over unity by 'Reaction helping action'

[vineet_kiran]

As per Newton's third law every action has equal and opposite reaction which conserves energy.   Over unity cannot be achieved unless reaction is made to help the action.  Go through the attachment to know how reaction can be made to help the action.  Reply me at
vineetkiran@yahoo.in

[Airstriker]

First of all, welcome to our community !
I don't really get the electrical concept of yours (you didn't provide any theory behind it). Just changing the gap shouldn't make any difference. Need more info.

However, your "Mechanical analogy" looks very interesting. Indeed, by using the ropes the reactive force will exert on the outer edge of the smaller wheel, thus the reactive arm will become smaller and in this way the whole reactive moment of force (torque) also. Looks ingenious. Have you tried it in real life ?

As for the "Lever Analogy" - OH MY GOD!

Are you so smart or is it invented by somebody else ?

Can somebody else confirm what I see in it ?!

[vineet_kiran]

Mr.Airstriker!

Thanks for your comments. 

Regarding electrical concept of my first experiment, it is simply based on the attraction and repulsion properties of a magnet.  You may be well aware that any magnetic material retains magnetism even after removing the magnet used to magnetize it. This is known as residual magnetism which depends on hysteresis of particular material.   By reducing the gap and raising the speed of rotating magnet,  it can be made enter and pass the repulsive (residual) zone of the successive core. Please note that successive cores will have opposite magnetic fields.

Regarding "lever analogy",  instead of placing the weight W3 on an external support,  it can be simply lifted by using one more lever mechanism perpendicular to the plane.  By applying lever rules it can be mathematically (theoretically) proved that work done by oscillating plane is more than the energy input to the secondary lever.  No special experiment is required to prove this.

Thanks

Vineet.K.

[Airstriker]

No Mr. please

I've analyzed the "lever analogy" again and I found one problem. When you apply a force to W3 (or use the support), W2 will start to fall - that's a fact. But...

1) If you use the support...because of the fact, that W2 and W3 are connected by the string, as W2 will fall, W3 will raise. When W3 raises, it will no longer stay on the support. Thus everything is gone.
2) If you apply external force (F) to W3... W2 will go down. But because W2 and W3 are connected, W3 will go up. Thus you end up with W3 movement. If W3 moves you have work (F*S). Again everything is gone.

If I got something wrong please correct me. Thanks in advance.

Julian

[Mr. M]

1) If you use the support...because of the fact, that W2 and W3 are connected by the string, as W2 will fall, W3 will raise. When W3 raises, it will no longer stay on the support. Thus everything is gone.

(...)

If I got something wrong please correct me. Thanks in advance.

Technically, that's incorrect...

If W3 is sitting on the external support and the string connecting W2 to W3 is not taut then W2 will fall without W3 raising.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I do think that they'll reach the point of equilibrium... I'm just saying that stating "as W2 will fall, W3 will raise" is inaccurate depending on the length of the string connecting W2 to W3.