Dual energy generation with magnetic seesaw system and gravity

[vikram_gupta11]

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)?

These flashlights are mounted permanently ,horizontally on the both Arms of a seesaw(making+ symbol and view my sketches) and this seesaw will move side to side just 2 to 4 centimeter only.remember we will only shake the only one arm of this seesaw with corner and flashlights will not slide as these are mounted permanently on the arm of this seesaw.

suppose if a flashlight require 10 watt power to glow up then we will have to apply 20 watt so that so that this 20 watt input could also counter some mechanical loss also.but this 20 watt input will be sufficient to glow up these 10 flashlights as all flashlight are permanently attached on this seesaw so each will shake with equal force or applying force will be equally distributed in these flashlights..in other words we are giving 20 watt input and out put is 150 watt with these 10 no. flashlight.we can do it with our hand power to test it to shaking the seesaw..

 

[vikram_gupta11]

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.

take a scale and move it side to side ,horizontally just 2 to 4 centimeter .you will get your answer what I want to say.

 

[vikram_gupta11]

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.

if these flashlights are mounted permanently on the seesaw then now these are part of this seesaw saw or these have become a Arm now.

 

[Ultrafault]

take a scale and move it side to side ,horizontally just 2 to 4 centimeter .you will get your answer what I want to say.

Ok, sure will do. How did i not see that? I will imedatly write hibbler and tell him his text book is wrong. Some guy on the internet found the ultimate experiment to disprove Newton.

 

[vikram_gupta11]

:angel:

Dear all respected moderators,
my earnest request to all of you that please continue this thread as it is very possible that if someone who has technical source could prove it.

 

[vikram_gupta11]

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.

Dear sir,
can you glow up 10 no. flashlight with the same force of glow up a single flash light ? but it is possible in this design .

 

[iwire]

Dear all respected moderators,
my earnest request to all of you that please continue this thread as it is very possible that if someone who has technical source could prove it.

No one is going to prove your idea for you

Get off the computer and build a prototype.

If you are able to do so your wealth will make Bill Gates look poor.

 

[Jraef]

Dear sir,
can you glow up 10 no. flashlight with the same force of glow up a single flash light ? but it is possible in this design .

Newton's Second Law of Motion:
Force = Mass x Acceleration.

So yes, it will take 10X the force to move 10 flashlights as it does to move 1 flashlight, because you have 10X the mass.

 

[vikram_gupta11]

Newton's Second Law of Motion:
Force = Mass x Acceleration.

So yes, it will take 10X the force to move 10 flashlights as it does to move 1 flashlight, because you have 10X the mass.

but mass is not an issue in this design we are just shaking only a balanced seesaw and again remember we are shaking the balanced seesaw and this seesaw will work to distribute equal force in each flashlight to glow up.. .please use only common sense.

please provide me only 10 flashlights I can build it only in 10 minutes and prove it and if you have 4 to 10 flashlights then attach them on a scale and make a middle hole in this scale .Now apply only as much force as to needed to glow up a single flashlight + some little force to counter negligible mechanical loss. you will get surprised that it will work.
you can do it if you have flashlights.

 

[mgookin]

but mass is not an issue in this design we are just shaking only a balanced seesaw .please use only common sense.

I'm not going to root through 150 posts to find your drawings.
What posts contain drawings showing the motion of this contraption?

 

[vikram_gupta11]

I'm not going to root through 150 posts to find your drawings.
What posts contain drawings showing the motion of this contraption?

post= 86

 

[mgookin]

so you have a 3V motor turning a crankshaft that moves a seesaw.
On each side of the seesaw you have "flashlights" that generate power.

I think someone already asked you this, but how much "power" does it take to generate "power" in each flashlight?
And don't try to sell us on the fact that it's balanced and that makes it "free power" because there is no such thing.

