Physics Help Forum Why this seesaw is working against physics laws
 User Name Remember Me? Password

 Physics Physics Forum - General Physics Discussion and Physics News

 Oct 1st 2017, 06:29 AM #11 Senior Member   Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 282 "I wonder you keep talking. No one marks you". (Shakespeare, Much Ado About Nothing)
 Oct 1st 2017, 07:13 AM #12 Member   Join Date: May 2017 Posts: 30 As overunity is being proven in this mechanism so every on e is confused and silent and above all physics laws are standing in support of in this mechanism. It is human nature.at first deny and after accept it. If there would be any flaw in this design then I got several comments with full description but if there is no flaw ,being proven ,not getting any response. I myself is wonder. Last edited by vkrmvkrm11; Oct 1st 2017 at 07:32 AM.
 Oct 1st 2017, 07:14 AM #13 Member   Join Date: May 2017 Posts: 30 No one marks but everyone is reading this thread.
Oct 1st 2017, 08:14 AM   #14
Physics Team

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,333
 Originally Posted by vkrmvkrm11 Dear Sir, Now as per video i' m lifting up green color ball and after getting a certain height the box with green ball is getting initial position.
Hint: I'm not blind. I saw the video and the image. From those I know its not a perpetual motion machine. I then explained that its easy to show that any such system cannot put out more energy then put in. Since you're ignoring that I see nor reason to respond to you in this thread again.

 Originally Posted by vkrmvkrm11 Now suppose box length is 1 meter and ball mass is 10 kg.so as per mgh formula to lift up the ball up to 80 cm height required energy is Mgh=10*10*.80=80joule But in this mechanism input energy will be only maximum 3 joule but ball will generate 80 joule energy as a output.there will be no need of extra energy to get initial position back as this system will work as per video.
\Wrong. The input energy is not 3 j. Also I explained only what kinetic energy the ball has when accelerated through a height of h when released from rest. In your video there is a lot more going on than that. Also its you who is doing work on the system which you're ignoring. Clearly when you don't touch it the system will do nothing.

If you really think that anyone will take this seriously then you have another thing coming. The science community ignores these things since they know it can't work. You can't really think that your miscalculations and poor understanding of this device will change anybody's mind, do you. Especially when you're ignoring what we're saying. We have much better things to do than explain mistakes to someone whose not listening.

You don't need anybody here since you reject everything you're told. So why bother us with pseudoscience like this? This forum is to help people understand physics. Not to peddle pseudoscience like this.

 Oct 1st 2017, 09:55 AM #15 Member   Join Date: May 2017 Posts: 30 Dear Sir, It clearly seems that you have not understood it. Have you seen another video. You say that you only see kinetic energy only in it .so tell me one thing if kinetic energy is more than the input energy then what it will called. As per your comment I think all Hydropower plant s should be shut down immediately as the kinetic energy will not work to turn the turbine as this kinetic energy will not work to generate energy. This mechanism will work on the same principle as hydropower plant work but the main difference is that potential energy is being increased in this mechanism after using very minimal energy or input. You say input will be not 3 joule so how much will be input energy to lift up the green color ball arm to lift up in this mechanism if ball mass is 10 kg and counterweight mass is 10.200 kg. You say my handpower is involved in this mechanism .yes,you are correct but hand power is nothing in this mechanism. You just tell me only answer of these two points. (1) how much energy will be required in this mechanism at 90 degree angle? (2) how much kinetic energy will be generated after ball release from 80 cm.height? Last edited by vkrmvkrm11; Oct 1st 2017 at 09:58 AM.
Oct 1st 2017, 10:06 AM   #16
Physics Team

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boston's North Shore
Posts: 1,333
 Originally Posted by vkrmvkrm11 Dear Sir, It clearly seems that you have not understood it.
And its clear that you don't know what it means when someone tells you that since you're ignoring what they're telling you that they won't respond to your comments again. That means I won't respond. So don't waste your time trying to prod me into it.

You really must take me and others here as idiots if you really think I/we don't understand it. What's 100% clear is that its you who doesn't understand it.
Some of us, such as myself, have degrees in physics including graduate work in physics as well as several decades of studying physics. That contraption in the video is of that kind that offers no surprises to any of us. I've already told you twice now that i can be proved, quite easily in fact, that the total energy of any closed mechanical system is constant. The proof can be found in any text on classical mechanics.

