Roll on the 20th June

[therealrasta]

In the pulley example, we bank energy with its construction. However, the addition of the pulley also introduced friction, making the job harder. Now, if machines bank energy to facillitate the user, how can this be? By your thesis, the use of a machine must always make the job easier.

-PurePower

It still does, even with the added friction the job is still easier than it was without the pulley..

[exxcomm0n]

Okay.  Last try.

What I have tried to point your attention to is a device that utilized gravity to make rotational torque.  I came up with the concept on July 2.  I worked on it over the holiday weekend.  I was at the point of exhaustion on Monday morning due to lack of sleep.  This was not a vision.  This was not something that I was working on.  This was an idea that popped into the head of a 41 year old engineer who has worked with high technology for 20 years.  I was completely stunned with the realization that I may have just discovered a way to harness the weakest force known in the universe (gravity) to do work (rotational torque).  The implications have astounded me.  I have also disclosed this to many co-workers in the past few days since my provisional patent was already in revisions and close to being filed.  These other engineers and technicians have not been able to find flaw with the concept.  The patent was files last evening. 

I work for a wold leading technoligy compay.  I have for 15+ years.

Sir, if you have, even if english is not your native language (which it seems it's not) I would at least expect you to know the word technology, especially after 15 years.

Last Monday I tried to speak with patent attorneys about what I had discovered.  They blew me off, similar to the response of these forums.  I was very frustrated.  But I thought that maybe if I asked one of the officers of my company who delt with our patent attorneys to back me up I would have a better chance. 

I went to my CFO who I had delt with on several earlyier occasions and asked for help.  He listend and decided to make a personal call to our head legal council on my behalf.  About twenty minutes later I recieved a call back from the Director of the Intelectual Property group for our law firm.  I met with them in Cincinnati about 4 PM on Monday, July 7. 

Four days and 3 revisions later I am trying to tell the world about this amazing discovery.

Please understand, my parent company is already evaluating this private patent.  All my engineer work friends are blown away and several are helping to distribute this newly patent pending invention to the proper industry contacts.

I just thought the members of these forums would like to see what is about to change our concept of the world.

Read the patent app.  If you don't understand it, fine.  If you do or think you do, please forward to any institution that can begin to optimize the designs so that we all minimize the delays in getting this technology into our lives.

Thanks,

M.

I did.

It reminded me vaguely of this:

http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,4540.msg93130.html#msg93130

Not exact, and your conception of the flipper switch is a great addition, but it's been bandied about once or twice.

There is a concept we've been talking about since pretty much that same point called the wall which can happen when one magnetic field impacts another.

Quite literally like running into a wall.

I think your design is not allowing for that.

Best of luck with your patent though! I really like the flipper switch!

[purepower]

It still does, even with the added friction the job is still easier than it was without the pulley..

I'm sorry, bit this statement is not true. Ignore for a second a human is doing the work, as we have different muscle groups that are stronger than others. Instead, imagine its an electric wench doing the work.

Okay, here is the set up. We have a simple 25 foot tall rig, a beam with supports on both sides. Our goal is to lift a 10 lb block up 20 feet.

Now, we can mount the wench directly to the top of the rig to lift block. As there is nothing between them, the force needed is only 10 lbs. We lift 20 feet.

Or we can take the time (and energy) to make a pulley (assume, for ease of discussion, of equal weight to the wench), mount it at the top, then mount the wench at the bottom. Now, since there is friction in the pulley (f), the wench must pull with 20+f lbs a distance of 20 feet, clearly a more difficult task for any real friction value.

The two systems require the same energy to build the rig, the same energy to mount the wench, and the same energy to lift either the wench or pulley to the top.

The only difference in construction energy is the additional input to make and mount the pulley (and loop the cord through the pulley if you really want the whole picture).

Clearly, the second scenario requires more energy to construct AND operate. This is in direct violation of the "banked machine energy" theory.

Exx or shake, either care to explain?

-PurePower

[purepower]

@Exx

I would really like to know the official explanation on the above situation.

I think you owe it to me and everyone else to defend your theory, especially since this is the topic that turned things sour between us.

This is the scientific process everyone is always talking about.  A new idea is presented and peer evaluated.

Now is your chance to prove that additional construction energy in is banked by the machine and is payed off the more times it is used.

So we bank additional energy, but continue to use additional energy every time we use the pulley. So when is the payoff? Where is our banked energy now?

-PurePower

[exxcomm0n]

I'm sorry, bit this statement is not true. Ignore for a second a human is doing the work, as we have different muscle groups that are stronger than others. Instead, imagine its an electric wench doing the work.

Okay, here is the set up. We have a simple 25 foot tall rig, a beam with supports on both sides. Our goal is to lift a 10 lb block up 20 feet.

Now, we can mount the wench directly to the top of the rig to lift block. As there is nothing between them, the force needed is only 10 lbs. We lift 20 feet.

Or we can take the time (and energy) to make a pulley (assume, for ease of discussion, of equal weight to the wench), mount it at the top, then mount the wench at the bottom. Now, since there is friction in the pulley (f), the wench must pull with 20+f lbs a distance of 20 feet, clearly a more difficult task for any real friction value.

The two systems require the same energy to build the rig, the same energy to mount the wench, and the same energy to lift either the wench or pulley to the top.

The only difference in construction energy is the additional input to make and mount the pulley (and loop the cord through the pulley if you really want the whole picture).

Clearly, the second scenario requires more energy to construct AND operate. This is in direct violation of the "banked machine energy" theory.

Exx or shake, either care to explain?

-PurePower

Ya, you're not taking the time and energy to construct the WINCH  and lift and mount it to the beam above.(strange misspelling for an engineering student).

If this is the most base of winches, essentially a ratcheted pully, still costs more energy to make than a standard one, and then there's another rope to actuate the ratchet catch so we CAN DO IT AGAIN.

Not the same energy, and in my understanding of winches they usually have a motor of some type associated with them, or a @ least a lever (handle).

I'm asking what happens without a tool.

Even the bones in your body act as levers.

Lift me something with your coccyx without your legs.

Simple and short cause he already gets it.

EDIT

Owe it to you? For handing you your ass in a box?

You are a sad little boy, and you're regressing all the way to the tit.

Pretty soon you'll make it all the way back to the spermatozoa that was a gleam in your daddy's eye.
Damn, if only it were possible.