Dual energy generation with magnetic seesaw system and gravity

[Sahib]

So true! And isn't it still a closed system if you include the universe? Then "greater than unity power out vs power in" is not broken?

What about the force in magnetic attraction; if you include the universe, is it not also a closed system? So wouldn't greater than unity be acceptable to our physical laws too then?
.

To your question no.1:The heat output is divided by work done to get cop for heat pump. It is greater than unity. But if all external heat and work done is taken into account for input to the heat pump, the ratio would not exceed unity.
To question2:The magnet will not exhibit its magnetic properties unless another magnet or magnetic object is brought to it. For example no use of stator unless there is a rotor in a motor.

 

[mike_kilroy]

To your question no.1:The heat output is divided by work done to get cop for heat pump. It is greater than unity. But if all external heat and work done is taken into account for input to the heat pump, the ratio would not exceed unity.
To question2:The magnet will not exhibit its magnetic properties unless another magnet or magnetic object is brought to it. For example no use of stator unless there is a rotor in a motor.

Good answer on question 1.

Bad answer on question 2. Why did you not apply the same logic to ques 2 as you did to ques 1? Instead, you CHANGED the scenario for ques 2 to something other than what was asked. Who cares if no force is there between the magnet and something else?

I think if you apply the same logic to ques 2 as you did to ques 1, you would get the same answer: there is no above unity action with magnet force if you include the universe as I suggested....

Unless I am wrong, no one has yet identified where the attractive/repulsive force of magnets actually comes from. Therefore, you must include the whole universe to keep power out<power in. So back to the OP, if he is using magnetic force to increase his output, he may not be developing greater than unity power? How is this proved wrong?

 

[winnie]

Vikram,

While this thread is amusing, you are simply wasting your time with your current approach.

You appear to be ignoring the fact that the energy required to move the shake flashlight must be greater than the electrical energy produced.

No matter how carefully you balance your system, no matter how carefully you reduce friction, the energy input will always exceed the electrical energy output.

I will state with confidence that no system describable using classical mechanics and classical electromagnetics (which your see-saw generator system fits) will produce more energy out than its energy input. If you think any system that you design will produce more total energy than its input, you do not understand your system. If you don't see this as common sense, then you need to recalibrate yourself.

Now, you might discover some other branch of physics that permits violation of the laws of conservation of energy; I cannot deny that possibility but I won't hold my breath.

More importantly, you are wasting your time because violating conservation of energy is not necessary for useful energy production. There is a huge amount of energy all around us, available for use if we are smart. The issue is that gathering up this available energy into a useful concentrated form takes effort.

A heat pump with a COP > 1 is a perfect example of this. I care that my house be warm. I care about the electricity that I pay for. I _don't_ care about the environmental thermal energy that I don't pay for. So in terms of the _energy that I care about and am paying for_ I can get more out than I put in.

Design an inexpensive system that gathers up the energy around us, and you will have something worth while. Come up with a cheap system for generating electricity from solar energy. Figure out how to make use of daily temperature variations. Design a cheap low impact wind turbine. The energy is out there; you just need to figure out how to pick it up. You _can't_ make new energy from nothing.

-Jon

 

[kwired]

What about my heatpump's greater than 1 unity?

You have two separate inputs of energy. One to pump the refrigerant and run blowers, one is energy absorbed by evaporating refrigerant within the system.

What is touted as high efficiency of such a system isn't so much how efficiently it can move heat, it is how much less it costs to move that heat with such a system versus heating a space with other methods, a major comparison is typically how much less electrical energy is used to heat a space with a heat pump versus a resistance heating element.

 

[vikram_gupta11]

OP has still not explained how it works. I'm not going to play 99 questions and I'm not going to draw his drawings.
I asked for top, front and side view drawings and he's produced nothing.

Dear Sir,
The design is simple and there is nothing complex to understand the design .suppose there is a BEAM which is in equilibrium position and 10 no. coil+magnet system or (flashlights) permanently attached on it horizontally and we are turning this seesaw side by side towards 2 to 3 centimeter.you can imagine its function very easily.

To turn a 4 kilogram (including mass of flashlights) balanced seesaw in 3 centimeter(thrice a second) there is need of only .36 newton force ,there fore I say that mass is not a big issue in this design even we can reduce it upto 50%more but the main issue is sliding of magnet to move pass the coil. suppose a coil+ magnets system require 10 watt to shake so that it could counter the Lenz's law then this 10 watt + .36 watt(newton)+ .50(watt) = 11 watt will be sufficient to shake all 10 no. flashlights or coil+magnet system.if a coil +magnet system 's output is only 5 watt then we can get 50 watt out put with these total 10 no. coil+ magnet systems and input will be only 11 watt.That's what I want to say.
furtheremore if we replace coil+magnets with 10 people then these ten people will move or turn when we will shake or turn the arm of seesaw.
when this 11 watt force will applied on the arm of seesaw then every coil+magnet system will work as this 11 watt will be equally distribute in all these coil+magnet system.

if mass is equal then F=a and its mean that the force applied on seesaw will be distributed equally or in other words all flashlights will be accelerated equally.Thus each flashlight will generate energy and output will be greater than input.

