailed specification on the Internet as well as in newspaper.Then he/she will ask for detailed document.I have the option of submitting brief description first and then full description.I will prefer submitting full documentation initially.Then it will go to court discussion and on request of any persion against the patentee,the full whole document is published in the Official gazette .No,I am not a lawyer but it's not at all good to leak out everything at the initial stage.Otherwise some one else can submit the patent specification before I submit it.I have just informed few patent officials associated with the college that I am submitting the full patent specifications within few days.Untill the patent specification is approved and leaked out by the chief patent controller,I should not disclose everything.
    What does this have to do with the subject at hand ? Being granted a patent on something doesn't mean that this concept actually works. A good example is Tesla's "earthquake machine" ( RECIPROCATING ENGINE, U.S. Patent No. 514,169, February 6, 1894. ); a patent was granted, yet the machine was never actually able to produce any earthquakes, or any kind of significant damage to large structures.

    And once again I am telling you ( gosh, how many times ?? ) - there is no such thing as "gravitational amplification". Your engine is not going to work.
     

  68. #67  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    What does this have to do with the subject at hand ?
    Well, I did keep pestering him about the status of his patent application...

    I am keen to see the details when it is published. (Although I'm not sure why )
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  69. #68  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    According to Indian patent regulations, details cannot be leaked out at initial stage (Step1).The first stage is to prepare short patent specifications which I am submitting within few weeks.After that the patent officer will give the brief non detailed specification on the Internet as well as in newspaper.Then he/she will ask for detailed document.I have the option of submitting brief description first and then full description.I will prefer submitting full documentation initially.Then it will go to court discussion and on request of any persion against the patentee,the full whole document is published in the Official gazette .No,I am not a lawyer but it's not at all good to leak out everything at the initial stage.Otherwise some one else can submit the patent specification before I submit it.I have just informed few patent officials associated with the college that I am submitting the full patent specifications within few days.Untill the patent specification is approved and leaked out by the chief patent controller,I should not disclose everything.
    What does this have to do with the subject at hand ? Being granted a patent on something doesn't mean that this concept actually works. A good example is Tesla's "earthquake machine" ( RECIPROCATING ENGINE, U.S. Patent No. 514,169, February 6, 1894. ); a patent was granted, yet the machine was never actually able to produce any earthquakes, or any kind of significant damage to large structures.And once again I am telling you ( gosh, how many times ?? ) - there is no such thing as "gravitational amplification". Your engine is not going to work.
    It all spends on how the invention is:simple,complex,straightforward.Mine is straightforward,inspired from nature and what we say in day to day life The earthquake machine does not sound straightforward and sounds too complex.Where as my engine design is easy to understand.
     

  70. #69  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Where as my engine design is easy to understand.
    It can't be that easy, or you would understand that it won't work
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  71. #70  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    It all spends on how the invention is:simple,complex,straightforward.Mine is straightforward,inspired from nature and what we say in day to day life The earthquake machine does not sound straightforward and sounds too complex.Where as my engine design is easy to understand.
    Well, if a single-piston steam powered resonator is too complicated for you, then I wish you good luck with your gravity engine
    Seriously, you are wasting your time. Energy is always conserved, both in your engine and also in the gravitational field of the Earth as a whole, that is all there really is to it. No one will stop you from trying ( like all those other 27 million hits on Google ), but you are doomed to failure like all the others. Nature cannot be cheated.
     

  72. #71  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    What does this have to do with the subject at hand ?
    Well, I did keep pestering him about the status of his patent application...I am keen to see the details when it is published. (Although I'm not sure why )
    Yes!I hope that patent will be processed properly and details will be out as soon as possible.

    Also wished if my thread can be shifted to the category"New Hypothesis Ideas"
    http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-hypotheses-ideas/

    thanks for the support.I was not aware of the category"new hypothesis ideas"
     

  73. #72  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    [QUOTE=Aman Shah;314996]
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Yes!I hope that patent will be processed properly and details will be out as soon as possible.Also wished if my thread can be shifted to the category"New Hypothesis Ideas"http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-hypotheses-ideas/thanks for the support.I was not aware of the category"new hypothesis ideas"
    You are kidding, right ??
    It has been shown to you that your design is in violation of the basic principle of conservation of energy; this thread really belongs into the trash can. The moderators here are far too lenient, I sometimes think. On a lot of other forums you would have been booted out after the first post.
     