If we're not understanding your concept, the drawings you have provided are a significant part of the reason for that. Your drawings seem to conflict. I suggest you produce a set of drawings with top, front and side views and indicate motion. With that create a free body diagram and from that you can calculate forces. If the output is greater than the input, you win!

 

[vikram_gupta11]

so you have a 3V motor turning a crankshaft that moves a seesaw.
On each side of the seesaw you have "flashlights" that generate power.

I think someone already asked you this, but how much "power" does it take to generate "power" in each flashlight?
And don't try to sell us on the fact that it's balanced and that makes it "free power" because there is no such thing.

If we're not understanding your concept, the drawings you have provided are a significant part of the reason for that. Your drawings seem to conflict. I suggest you produce a set of drawings with top, front and side views and indicate motion. With that create a free body diagram and from that you can calculate forces. If the output is greater than the input, you win!

Dear Sir,
it is very simple to understand this design but i send you a next design to understand it completely.

 

[kwired]

so you have a 3V motor turning a crankshaft that moves a seesaw.
On each side of the seesaw you have "flashlights" that generate power.

I wasn't seeing that concept until now, but still has holes in the theory.

Even common rotary generators/alternators we use are balanced, they run much smoother and have less losses when balanced.

Even if you disregard friction in the bearings, or any mechanical coupling to other components, the remaining resistance to movement comes from counter forces because of the load placed on the output, no different with the load the sea saw system would be driving.

 

[Ultrafault]

Just buy a shake weight attach the flashlight onto it and power the shakeweight from the flashlight.

 

[ggunn]

Dear all respected moderators,
my earnest request to all of you that please continue this thread as it is very possible that if someone who has technical source could prove it.

I second that. This thread is an enjoyable adjunct to my breakfast break every morning. Silly as it is, it's the most entertaining thread I have seen in a while.

No matter how much of a Rube Goldberg (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg) machine you put together to obfuscate the flow of energy, the fact remains that if you draw a line encircling it, there is no way that more energy will sustainably cross that line coming out than going in. It makes no difference how elaborately you move small packets of energy around internally trying to take advantage of roundoff errors in calculation, nature does not round off; she carries an infinite number of decimal places.

 

[K8MHZ]

I wonder why the fact that shake lights have either small batteries or supercapacitors in them hasn't been brought up, and how they fit into the 'equation'.

If the lights had no way to store energy, they wouldn't work unless they were being shaken, which would render them almost useless.

 

[ggunn]

I wonder why the fact that shake lights have either small batteries or supercapacitors in them hasn't been brought up, and how they fit into the 'equation'.

If the lights had no way to store energy, they wouldn't work unless they were being shaken, which would render them almost useless.

Whatever it is, it's the first thing to fail. I have three of them that now only work when they are being shaken. If I were trying to signal for help I guess they might help, but otherwise... yes, useless.

 

[Jraef]

I wonder why the fact that shake lights have either small batteries or supercapacitors in them hasn't been brought up, and how they fit into the 'equation'.

If the lights had no way to store energy, they wouldn't work unless they were being shaken, which would render them almost useless.

They aren't even "super" capacitors, they are just capacitors. They fail easily because the connections break from the shock of shaking them. people think if they shake HARDER, it makes more energy, when in fact all it does is damage them. It's simply a magnet moving through a coil, any energy put in that is more than what it takes to move that magnet is wasted anyway. But even then, not ENOUGH energy and the magnet fails to move at all, so zero output. The capacitors just allow for the temporary storage of the repeated peaks, just like on an SMPS really. So instead of a diode bridge rectifier converting at the peaks of each sine wave, YOUR ARM is the sine wave generator in a way.

By the way, you HAVE TO know this was invented by a guy...

 

[junkhound]

......think if they shake HARDER, ... YOUR ARM ...in a way.

By the way, you HAVE TO know this was invented by a guy...

Hmm, tape a flashlight to the arm of a teenage boy, 'free' energy.......

nah, even though this is an entertainment thread ..... wont go there, may be some minors reading ?