IF A OBJECT IS IN STATIONARY POSITION THEN THE MOVEMENT WILL DEPEND ON THE FORCE THAT HOW MUCH FORCE WE ARE APPLYING ON IT .IT WILL MOVE SLOWLY IF WE APPLY LOW FORCE AND WILL MOVE FASTLY IF WE APPLY FORCE VIGOROUSLY ON IT

 

[vikram_gupta11]

Vikram: Each magnet has a magnetic field and so energy associated with it. So are you trying to convert that energy of each shaker flash light by giving a movement to the seesaw?

Dear Sir,

I only want to say that the input will be distributed in all 10 no. flashlights equally.there is no need of 10 time force to shake 10 flashlights and mass is not an issue in this design even we can reduce mass in this design upto 50% more. .I hope you have understood it completely.

F=ma and if mass is equal then F=a

 

[vikram_gupta11]

Vikram,

While this thread is amusing, you are simply wasting your time with your current approach.

You appear to be ignoring the fact that the energy required to move the shake flashlight must be greater than the electrical energy produced.

No matter how carefully you balance your system, no matter how carefully you reduce friction, the energy input will always exceed the electrical energy output.

I will state with confidence that no system describable using classical mechanics and classical electromagnetics (which your see-saw generator system fits) will produce more energy out than its energy input. If you think any system that you design will produce more total energy than its input, you do not understand your system. If you don't see this as common sense, then you need to recalibrate yourself.

Now, you might discover some other branch of physics that permits violation of the laws of conservation of energy; I cannot deny that possibility but I won't hold my breath.

More importantly, you are wasting your time because violating conservation of energy is not necessary for useful energy production. There is a huge amount of energy all around us, available for use if we are smart. The issue is that gathering up this available energy into a useful concentrated form takes effort.

A heat pump with a COP > 1 is a perfect example of this. I care that my house be warm. I care about the electricity that I pay for. I _don't_ care about the environmental thermal energy that I don't pay for. So in terms of the _energy that I care about and am paying for_ I can get more out than I put in.

Design an inexpensive system that gathers up the energy around us, and you will have something worth while. Come up with a cheap system for generating electricity from solar energy. Figure out how to make use of daily temperature variations. Design a cheap low impact wind turbine. The energy is out there; you just need to figure out how to pick it up. You _can't_ make new energy from nothing.

-Jon

Dear Sir,
I'm not denying this fact that input should be greater but I want to tell you that only once time input will be sufficient to shake all total 10 no. flashlights.There is no need of 10 time force we can shake alt with only one time input.
That's the magic in this design.

 

[vikram_gupta11]

OP has still not explained how it works. I'm not going to play 99 questions and I'm not going to draw his drawings.
I asked for top, front and side view drawings and he's produced nothing.

See this design and I hope you will understand what is my concept .

total system is turning in this design side by side .

 

[vikram_gupta11]

Can we try it with three, five, or nine flashlights and a precisely calibrated counter balanced weight placed on the odd numbered flashlight side? Sometimes balance is easier to find away from even numbers.

Dear Sir,
yes ,we can try it as you say with 3 ,5 or 9 numbered flashlights.

 

[junkhound]

Dear Sir,
yes ,we can try it as you say with 3 ,5 or 9 numbered flashlights.

OH my!

If you can answer the questions below the magic may work if we can get 'to the other side'.

Consider that all conventional energy comes from the sun or suns. E.g. coal from photosysthesis eons ago, etc, even nuclear from the remnants of some supernova.

Now, where did that energy/matter first come from to form suns ? Maybe a really really big seesaw? Gravitational collapse of a previous universe? God? Could there have been a time of reverse entropy so that your device would work ?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

 

[Besoeker]

No matter how carefully you balance your system, no matter how carefully you reduce friction, the energy input will always exceed the electrical energy output.

Even if the friction is zero.

 

[vikram_gupta11]

Even if the friction is zero.

In this design I'm not denying that input is less even input is grater but it is equally distributing in all 10 no. flashlights .only one input is sufficient for all 10 no. flashlights.

 

[mike_kilroy]

I think your seesaw is using gravity to move? And your OP concept? Problem is what goes up must come down. Sure, some swell work is going on to try to identify WHAT gravity is, so then we can try to neutralize it on demand, but that has not been discovered yet. Until then, gravity working TO your advantage will also work equally AGAINST you so no net gain.