  74. #73  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    It all spends on how the invention is:simple,complex,straightforward.Mine is straightforward,inspired from nature and what we say in day to day life The earthquake machine does not sound straightforward and sounds too complex.Where as my engine design is easy to understand.
    Well, if a single-piston steam powered resonator is too complicated for you, then I wish you good luck with your gravity engine Seriously, you are wasting your time. Energy is always conserved, both in your engine and also in the gravitational field of the Earth as a whole, that is all there really is to it. No one will stop you from trying ( like all those other 27 million hits on Google ), but you are doomed to failure like all the others. Nature cannot be cheated.
    I do agree that I am wasting time a bit because not many technical questions related to analogous principle of my engine were discussed/asked.Yes,I agree that doing without saying is better if you only hear useless negative points.And will try to follow this.But yes if some one has an interesting question for me regarding analogous principle of my engine,it will be definately useful and I will try to answer all interesting technical questions in the forum.But sorry to say,inventing real workable gravity engines is not a waste of time.Gravity engines
     

  75. #74  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    I do agree that I am wasting time a bit because not many technical questions related to analogous principle of my engine were discussed/asked.
    That's because it is clear to anyone with even basic science knowledge that this engine cannot work.

    But sorry to say,inventing real workable gravity engines is not a waste of time.
    It is. As demonstrated by all those other 27 million people on Google who tried.
     

  76. #75  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    No,I am not kidding,neither my device is a violation of newton's laws or laws of thermodynamics.This only shows that you think that every gravity engine either my or some one else is perpetual and cannot work.
     

  77. #76  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    No,I am not kidding,neither my device is a violation of newton's laws or laws of thermodynamics.This only shows that you think that every gravity engine either my or some one else is perpetual and cannot work.
    No gravity engine will ever work, because the total energy within the gravitational field of the earth is always preserved. You don't get out more than you put in.
     

  78. #77  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    I do agree that I am wasting time a bit because not many technical questions related to analogous principle of my engine were discussed/asked.
    That's because it is clear to anyone with even basic science knowledge that this engine cannot work.
    But sorry to say,inventing real workable gravity engines is not a waste of time.
    It is. As demonstrated by all those other 27 million people on Google who tried.
    Don't think of other's.Others simply wanted to Unrealistically invent PMM that work.Crazy and unrealistic.Infact I was unaware of the fact that someone else is inventing unrealistics gravity engines,when ideas came in my mind for first time.My first design used precompressed air which was shifted to shift the weight over the piston.This was realistic but chances of wear and tear,Fatique stresses,creep were more(Something related to life of the product also called Factor Of Safety in engineering.)factor of safety(FOS)=Material stress/design load.The new design eliminates allmost all FOS related problems because it no longer uses Pre-Compressed air.The precompressed air in the old design could have broken tthe bellows due to principal stresses developed.bellow is a mechanical device.Bellows - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     

  79. #78  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    I do agree that I am wasting time a bit because not many technical questions related to analogous principle of my engine were discussed/asked.
    That is because you do not provide any detail of how it works, so no technical questions can be asked.

    OK. Here is one: show us some real evidence that this "impulsive energy" exists. Not an analogy. Not a wordy description. A real experiment or some real maths that shows that this energy source exists.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  80. #79  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    I will try to explain by a sketch.But you have to wait a bit to complete my sketch.
     

  81. #80  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Don't think of other's.Others simply wanted to Unrealistically invent PMM that work.Crazy and unrealistic.Infact I was unaware of the fact that someone else is inventing unrealistics gravity engines,when ideas came in my mind for first time.My first design used precompressed air which was shifted to shift the weight over the piston.This was realistic but chances of wear and tear,Fatique stresses,creep were more(Something related to life of the product also called Factor Of Safety in engineering.)factor of safety(FOS)=Material stress/design load.The new design eliminates allmost all FOS related problems because it no longer uses Pre-Compressed air.The precompressed air in the old design could have broken tthe bellows due to principal stresses developed.bellow is a mechanical device.Bellows - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    You really don't get it, do you ? Total energy within the Earth's gravitational field is always conserved. You never get out anymore than you put in. The details of the design don't matter. It is the overall concept that is flawed. "Gravitational Amplification" does not exist, it is pure fantasy, thus your engine will not work. What part of "will not work" is it that you don't understand ?
     

