Dual energy generation with magnetic seesaw system and gravity

[vikram_gupta11]

Well, tell me from where the force is coming from? What is the source of the force for shaking the flash light?

Dear sir,
At first view my sketchs and then read carefully what I have post .
I explain it in a simple way.
we will attach 10 no .shaking flashlights with a seesaw system or each arm of seesaw will have 5 no. flashlights .Now this seesaw is in balanced position.now we will have to shake the corner of any one arm of this seesaw with as much force as to light up or glow up a single flashlight..suppose if a single flashlight requires 50 watt energy to glow up then we can use 70 watt input but this 70 watt input will be sufficient to glow up all these total 10 no. flashlights after all mechanical loss. .That's all .
This is very simple to understand this design and a little common sense is sufficient to understand it.

More over if you have four flashlights then attach these flashlights on a seesaw and turn this seesaw in left and right with the help of your hand direction YOU WILL SEE THE MAGIC .
THIS IS COMPLETELY FLAWLESS DESIGN AND WILL WORK .

 

[jumper]

Dear sir,
At first view my sketchs and then read carefully what I have post .
I explain it in a simple way.
we will attach 10 no .shaking flashlights with a seesaw system or each arm of seesaw will have 5 no. flashlights .Now this seesaw is in balanced position.now we will have to shake the corner of any one arm of this seesaw with as much force as to light up or glow up a single flashlight..suppose if a single flashlight requires 50 watt energy to glow up then we can use 70 watt input but this 70 watt input will be sufficient to glow up all these total 10 no. flashlights after all mechanical loss. .That's all .
This is very simple to understand this design and a little common sense is sufficient to understand it.

More over if you have four flashlights then attach these flashlights on a seesaw and turn this seesaw in left and right with the help of your hand direction YOU WILL SEE THE MAGIC .
THIS IS COMPLETELY FLAWLESS DESIGN AND WILL WORK .

Post a video when you actually do the work and show your results. A written analysis would be nice also.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

Dear sir,
At first view my sketchs and then read carefully what I have post .
I explain it in a simple way.
we will attach 10 no .shaking flashlights with a seesaw system or each arm of seesaw will have 5 no. flashlights .Now this seesaw is in balanced position.now we will have to shake the corner of any one arm of this seesaw with as much force as to light up or glow up a single flashlight..suppose if a single flashlight requires 50 watt energy to glow up then we can use 70 watt input but this 70 watt input will be sufficient to glow up all these total 10 no. flashlights after all mechanical loss. .That's all .
This is very simple to understand this design and a little common sense is sufficient to understand it.

More over if you have four flashlights then attach these flashlights on a seesaw and turn this seesaw in left and right with the help of your hand direction YOU WILL SEE THE MAGIC .
THIS IS COMPLETELY FLAWLESS DESIGN AND WILL WORK .

Patent it, build it and show us!

 

[dkidd]

Patent it, build it and show us!

I wonder if he could get a patent? Surely they have some sense.

 

[don_resqcapt19]

I wonder if he could get a patent? Surely they have some sense.

I don't think that you have to have an idea that will actually work to get a patent.

 

[Jraef]

...
we will attach 10 no .shaking flashlights with a seesaw system or each arm of seesaw will have 5 no. flashlights .Now this seesaw is in balanced position.now we will have to shake the corner of any one arm of this seesaw with as much force as to light up or glow up a single flashlight..suppose if a single flashlight requires 50 watt energy to glow up then we can use 70 watt input but this 70 watt input will be sufficient to glow up all these total 10 no. flashlights after all mechanical loss. .That's all .
This is very simple to understand this design and a little common sense is sufficient to understand it.

More over if you have four flashlights then attach these flashlights on a seesaw and turn this seesaw in left and right with the help of your hand direction YOU WILL SEE THE MAGIC .
THIS IS COMPLETELY FLAWLESS DESIGN AND WILL WORK .

Again, the bold area is highlighting your flaw. You have zero concept of the energy input (or output) of a "shaking flashlight". When you shake it by hand, YOU are the source of the kinetic energy input to that device, in the form of calories burned, but you have not effectively estimated what your energy input is.

But I assure you, that is NOT a 50 watt output! Did it occur to you that we didn't see the proliferation of "shaker flashlights" until the widespread use of LEDs? The reason is, before LEDs, a flashlight bulb of sufficient lumen intensity to be useful required more energy than you could get from shaking a magnet through a coil. Now I can get a 15 lumen LED on a shaker flashlight that requires only 0.5W at 3VDC, about 100X lower than what you were thinking of at 50W!

Mechanically, you are probably putting in more that that amount of energy in calories compared to what you get out of it, but again that's difficult to ascertain. But do your own experiment with one of those flashlights: hold it in your hand vertically and move your hand up and down slowly, about once per minute. See any light? No, because the mass of the magnet is not moving through the coil, it has more inertia than you are supplying. Now go to once per 2 seconds. Anything yet? Probably no. Once per second? Maybe now. Twice per second? NOW you are getting energy from it because you are rapidly changing direction with force, and that force is overcoming the inertia of that magnet so it moves through the coil. Do that for 60 seconds, you will feel the burn in your muscles. THAT is your energy input, and it's likely a lot more than you think. So to duplicate that mechanically, you will find that the total energy you have to expend to move 10 of them at a time fast enough to overcome the inertia of the magnets and travel through the coils will FAR outstrip the energy you harvest in the process.

 

[jaggedben]

Jraef, you're a San Francisco guy, have you checked out the Exploratorium exhibit where you power a couple different types of lightbulbs and/or a small fan and/or a radio with a generator hooked to some bicycle pedals? Vikram just needs to try that thing out. Unless he's just messing with us, of course.