Ditto historically with magnets: use pull and then you have equal push to separate again. In other words, until someone NEUTRALIZES the return of the magnet, it too will take away the pull or push used initially. And no one yet knows WHERE that force comes from; makes it sorta hard to design around it.

When someone finds a way to NEUTRALIZE the magnetism when it would be detrimental to the function wanted, then big things may happen. We may be getting close; at least one patent has been issued (not a perpetual motion machine, just a torque multiplier engine - its output is said to be higher than its input power). The key on this design is a way to turn off the magnetism on demand to only leave the beneficial work producing part:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20583-miller-colson-magnetic-motor.html

 

[Sahib]

no one yet knows WHERE magnetic force comes from; makes it sorta hard to design around it.

When someone finds a way to NEUTRALIZE the magnetism when it would be detrimental to the function wanted, then big things may happen. We may be getting close; at least one patent has been issued (not a perpetual motion machine, just a torque multiplier engine - its output is said to be higher than its input power). The key on this design is a way to turn off the magnetism on demand to only leave the beneficial work producing part:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20583-miller-colson-magnetic-motor.html

1)Magnetic force can be explained by special theory of relativity and so it is not a fundamental force. 2)Regarding torque multiplier machine: an ordinary lever also multiplies force but its output not greater than input ie it does not violate any physical laws.

 

[vikram_gupta11]

I think your seesaw is using gravity to move? And your OP concept? Problem is what goes up must come down. Sure, some swell work is going on to try to identify WHAT gravity is, so then we can try to neutralize it on demand, but that has not been discovered yet. Until then, gravity working TO your advantage will also work equally AGAINST you so no net gain.

Ditto historically with magnets: use pull and then you have equal push to separate again. In other words, until someone NEUTRALIZES the return of the magnet, it too will take away the pull or push used initially. And no one yet knows WHERE that force comes from; makes it sorta hard to design around it.

When someone finds a way to NEUTRALIZE the magnetism when it would be detrimental to the function wanted, then big things may happen. We may be getting close; at least one patent has been issued (not a perpetual motion machine, just a torque multiplier engine - its output is said to be higher than its input power). The key on this design is a way to turn off the magnetism on demand to only leave the beneficial work producing part:

http://www.energeticforum.com/renewable-energy/20583-miller-colson-magnetic-motor.html

this seesaw is not moving in up and down direction but is moving side by side and see the latest picture as you have not understand this concept.

 

[ggunn]

OP has still not explained how it works.

That's because it doesn't work.

 

[ggunn]

this seesaw is not moving in up and down direction but is moving side by side and see the latest picture as you have not understand this concept.

Seriously, it is you who does not understand. It is very seductive to think of one's self as the one whose thinking is not polluted by the brainwashing of education and who comes up with the single paradigm shifting idea that turns physics on its head. One brave soul who stands up to the Establishment and proves their staid thinking to be their downfall. Everything they know is wrong. It happens in the movies all the time, so it must be real, right?

No. That's entertainment, not science. A less charitable description of it would be to call it hubris. In the real world the Laws of Thermodynamics still hold. You don't get something for nothing, energy wise, no matter how much you cut it up and spread it around. Any energy you harvest from gravity and magnetism is a zero sum game at the very best, and the very best cannot happen because there is no such thing as a lossless system. Mathematically you can "prove" it by simply changing the sign on your calculation of loss, but you cannot successfully defend that action.

Snake oil is not new. Neither is alchemy. Astrology is right out. This is more of the same.

 

[mike_kilroy]

Any energy you harvest from ... magnetism is a zero sum game at the very best

I agree with all your reply except take potential exception to this one line...

Lossless has no bearing on it at this point - either you can utilize the net positive force and neutralize the equal and opposite negative force, or you cannot. Loss has nothing at all to do with comment above so leave it out of the equation at this point.

If one has a method to neutralize the negative magnetism (ie, say pull=good, repulsion back = bad), would you retract your above comment? You do not have to believe they can do it or not, just IF so then...

 

[ggunn]

If one has a method to neutralize the negative magnetism (ie, say pull=good, repulsion back = bad), would you retract your above comment? You do not have to believe they can do it or not, just IF so then...

No. An electric motor does just that with electromagnetic poles that switch on and off, but the motor still cannot power itself.

 

[Ultrafault]

Dear Sir,

I only want to say that the input will be distributed in all 10 no. flashlights equally.there is no need of 10 time force to shake 10 flashlights and mass is not an issue in this design even we can reduce mass in this design upto 50% more. .I hope you have understood it completely.

F=ma and if mass is equal then F=a

You are once again confusing mass and weight. Simply google search "diffrence between mass and weight". We have found no way to counter act mass. Your equation makes no sense. While you are googleing look for the Dunning Kruger effect. You may see some parallels in our wonderfull thread here.