  82. #81  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Hey guys check this out,I have uploaded new sketch on Flickr .

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/5914512...in/photostream

    Description /explanation will be added to this Flickr post very soon.Let the basket ball net be Piezo electric elastic material.For understanding assume no friction,even though in actual practise,friction is present.

    And I am not getting any additional energy than I put in.I am not getting any new energy .
    Its simply that Impulsive energy is unused.You really waste impulsive energy.

    Due to Extra overloading loading of Gravitational energy on a Heavy object(Example:ball),the ball gets extra impulsive enrgy to bounce over.The elastic energy conversion is negligible for sturdy non elastic ball,here impulsive energy component dominates.

    I guess you all know what is piezoelectric material.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectricity

    Assume that you spend energy to lift the ball up through a motor for half cycle and recover the energy by generator for rest half cycle using Motor cum generator controlled by a commutator.
    now the piezo electric material converts vibrational energy into useful electricity.
    Last edited by Aman Shah; March 20th, 2012 at 10:50 AM.
     

  83. #82  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Hey guys check this out,I have uploaded new sketch on Flickr .

    Example how impulsive energy is used. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

    Description /explanation will be added to this Flickr post very soon.Let the basket ball net be elastic material.For understanding assume no friction,even though in actual practise,friction is present.
    I will wait for the results of a real experiment. Your understanding of physics is quite fundamentally flawed, so no amount of verbiage from you is going to convince anyone who understands physics at a freshman level. We're all waiting for you to build one, have it fail, and then listen to the inevitable rationalizations that always follow such things. It's a movie we've seen countless times, and it always ends the same way.

    Sorry if that sounds harsh, but it's the truth. And nature is far, far harsher, so it's best to get used to that early in your career.
     

  84. #83  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Hey guys check this out,I have uploaded new sketch on Flickr .

    Example how impulsive energy is used. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

    Description /explanation will be added to this Flickr post very soon.Let the basket ball net be elastic material.For understanding assume no friction,even though in actual practise,friction is present.

    And I am not getting any additional energy than I put in.Its simply that Impulsive energy is unused.You really waste impulsive enrgy.
    Due to Extra overloading loading of Gravitational energy on a Heavy object(Example:ball),the ball gets extra impulsive enrgy to bounce over.The elastic energy conversion is negligible for sturdy non elastic ball,here impulsive energy component dominates.
    Good grief.
    You still only get out the energy that you put in, less friction. If you attempt to increase the energy output from the net by increasing its tension, the ball will simply no longer fall through. And the heavier the ball gets, the more energy you have to expand by lifting it up to the net.
    Aman, this is High School physics. The total energy is always preserved.Your basic principle is flawed. Your engine does not work.

    How many more times do we have to explain it to you ?
     

  85. #84  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Hey guys check this out,I have uploaded new sketch on Flickr .Example how impulsive energy is used. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!Description /explanation will be added to this Flickr post very soon.Let the basket ball net be elastic material.For understanding assume no friction,even though in actual practise,friction is present.And I am not getting any additional energy than I put in.Its simply that Impulsive energy is unused.You really waste impulsive enrgy.Due to Extra overloading loading of Gravitational energy on a Heavy object(Example:ball),the ball gets extra impulsive enrgy to bounce over.The elastic energy conversion is negligible for sturdy non elastic ball,here impulsive energy component dominates.
    Good grief.You still only get out the energy that you put in, less friction. If you attempt to increase the energy output from the net by increasing its tension, the ball will simply no longer fall through. And the heavier the ball gets, the more energy you have to expand by lifting it up to the net.Aman, this is High School physics. The total energy is always preserved.Your basic principle is flawed. Your engine does not work.How many more times do we have to explain it to you ?
    No body is denying the presence of conservation of total energy.Its simply that you are not understanding that Gravitational energy is been overloaded on a heavy object.Similar to overloading of boat.If boat is overloaded,it will sink.Similarly gravity is simply overloaded on the heavy ball.This is what is I called gravitational amplification.Andthis causes the spitting of gravitational components into twoThus causes impulsive energy.
     