 

[iwire]

Jraef, you're a San Francisco guy, have you checked out the Exploratorium exhibit where you power a couple different types of lightbulbs and/or a small fan and/or a radio with a generator hooked to some bicycle pedals? Vikram just needs to try that thing out. Unless he's just messing with us, of course.

Exactly, our museum of science here in Boston had a similar display and it was an eye opener trying to power even a small lamp.

 

[rbalex]

I don't think that you have to have an idea that will actually work to get a patent.

UNLESS - it's an attempt to patent a perpetual motion system. The US patent office and the international patent office (I believe it's in The Hague) won't even consider anything that purports to be a perpetual motion system. If it works maybe they will reconsider.

 

[GoldDigger]

Glad you have me covered on that!! **Physicist There are grammar police on every forum :slaphead:

I prefer the spelling used by one of my fellow physics students:

"I am a fizzycist of unbeerable thirst."

 

[GoldDigger]

Dear sir,
At first view my sketchs and then read carefully what I have post .
I explain it in a simple way.
we will attach 10 no .shaking flashlights with a seesaw system or each arm of seesaw will have 5 no. flashlights .Now this seesaw is in balanced position.now we will have to shake the corner of any one arm of this seesaw with as much force as to light up or glow up a single flashlight..suppose if a single flashlight requires 50 watt energy to glow up then we can use 70 watt input but this 70 watt input will be sufficient to glow up all these total 10 no. flashlights after all mechanical loss. .That's all .
This is very simple to understand this design and a little common sense is sufficient to understand it.

More over if you have four flashlights then attach these flashlights on a seesaw and turn this seesaw in left and right with the help of your hand direction YOU WILL SEE THE MAGIC .
THIS IS COMPLETELY FLAWLESS DESIGN AND WILL WORK .

Are these flashlights mounted horizontally or vertically on the arm?
That is does the weight move directly up and down or does it move from side to side?
Are you shaking the arm fast enough to lift the weights (first case above) or are the weights sliding from side to side as the arm is tipped (second case above)?

 

[junkhound]

Dear Vikram:

Since I have been the only person here to actually give a way that your device will produce power (post #112), and seeing that you are a businessman and innovator, am assuming you need funding to continue your research that Will be promising in the (far) future.

Thus, for the mere consideration of one Krugerrand sent to the headquarters of Habitat for Humanity (receipt required) I will write a 2 page letter to the bank of your choice describing how your device has a high probability to function in the future.

I anxiously await receipt of the receipt from HFH and the name of your bank and account number.



Mods: I assume this thread is continuing for 'entertainment' value? Or for education?

 

[Jraef]

Are these flashlights mounted horizontally or vertically on the arm?
That is does the weight move directly up and down or does it move from side to side?
Are you shaking the arm fast enough to lift the weights (first case above) or are the weights sliding from side to side as the arm is tipped (second case above)?

See his post #86. Vertical.

I doubt it would make much difference though, if horizontal you add a lot of friction whereas with vertical there is going to be very little, only incidental.

 

[Ultrafault]

The principle you are missing is called the monent of interta. A balanced system will have a moment of interta. The greater the moment in a system the more force is required to accelerate the system. You are proposing providing this system with a centripetal acceleration and then reversing that acelleration. Energy is a force applied over time. You seem as if you would be better served by learning these principles by yourself. The discipline is called dynamics.
As a test take your see saw and attach a weight to the end. Measure the time it takes to fall 1 meter.Then load the seesaw with weights and attach the same weight to it. Make the same measurements. You will see it takes more time. You applied the same force. So it mist require more energy to displace the seesaw.

 

[junkhound]

And as Month Python used to say:
And now for something totally different:

How come when Capt Rich of the Enterprise in 1780s said to 'warp out', he meant get in the rowboats, row the anchor out a few hundred yards, drop it, then and pull the ship with the capstan out of the becalmed harbor; but when Capt Kirk of the Enterprise in the future says to 'warp out', they somehow go to translight speed ?

Maybe that is what the communication difficulty is here ?

 

[Fulthrotl]

Mods: I assume this thread is continuing for 'entertainment' value? Or for education?

oh, i'm convinced there is definitely a lesson in all of this.
and fun is where you find it.

as to physical laws.....

when i was a young sprat, in my apprenticeship, and regularly went everywhere
on a motorcycle, there was another young sprat, in my apprenticeship class, who went on to
explain to me that his staid BMW 650 boxer had larger displacement, and was
the result of teutonic engineering, and could therefore easily surpass my lowly
honda 350 twin on curves. (the 350 twin had a cylinder head, cams, pistons, and carbs
by a fellow by the name of Hideo, who had a shop in Chino.)

but who can argue with the physics?

after class that night, there was a nice sweeper transitioning from one freeway
to another, and he dove into it at a staid 63 mph, executing perfect form, and
panache.

i timed it so that at the apex of the turn, my gear was three, my rpm was about
13,000, and my ground speed was about 115, at the time i was abreast of him.

and the laws of physics had a new paragraph, or at least a footnote.

now, this fellow is convinced that there is a free lunch, and has the math to prove it.
who am i to judge?

i'm just waiting at the apex of the turn, to see how he pulls this one off.

 

[iwire]

Mods: I assume this thread is continuing for 'entertainment' value?

:angel:

 

[peter d]

Why is this foolishness allowed to continue? :?

 

[Ultrafault]

:angel:

This thread is full of gold nuggets of information. I have learned alot from seeing how some of the members respond. People skills will carry you further than knoledge and this thread is full of it.

 

[ptonsparky]

Why is this foolishness allowed to continue? :?

Well, it does not appear to be a DIY project.