Since you've demonstrated twice now that you're ignoring this then I won't be correcting you again. Since you're babbling on about pseudoscience then I leave you to your nonsense. Good luck with it. I promise you that you'll get nowhere with it. That means that if the laws of physics, in this case Newton's laws, are right, which clearly they are, then that's a fact and not speculation.

Please don't waste our time with such nonsense. Others here need our help and its disrespectful to them to waste our time with nonsense pseudoscience than helping them instead.

Go away boy. Ya bother me - Foghorn Leghorn

 Oct 1st 2017, 10:24 AM #17 Member   Join Date: May 2017 Posts: 30 Dear Sir, If you can proved easily then why are you not telling that how much energy is required as a input to turn the seesaw at 90 degree angle when ball is 10 kg and counterweight mass is 10.2 kg.but remember the ball of 10 kg Mass will be not rolled down with the lifting arm the ball will be released only after the arm reach at 90 degree angle. Just tell me .I will giveup
 Oct 1st 2017, 10:42 AM #18 Physics Team   Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boston's North Shore Posts: 1,333 I forgot to mention that you're ignoring the conversion of the kinetic energy of the ball to the thermal energy that the system gets when that energy is dissipated upon impact with the wall that it hits. Its surprising how many amateurs actually think that they can create a free-energy device when its a fact that they don't work. I hear of people claiming to have done it almost every month during the last 30 years. Notice how nobody has ever built one which is powering a city? I recall a friend of the family who was working on an invention which he'd never tell anybody about. He worked on it most of his life and he never was able to create one. My mom finally found out what his invention was late in his life. Had she told me I could have explained the problem to him. A waste of a wonderful mans life. One of the most famous examples of this fairy tale invention uses a homopolar generator. The device is called an N-Machine. Someone named Bruce DePalma make this claim a long time ago. An old colleague of mine said he saw one someplace (a convention?) and asked the "inventor"to open the box so he could see how it works. He was denied with the claim that it was a secret. Duh! of course that's what a charlatan would say. I keep an open mind about these things. That's the only reason that I even bothered to look at the video. In the case of DePalma he was on a radio show called "For the People" in which he offered to send a caller a pamphlet/book about the science. So I spent the \$10 to find out what it was about. It contained major flaws which showed a terrible understanding of the physics involved. The reason I even bother with this stuff is due to what I read in a text I had in college when I took a course on the philosophy of science - It basically said that nonsense can have some surprising things when you look at it. In that case I studied the physics of rotating magnets and learned that while they physics is well-established its not something which is well known. Even the best of scientists make mistakes about it. To properly understand the physics one needs to understand relativistic electrodynamics. That's not something most amateurs like DePalma know. By the way. His claim to have gone to MIT is BS. Last edited by Pmb; Oct 1st 2017 at 10:54 AM.
 Oct 1st 2017, 11:02 AM #19 Member   Join Date: May 2017 Posts: 30 Dear Sir, No need to mention about conversion of kinetic energy into thermal energy .I know about it but I have asked you several times about input then why are you not telling me. You are just giving example of that link,that person but not telling me only a one word answer.
 Oct 1st 2017, 11:17 AM #20 Physics Team   Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Boston's North Shore Posts: 1,333 vkrmvkrm11 - Wow. I see that you keep posting in response to mine when I told you that you won't be read. That's a clear trademark of a crackpot - someone who won't shut up because their pride has been hurt. Let me fill you in on a fact of this forums personal control panel. There is function in that panel this forum has called an ignore list. That means that all posts by whosever name is in that list can never be seen again. You are in my ignore list. What's another fact is that all forums have people like you who post even when they know that the person they are talking to will never read it. They do it to make a noise "NO! I'm know I'm right. I just know it! I prove it and you're too dumb to understand. I know you're reading this and if not then others will see me correct you " Fact of life - EVERYBODY ignores that kind of nonsense so knock it off!! Now. That said - please feel free to yell at the wind.

 Tags laws, physics, seesaw, working

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 Similar Physics Forum Discussions Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post studiot LateX Help 4 Jul 10th 2017 08:41 PM RRitesh Electricity and Magnetism 0 Jul 8th 2016 06:43 AM ChipB LateX Help 3 Jul 8th 2014 12:39 PM bradycat Kinematics and Dynamics 1 Sep 28th 2010 01:04 AM TahirMushtaq Kinematics and Dynamics 0 Aug 31st 2009 04:27 AM