  86. #85  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    No body is denying the presence of conservation of total energy.Its simply that you are not understanding that Gravitational energy is been overloaded on a heavy object.Similar to overloading of boat.If boat is overloaded,it will sink.Similarly gravity is simply overloaded on the heavy ball.This is what is I called gravitational amplification.
    It is irrelevant whether you call it "overloading" or "amplification" or anything else you can come up with; what it means is that you get out more energy than you put in. So you are denying the conservation of energy, and thus violate the laws of physics. If you are not denying it, then that means that you agree your engine cannot work.
    So which one is it ?
     

  87. #86  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Its simply that you are not understanding that Gravitational energy is been overloaded on a heavy object
    A completely meaningless statement, and akin to saying that energy conservation does not apply, thus violating laws of physics.
     

  88. #87  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    How can I get more energy I put in when overloaded gravity converts in to impulsive energy???Answer this question.

    Gravitational energy acted on a body at height=Required gravitational energy to lift it + additional gravitational energy overloaded on the body.

    Gravitational Required energy to lift it + Gravitational energy overloading=Energy recovered which was used to lift load + impulsive energy(Energy Overloaded)converted into useful electricity.

    This equation shows that energy is conserved.
     

  89. #88  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    No body is denying the presence of conservation of total energy.
    Actually you are. By inventing a new and non-existent energy source ("impulsive energy"), you have somehow convinced yourself that you aren't violating energy conservation. You are wrong.

    Its simply that you are not understanding that Gravitational energy is been overloaded on a heavy object.
    You are correct -- we are not understanding this, but that's because "overloading Gravitational energy" is meaningless.

    Similar to overloading of boat.If boat is overloaded,it will sink.
    Yes, it will sink. Note that none of this has anything to do with the appearance of a heretofore unidentified energy term. Thus your analogy is useless.

    Similarly gravity is simply overloaded on the heavy ball.
    The analogy is lost.

    This is what is I called gravitational amplification.Andthis causes the spitting of gravitational components into twoThus causes impulsive energy.
    Call it anything you like. However, giving it a name does not make magic suddenly real. "Impulsive energy" (as you are using the term) does not exist.

    Stop posting and just build the thing. It shouldn't take long for nature to teach you a lesson. We certainly aren't ever going to be convinced by your posts, and you aren't going to listen to anything we're arguing here until you experience the harsh rebuke of Mother Nature. So just go out and do the experiment!
     

  90. #89  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Its simply that Impulsive energy is unused.You really waste impulsive energy.
    You have still provided no evidence that this "impulsive energy" exists. That is one flaw in the whole scheme.

    Assume that you spend energy to lift the ball up through a motor for half cycle and recover the energy by generator for rest half cycle using Motor cum generator controlled by a commutator.
    There will be losses in that even without you transferring energy to the net. You might get, what, 80% of the energy back? Actually, less than that: the motor will be about 80% efficient, the generator the same, so you will get back about 60% of the energy.

    So, without the net, you will get back less than the energy you put in.

    Add the net and you reduce the energy that will be recovered by the motor/generator (because some has been transferred to the net so you will get less back from the generator).

    Now you want to recover some of that "lost" energy by using a piezoelectric generator. But, because of losses, you will get back even less than you did without it.

    Everywhere you lose energy. You gain nothing.

