How would you

General Forums Off-topic Chat
#1

At the moment Im building a machine that has bigger output then input. Now some of you might laugh at this but I honestly dont see anything wrong with it and why it wouldnt work. I have seen many videos on youtube, checked out many different websites and havent found anything like it. Most of those machines feature some kind of wheel that is always suppose to be heavier on one side and looking at those machines I can figure out why they dont work right away. I know this machine would violate either the first or the second law of thermodynamics, but I just dont see why it wouldnt work.
This machine is not done yet and I cant post any info about it because its very simple and anybody could take that idea from me.

Back to question, how would you go about getting this thing out there? I know the first step is to build it then get a patent.

Also, I read on many websites that a lot of inventors who came up with something like this mysteriously disappeared just because oil companies dont want anything like this around. Is this true?

#2

What does “bigger output than input” mean? Are you referring to energy, force, etc?

#3

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2006/aug/31/guardianweeklytechnologysection2

Also, I read on many websites that a lot of inventors who came up with something like this mysteriously disappeared just because oil companies dont want anything like this around. Is this true?
At least paranoia and delusional thoughts that will at least give you a couple of the requirements for ‘mad scientist’ status

#4

Yes

@Richard Marklew

Thanks. Ill have to see if this is that case with US patent office too. It probably is.

#5

Yes what? … what I was trying to get at is that I presume you mean energy, in which case there’s the Conservation of Energy… you simply don’t get something for nothing & that ties directly with what Richard posted. In the case that you meant force, that’s pretty much any and every machine but it also requires energy to produce the additional force.

#6

if you mean electricity you should check out mindfreers overunity system

#7

I understand that. Im not getting something out of nothing. My machine will produce energy and it will be powered by gravity. I know this is all funny to some of you but I will succeed.:eyebrowlift:

#8

Sure, but something still has to exert work to lift the weight to it’s starting point. I was tasked with a very similar task in 2008, no matter how many times you run the numbers using pulleys, magnets, current or anything else, work in still equals work out.

Also don’t take it personal, you very well could have something radically innovative. I’m just saying at the end of the day, it still has to obey physics. Whether you’re aware of where the work is being exerted or not, it’s still there somewhere in some form (friction, heat, chemical reaction, induction, etc).

#9

I took physics not too long ago. Conservation of Energy is your biggest issue, and Earth’s gravity does not create any energy…all objects have a set potential energy (defined by the equation E = mgh, m = mass, g = acceleration due to gravity, 9.810 m/s^2 on Earth’s surface, and h is altitude). You can put energy into an object and make it move up, and if you drop it you can get that energy back out, but you cannot create energy. Don’t waste your time…

#10

So, you’re thinking that you would have a little electricity as input and then using gravity as a second input you would get the required system to create a generator that will perpetually pump out more electricity than it takes in?

These things have pretty much never succeeded, in part because even if you accumulated the extra particles needed for the increased output from the air or somewhere else, you would somehow have to override friction and air resistance to the point where it doesn’t work against the output, and also somehow ensure that gravity will also not stop or decrease the output of your machine to a level below the input in the areas that are going against it.

EDIT: noticed the two people who posted above me who explained a number of the same things, oh well.

#11

I think that the key here is gravity, which could be harnessed as energy. The issue with this is that if you use up the gravity, then earth’s content will sooner or later start floating.
So as a consideration for others, you may decide to investigate some other way.
There are some stars in the sky with a mass of gas only, that someone probably used up all the gravity, and then disappeared because of the patent office. You don’t want earth to end up like that.

#12

“I think that the key here is gravity, which could be harnessed as energy. The issue with this is that if you use up the gravity, then earth’s content will sooner or later start floating.”

first, gravity is a FORCE. not ENERGY. Energy is measured in Joules, and force is measured in Newtons. in units, J = N * m[eters].

second, you cannot use up gravity…its always present. as long as there are two masses in space, there is a force between them. gravity is omnipresent, you cannot create it or get rid of it. You are going against every theory of gravity that ever worked, from Universal Gravitation to General Relativity to String theory…

#13

Why are you replying to Kbot exactly? In most threads he posts a somewhat random message that happens to fit with the thread title, in other threads he makes posts saying that he agrees even if it means agreeing to points that are in complete contradiction to each other.

I personally find this an unfortunate thing because it means, that in many cases, he’s letting everyone else on this forum think for him and determine what he will believe for that thread.

#14

Well I was aguing that since gravity is a force, you can use up the force and then there will be no force left. An example is a wave in the sea, if you use up all the force, then there is no force left.

Edit - just realised that that you are correct in your physics, and I am wrong. Ignore my counter-argument.

At AD - appears you are quite correct in your assumption. I really never considered my posts like that, and strangely enough, will have to agree with your point.

Now, if there was some way of harnessing energy from website, wouldn’t that be wonderful.

#15

Gravity powers rivers down the stream and we use those streams to turn turbines. IMO people are allready converting gravity into energy and there is unlimited amount of it. I have been thinking about this for few years now and for example to drive a car forward I cant use gravity because machine would have to be very heavy. What I can use is force stored in springs or anything else that creates pressure (pressurized air?).

#16

@Ace Dragon im replying to him because im new to this forum and dont know that

@zanos humans are NOT converting gravity into energy. we are converting the potential energy in the water upstream to electrical energy.

suppose i said i can create a machine that can synthesize matter from nothing, would you believe me? Yes or no, i have a point to make with this…

#17

OK so what drives water downstream?

#18

its potential energy getting converted into kinetic energy. and please answer the question i posed =)

#19

I wouldnt believe you because I know that is not possible.

#20

Many people have clamied to build such machines, but it never works out, simply because the physics get in the way, ie you cant generate energy from nothing.
Unless this wheel is splitting apart the nuclear bonds of atoms, dont expect much…

Also watching youtube videos and reading stuff on the internet doesn’t count as scientific research or anything really, especially on all these ‘the petroleum industry is out to get us’ wacko sites… Just sayin.