    What you are doing is roughly equivalent to shooting water (or throwing balls) at a water wheel. The energy you get out of the water wheel will always be less than the energy required to raise the water in the first place.

    ppm.png
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  91. #90  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by tk421 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    No body is denying the presence of conservation of total energy.
    Actually you are. By inventing a new and non-existent energy source ("impulsive energy"), you have somehow convinced yourself that you aren't violating energy conservation. You are wrong.
    Its simply that you are not understanding that Gravitational energy is been overloaded on a heavy object.
    You are correct -- we are not understanding this, but that's because "overloading Gravitational energy" is meaningless.
    Similar to overloading of boat.If boat is overloaded,it will sink.
    Yes, it will sink. Note that none of this has anything to do with the appearance of a heretofore unidentified energy term. Thus your analogy is useless.
    Similarly gravity is simply overloaded on the heavy ball.
    The analogy is lost.
    This is what is I called gravitational amplification.Andthis causes the spitting of gravitational components into twoThus causes impulsive energy.
    Call it anything you like. However, giving it a name does not make magic suddenly real. "Impulsive energy" (as you are using the term) does not exist.Stop posting and just build the thing. It shouldn't take long for nature to teach you a lesson. We certainly aren't ever going to be convinced by your posts, and you aren't going to listen to anything we're arguing here until you experience the harsh rebuke of Mother Nature. So just go out and do the experiment!
    Ok Ok!The prototype will be built!I agree that you have to apply more energy so that ball comes from net.But the earlier Flickr post no. 1) should clarify the doubt,don't know why it not clarifies?

    Ok let's assume that impulsive energy don't act.But you agree that Heavy ball needs more energy so that it falls down:This also means its one kind of gravitational amplification and it can be used as energy output?!?!?!
    Last edited by Aman Shah; March 20th, 2012 at 11:23 AM.
     

  92. #91  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Ok Ok!The prototype will be built!I agree that you have to apply more energy so that ball comes from net.But the earlier Flickr post no. 1) should clarify the doubt,don't know why it not clarifies?
    It does clarify! It tells all of us that you have made a classic error. But you will not be convinced until you try it. That's what we are telling you. You will never convince us by words, because we know that you are completely wrong. You believe you are correct, and thus the only way to teach you is for you to learn the lesson yourself.

    Ok let's assume that impulsive energy don't act.But you agree that Heavy ball needs more energy so that it falls down:This also means its one kind of gravitational amplification and it can be used as energy output?!?!?!
    Again, step away from the computer. Put down the mouse. Go to the door. Step outside, build the demo. Learn the lesson.
     

  93. #92  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Markus Hanke View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Hey guys check this out,I have uploaded new sketch on Flickr .Example how impulsive energy is used. | Flickr - Photo Sharing!Description /explanation will be added to this Flickr post very soon.Let the basket ball net be elastic material.For understanding assume no friction,even though in actual practise,friction is present.And I am not getting any additional energy than I put in.Its simply that Impulsive energy is unused.You really waste impulsive enrgy.Due to Extra overloading loading of Gravitational energy on a Heavy object(Example:ball),the ball gets extra impulsive enrgy to bounce over.The elastic energy conversion is negligible for sturdy non elastic ball,here impulsive energy component dominates.
    Good grief.You still only get out the energy that you put in, less friction. If you attempt to increase the energy output from the net by increasing its tension, the ball will simply no longer fall through. And the heavier the ball gets, the more energy you have to expand by lifting it up to the net.Aman, this is High School physics. The total energy is always preserved.Your basic principle is flawed. Your engine does not work.How many more times do we have to explain it to you ?
    Ok let's assume that impulsive energy don't act.But do you agree that Heavy ball needs more energy so that it falls down and cause vibration of piezo electric elastic net:This also means its one kind of gravitational amplification and it can be used as energy output?!?!?!
    If not impulsive force.it is the additional energy that it is required to let ball out from net which can be used as useful electricity,this proves my engine is not perpetual.Do you agree with this???

    I will build and proove that a non perpetual engine is possible.
     

  94. #93  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Ok let's assume that impulsive energy don't act.But do you agree that Heavy ball needs more energy so that it falls down:This also means its one kind of gravitational amplification and it can be used as energy output?!?!?!
    Whether the ball is heavy or light, the energy required to raise it 1 meter is exactly the same as the energy released when it drops 1 meter.

    You can only recover a part of the energy when it falls and so, whatever happens, you will get less energy out than you put in.

    If not impulsive force.it is the additional energy that it is required to let ball out from net which can be used as useful electricity,this proves my engine is not perpetual.Do you agree with this???
    There is no "additional" energy.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  95. #94  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Ok let's assume that impulsive energy don't act.But do you agree that Heavy ball needs more energy so that it falls down:This also means its one kind of gravitational amplification and it can be used as energy output?!?!?!
    Whether the ball is heavy or light, the energy required to raise it 1 meter is exactly the same as the energy released when it drops 1 meter.You can only recover a part of the energy when it falls and so, whatever happens, you will get less energy out than you put in.
    If not impulsive force.it is the additional energy that it is required to let ball out from net which can be used as useful electricity,this proves my engine is not perpetual.Do you agree with this???
    There is no "additional" energy.
    Remember the net is elastic and stress (resistance offered) will cross the yield stress of the material causing it to expand under load and vibrate because of the inability of net to resist stress.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_tensile_strength
     

  96. #95  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Remember the net is elastic and stress (resistance offered) will cross the yield stress of the material causing it to expand under load and vibrate because of the inability of net to resist stress.
    And the energy of vibration comes from the falling ball, slowing it down. No New Energy.
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  97. #96  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Ball connected to connecting rod slows down but doesn't it reach the desired location.
     

  98. #97  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,894
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Remember the net is elastic and stress (resistance offered) will cross the yield stress of the material causing it to expand under load and vibrate because of the inability of net to resist stress.
    For the purposes of this discussion, the net is a spring. The spring will store -- not create -- energy. So part of the energy used in raising the ball will be stored by the spring (net) upon the ball's fall. You don't get out more than you put in. You don't even get out as much as you put in, because the spring is imperfect, and you have air friction, and other losses.

    You will lose. It's that simple. Quit arguing with us. Just build the damn thing already.
     

  99. #98  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    17,036
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Ball connected to connecting rod slows down but doesn't it reach the desired location.
    No. Forget the net, for simplicity.

    Consider the most basic part of your invention: the motor that raises the ball that acts as a generator when it falls.

    If you take energy out of the generator then that will mean there is resistance to the fall of the ball and it will not fall back to the starting point. (The motor will then have to bring it back down before lifting it up again.)
    ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat
     

  100. #99  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    144
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    Ball connected to connecting rod slows down but doesn't it reach the desired location.
    No. Forget the net, for simplicity.Consider the most basic part of your invention: the motor that raises the ball that acts as a generator when it falls. If you take energy out of the generator then that will mean there is resistance to the fall of the ball and it will not fall back to the starting point. (The motor will then have to bring it back down before lifting it up again.)
    Wrong,I told that the net was elastic and because of stress,the ball comes down???
    Let say the ball takes time to come down due to the developing of stress on net which will vibrate the net.
    Similarly look at the first Flickr post,not second or third one to understand better on basis on this discussion.
     

  101. #100  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,302
    Quote Originally Posted by Aman Shah View Post
    How can I get more energy I put in when overloaded gravity converts in to impulsive energy???Answer this question.
    You can't, because "overloaded gravity" doesn't exist !

    Gravitational energy acted on a body at height=Required gravitational energy to lift it + additional gravitational energy overloaded on the body.
    Again, the highlighted part doesn't exist.

    Gravitational Required energy to lift it + Gravitational energy overloading=Energy recovered which was used to lift load + impulsive energy(Energy Overloaded)converted into useful electricity.
    And again, the highlighted part does not exist.

    Because all these don't exist, energy conservation is violated.
     

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Can you use gravity or magnetic field to fly?
    By snowfire in forum Science-Fiction and Non-Fiction
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: March 22nd, 2012, 04:30 PM
  2. Is spacetime of Dr. Einstein the real gravity?
    By jsaldea12 in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 9th, 2011, 05:09 PM
  3. sterling engines
    By fbrad2 in forum Physics
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 1st, 2009, 06:19 AM
  4. Sterling Engines
    By OneShotAl in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: December 25th, 2007, 06:21 AM
  5. pulsejet engines
    By darrel.h in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: February 25th, 2006, 04:17 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •